Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project in Seattle, Washington; Correction, 24279-24294 [2018-11334]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 27.04 percent ad valorem, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.5 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). Dated: May 17, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2018–11302 Filed 5–24–18; 8:45 am] amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 5 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 73 FR 19814 (April 11, 2008). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XG219 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project in Seattle, Washington; Correction National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed incidental harassment authorization (IHA); request for comments; correction. AGENCY: NMFS published a document in the Federal Register on May 22, 2018, and the document contained outdated information and this document has been corrected and is republished in its entirety. NMFS has received a request from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle, Washington. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 25, 2018. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to ITP.guan@noaa.gov. Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/ 23111 without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24279 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic copies of the applications and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/ 23111. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction In the notice published on May 22, 2018 (83 FR 23643), FR Doc. 2018– 10871 contained outdated information and this document corrects the IHA. Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24280 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment). National Environmental Policy Act Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5)(D) authorization requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NMFS preliminary determined the issuance of the proposed IHA is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 (issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or mortality is anticipated) of NOAA’s Companion Manual for NAO 216–6A, and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216–6A that would preclude this categorical exclusion under NEPA. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to making a final decision as to whether application of this CE is appropriate in this circumstance. Summary of Request On November 21, 2017, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of marine mammal species incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle, Washington, from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019. After receiving the revised project description and the revised IHA application, NMFS determined that the IHA application is adequate and complete on April 4, 2018. NMFS is proposing to authorize the take by Level A and Level B harassments of the following marine mammal species: Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris); California sea lion (Zalophus californianus); Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); killer whale (Orcinus orca); long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); and Dall’s porpoise (P. dalli). Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. NMFS previously issued an IHA to WSDOT for the first year of this project (FR 21579; July 7, 2017). WSDOT complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Estimated Take section. Description of Proposed Activity Overview The purpose of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock is to preserve the transportation function of an aging, deteriorating and seismically deficient facility to continue providing safe and reliable service. The project will also address existing safety concerns related to conflicts between vehicles and pedestrian traffic and operational inefficiencies. Dates and Duration Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water work timing restrictions to protect ESAlisted salmonids, planned WSDOT inwater construction is limited each year to July 16 through February 15. Specified Geographic Region The Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock, serving State Route 519, is located on the downtown Seattle waterfront, in King County, Washington. The terminal services vessels from the Bainbridge Island and Bremerton routes, and is the most heavily used terminal in the Washington State Ferry system. The Seattle terminal is located in Section 6, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, and is adjacent to Elliott Bay, tributary to Puget Sound (Figure 1–2 of the IHA application). Land use in the area is highly urban, and includes business, industrial, the Port of Seattle container loading facility, residential, the Pioneer Square Historic District and local parks. Detailed Description of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock: Year 2 The project will reconfigure the Colman Dock while maintaining approximately the same vehicle holding capacity as current conditions. The construction began in August 2017. In the 2017–2018 season, the construction activities were focused on the South Trestle, Terminal Building Foundation, and the temporary and permanent Passenger Offloading Facility. In the 2018–2019 season, WSDOT plans to continue the project by constructing the North Trestle, and Slip 3 bridge seat, overhead loading, wingwall, and inner dolphin. Both impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile removal would be conducted. A total of 37 days are estimated for pile driving and 77 days for pile removal. In-water construction methods include: • Installing 119 36-inch (in) permanent steel piles with a vibratory hammer, and then proofed with an impact hammer for the last 5–10 feet; • Installing six 36-in and (8) 30-in steel piles with a vibratory hammer; • Installing one 108-in steel pile with a vibratory hammer; • Removing all existing 12-in steel, 14-in timber, 14-in H, 24-in steel and 30-in steel piles with a vibratory hammer; • Installing and then removing eight 24-in Slip 3 Overhead loading temporary piles with a vibratory hammer; and • Installing and then removing 147 24-in temporary template piles with a vibratory hammer. A list of pile driving and removal activities is provided in Table 1. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Method Pile size (inch) Pile type Pile number Piles/day Minutes/pile Duration (days) Vibratory drive ...................... Vibratory drive ...................... Vibratory drive ...................... Vibratory drive ...................... Vibratory drive * .................... Impact drive (proof) * ............ Vibratory drive ...................... Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel (temporary) ................. (Slip 3) ........................ ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... 24 24 30 36 36 36 108 147 8 8 6 119 119 1 8 8 8 6 8 8 1 20 ................ 20 ................ 20 ................ 20 ................ 20 ................ 300 strikes ... 120 .............. 18 1 1 1 15 15 1 Subtotal ......................... Vibratory remove .................. Vibratory remove .................. Vibratory remove .................. .............................................. Timber .................................. Steel ..................................... Steel H ................................. ........................ 14 12 14 ........................ 925 22 19 ........................ 20 11 10 ..................... 15 ................ 20 ................ 20 ................ 37 47 2 2 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24281 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES—Continued Method Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory remove remove remove remove .................. .................. .................. .................. Subtotal ......................... Pile size (inch) Pile type Steel Steel Steel Steel Pile number Piles/day Duration (days) Minutes/pile ..................................... (Slip 3) ........................ (temporary) ................. ..................................... 24 24 24 30 35 8 147 1 8 8 8 1 .............................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 20 20 20 20 ................ ................ ................ ................ 5 1 19 1 ..................... 77 * These two activities occur on the same day. Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed Monitoring and Reporting’’). Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS’s Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ species/mammals/). Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the lower Puget Sound area and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS’s SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats. Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS’s stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For harbor seal Washington northern inland waters stock, the abundance is based on radio-tagging studies conducted at three Washington inland waters with correcting factors described in the 2016 SARs (Jefferies et al., 2003; Carretta et al., 2017). For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS’s 2016 U.S. Pacific Draft Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta et al., 2017). All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 2017); and draft 2017 SARs (available online at: https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA Common name Scientific name Stock ESA/ MMPA status; strategic (Y/N) 1 Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2 PBR Annual M/SI 3 Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Eschrichtiidae: Gray whale ................................. Family Balaenopteridae: Humpback whale ........................ Minke whale ............................... Family Delphinidae: Killer whale ................................. Eschrichtius robustus ....................... Eastern North Pacific ....................... N 20,990 624 132 Megaptera novaneagliae .................. Balaenoptera acutorostrata .............. California/Oregon/Washington ......... California/Oregon/Washington ......... Y N 1,918 636 11.0 3.5 >6.5 >1.3 Orcinus orca ..................................... Eastern N. Pacific Southern resident West coast transient ......................... California .......................................... California/Oregon/Washington offshore. Y N N N 81 243 101,305 1,924 0.14 2.4 657 198 0 0 >35.4 >0.84 Washington inland waters ................ California/Oregon/ ............................ Washington ....................................... N N 11,233 25,750 66 172 7.2 0.3 Delphinus capensis .......................... Tursiops truncatus ............................ Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): Harbor porpoise .......................... Dall’s porpoise ............................ amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Long-beaked common dolphin ... Bottlenose dolphin ...................... Phocoena phocoena ........................ P. dali ............................................... Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): California sea lion ....................... Steller sea lion ............................ Family Phocidae (earless seals): Harbor seal ................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Zalophus californianus ..................... Eumetopias jubatus .......................... U.S. ................................................... Eastern U.S. ..................................... N N 296,750 71,562 9,200 2,498 389 108 Phoca vitulina ................................... Washington northern inland waters N 4 11,036 1,641 43 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24282 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA—Continued Common name Northern elephant seal ............... ESA/ MMPA status; strategic (Y/N) 1 Scientific name Stock Mirounga angustirostris .................... California breeding ........................... N Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2 179,000 PBR 4,882 Annual M/SI 3 8.8 1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; N min is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4 Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here (Jefferies et al., 2003; Carretta et al., 2017). amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 2. However, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of humpback whale and Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) and the implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures are such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. The occurrence of humpback whale in the WSDOT’s Seattle Multimodal Project area is considered extralimital, and WSDOT’s 2017 monitoring report showed no sighting of this species. Although the SRKW could occur in the vicinity of the project area, WSDOT proposes to implement strict monitoring and mitigation measures with assistance from local marine mammal researchers and observers. Thus, the take of this marine mammal stock can be avoided (see details in Proposed Mitigation section). In addition, the sea otter may be found in Puget Sound area However, this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document. Marine Mammal Hearing Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within that group): • Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 kilohertz (kHz); • Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; • High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. • Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz; • Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range ¨ (Hemila et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range ¨ (Hemila et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013). For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Eleven marine mammal species (7 cetacean and 4 pinniped (2 otariid and 2 phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species that may be present, one species is classified as lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., gray whale), two are classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Dall’s porpoise), and the rest of them mid-frequency cetaceans. Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment’’ section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination’’ section will consider the content of this section, the ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices Mitigation’’ section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks. Potential impacts to marine mammals from the proposed Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals dolphin relocation project are from noise generated during in-water pile driving and pile removal activities. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Acoustic Effects Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active acoustic sources on marine mammals. The WSDOT’s Seattle Multimodal Project using in-water pile driving and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area. Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift (TS)—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of TS just after exposure is the initial TS. If the TS eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is a temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Southall et al., 2007). Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)—When animals exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced TS. An animal can experience TTS or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal’s hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran, 2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b). Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing it to airgun noise with a received sound pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 dB (peakto-peak) re: 1 micropascal (mPa), which corresponds to a sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 1 mPa2 s after integrating exposure. Because the airgun noise is a broadband impulse, one cannot directly determine the equivalent of root mean square (rms) SPL from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys (McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peakto-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 mPa, and the received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher. Therefore, based on these studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically tested (Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and Jennings, 2012). Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24283 (Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost. In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009). Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). For WSDOT’s dolphin relocation project, noises from vibratory pile driving and pile removal contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels in the project area, thus increasing potential for or severity of masking. Baseline ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project area are high due to ongoing shipping, construction and other activities in the Puget Sound. Finally, marine mammals’ exposure to certain sounds could lead to behavioral E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24284 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), such as changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries). The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises (such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the WSDOT’s Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Ferry Terminal, both 120-dB and 160-dB levels are considered for effects analysis because WSDOT plans to use both impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile removal. The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, duration, and context of the effects. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible. With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the signal in relation to the natural background noise level. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish’s physiological condition (Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of sound (such as noise from impact pile driving) rather than continuous signals (such as noise from vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al., 1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the same level. During the coastal construction, only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on marine mammals’ prey availability in the area where construction work is planned. Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species. Estimated Take This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS’ consideration of whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ and the negligible impact determination. Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment). Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to noise generated from vibratory pile driving and removal. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown measures—discussed in detail below in PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Proposed Mitigation section), Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated. Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the take estimate. Acoustic Thresholds Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for continuous (e.g. vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Applicant’s proposed activity includes the generation of impulse (impact pile driving) and non-impulse (vibratory pile driving and removal) E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24285 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices sources; and, therefore, both 160- and 120-dB re 1 mPa (rms) are used. Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Applicant’s proposed activity would generate and nonimpulsive (vibratory pile driving and pile removal) noises. These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product and are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm. TABLE 3—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE SOUND UNDERWATER PTS onset thresholds Behavioral thresholds Hearing group Impulsive Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) .............. (Underwater) .............................. Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) .............. (Underwater) .............................. Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: dB. Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: dB. Lpk,flat: dB. Non-impulsive Impulsive 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 LE,LF,24h: 199 dB ........................ LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. Lrms,flat: 160 dB ... 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 Non-impulsive LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. Lrms,flat: 120 dB. * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. Ensonified Area Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds. Source Levels The source level for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24- and 30in steel pile is based on vibratory pile driving of the 30-in steel pile at Port Townsend (WSDOT, 2010). The unweighted SPLrms source level at 10 meters (m) from the pile is 174 dB re 1 re 1 mPa. The source level for vibratory pile driving of the 36-in steel piles is based on vibratory test pile driving of 36-in steel piles at Port Townsend in 2010 (Laughlin 2011). Recordings of vibratory pile driving were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile. The results show that the unweighted SPLrms for vibratory pile driving of 36-in steel pile was 177 dB re 1 mPa. The source level for vibratory pile driving of the 108-in steel pile is based on measurements of 72-in steel piles vibratory driving conducted by CALTRANS. The unweighted SPLrms source level ranged between 170 and 180 dB re 1 mPa at 10 m from the pile (CALTRANS 2015). The value of 180 dB is chosen to be more conservative. The source level for impact pile driving of the 36-in steel pile is based on impact test pile driving for the 36-in steel pile at Mukilteo in November 2006 (WSDOT 2007). Recordings of the impact pile driving that were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile were analyzed using Matlab. The results show that the unweighted source levels are 178 dB re 1 mPa2-s for SELss and 193 dB re 1 mPa for SPLrms. The peak source level for impact pile driving of the 36in steel pile is based on measurement conducted by CALTRANS for the same type and dimension of the pile, which is 210 dBpk re 1 mPa. The source level for vibratory pile removal of 14-in timber pile is based measurements conducted at the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal during vibratory removal of a 12-in timber pile by WSDOT (Laughlin 2011). The recorded source level is 152 dBrms re 1 mPa at 16 m from the pile, with an adjusted source level of 155 dBrms re 1 mPa at 10 m. The source levels for vibratory pile removal of 12-in steel and 14-in steel H piles are based on vibratory pile driving of 12-in steel pipe pile measured by CALTRANS. The unweighted source level is 155 dBrms re 1 mPa at 10 m. A summary of source levels is presented in Table 4. TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 [At 10 m from source] Method Vibratory driving/removal ................................ Vibratory driving/removal ................................ Vibratory driving .............................................. Impact pile driving (proof) ............................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 SEL, dB re 1 μPa2-s Pile type/size (inch) Jkt 241001 Steel, Steel, Steel, Steel, PO 00000 24-in 30-in 36-in 36-in ..................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 174 174 177 178 25MYN1 SPLrms, dB re 1 μPa 174 174 177 193 SPLpk, dB re 1 μPa ........................ ........................ ........................ 210 24286 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS—Continued [At 10 m from source] Method Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory SEL, dB re 1 μPa2-s Pile type/size (inch) driving .............................................. removal ............................................ removal ............................................ removal ............................................ These source levels are used to compute the Level A injury zones and to estimate the Level B harassment zones. For Level A harassment zones, since the peak source levels for both pile driving are below the injury thresholds, cumulative SEL were used to do the calculations using the NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016). Estimating Harassment Zones The Level B harassment ensonified areas for vibratory removal of the 14-in timber, 12-in steel, 14-in steel H, and 18-in concrete piles are based on the above source level of 155 dBrms re 1 mPa at 10 m, applying practical spreading Steel, 108-in ................................................... Timber, 14-in .................................................. Steel, 12-in ..................................................... Steel H, 14-in ................................................. loss of 15*log(R) for transmission loss calculation. The derived distance to the 120-dB Level B zone is 2,175 m. For Level B harassment ensonified areas for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24-in, 30-in, 36-in, and 108-in steel piles, the distance is based on measurements conducted during the year 1 Seattle multimodal project at Colman. The result showed that pile driving noise of two 36-in steel piles being concurrently driven was no longer detectable at a range of 5.4 miles (8.69 km) (WSDOT 2017). Therefore, the distance of 8,690 m is selected as the Level B harassment distance for SPLrms, dB re 1 μPa 180 155 155 155 180 155 155 155 SPLpk, dB re 1 μPa ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24-in, 30-in, 36-in and 108-in steel piles. The Level B harassment ensonified area for impact pile driving of the 36in steel piles is based on the above source level of 193 dBrms re 1 mPa at 10 m, applying practical spreading loss of 15*log(R) for transmission loss calculation. The derived distance to the 160-dB Level B zone is 1,585 m. For Level A harassment, calculation is based on pile driving duration of each pile and the number of piles installed or removed per day, using NMFS optional spreadsheet. TABLE 5—MODELED DISTANCES AND AREAS TO HARASSMENT ZONES SL (10m) Level A distance (m) Level A area (km2) Level B distance (m) Level A area (km2) Pile driving activity LF Cetacean SEL MF Cetacean HF Cetacean Phocid Otariid All marine mammals 174 96.7 0.03 8.6 0.00 143.0 0.00 58.8 0.00 4.1 0.00 8,690 74.29 Vibratory removal 30’’ steel pile, 1 pile/day, 20 min/pile ................ 174 24.2 0.00 2.1 0.00 35.7 0.00 14.7 0.00 1.0 0.00 8,960 74.29 Vibratory drive 36’’ steel pile, 6 piles/day, 20 min/pile ................ 177 126.4 0.05 11.2 0.00 186.9 0.11 76.8 0.02 5.4 0.00 8,960 74.29 Vibratory drive 36’’ steel pile, 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile ................ 177 153.3 0.07 13.6 0.00 226.6 0.16 93.2 0.03 6.5 0.00 8,960 74.29 Impact drive (proof) 36’’ steel pile, 8 piles/day, 300 strikes/pile ......... 178 830.9 2.17 19.6 0.00 989.7 3.08 444.7 0.62 32.4 0.00 1,585 7.89 Vibratory drive 108’’ steel pile, 1 pile/day, 120 min/pile .............. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Vibratory drive/removal, 24’’ & 30’’ steel piles, 8 piles/day, 20 min/ pile ............................ 180 200.3 0.13 17.8 0.00 296.2 0.28 121.8 0.05 8.5 0.00 8,690 74.29 Vibratory remove 14’’ timber pile, 20 piles/ day, 15 min/pile ........ 155 8.0 0.00 0.7 0.00 11.8 0.00 4.8 0.00 0.3 0.00 2,154 14.57 Vibratory remove 12’’ steel pile, 11 piles/ day, 20 min/pile ........ 155 6.5 0.00 0.6 0.00 9.6 0.00 3.9 0.00 0.3 0.00 2,154 14.57 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24287 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices TABLE 5—MODELED DISTANCES AND AREAS TO HARASSMENT ZONES—Continued SL (10m) Level A distance (m) Level A area (km2) Level B distance (m) Level A area (km2) Pile driving activity LF Cetacean SEL Vibratory remove 14’’ steel H pile, 10 piles/ day, 20 min/pile ........ 155 6.1 0.00 Distances of ensonified area for different pile driving/removal activities for different marine mammal hearing groups is present in Table 5. Marine Mammal Occurrence In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. All marine mammal density data except harbor seal, California sea lion, harbor porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, and short-beaked common dolphin are from the U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Report. For harbor seal and California sea lion, because WSDOT has better local distribution data based on recent survey in the area, local animal abundance are used to calculate the take numbers. Specifically, the occurrence of these two species are based on local seal abundance information off the Seattle area from Year One (2017/18) of WSDOT’s Seattle Colman Project. For bottlenose dolphin and shortbeaked common dolphin, no density estimate is available. Therefore, take numbers for these two species are based on prior anecdotal observations and strandings in the action area (Shuster et al., 2015; Huggins et al., 2016). Harbor porpoise density is based on a recent study by Smultea et al. (2017) for the Seattle area near the Colman Dock. A summary of marine mammal density, days and Level A and Level B harassment areas from different pile driving and removal activities is provided in Table 6. TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY AND LOCAL OCCURRENCE IN THE WSDOT PROJECT AREA amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Species Gray whale ........................ Minke whale ....................... Killer whale (West coast transient). Bottlenose dolphin ............. Short-beaked common dolphin. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Density (#/km2) or animals/day 0.0051/km2. 0.00003/km2. 0.002/km2. NA. NA. 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 MF Cetacean HF Cetacean 0.5 0.00 9.0 0.00 TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY AND LOCAL OCCURRENCE IN THE WSDOT PROJECT AREA—Continued Species Density (#/km2) or animals/day Harbor porpoise ................. Dall’s porpoise ................... California sea lion .............. Steller sea lion ................... Harbor seal ........................ Northern elephant seal ...... 0.54/km2. 0.048/km2. 11 animals/day. 0.04/km2. 8 animals/day. 0.00001/km2. Take Calculation and Estimation Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. For all other marine mammals, takes were calculated as: Take = ensonified area × average animal abundance in the area × pile driving days. All Level A takes were further adjusted by subtract animals that would occur within the Level A harassment zone (except for harbor seal where a 60-m shutdown zone would be implemented), where pile driving activities that could cause Level A injury for all marine mammals, except harbor seal, harbor porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise, would be suspended when an animal is observed to approach such a zone. Further, the number of Level B takes were adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes. The harbor seal take estimate is based on local seal abundance information off the Seattle area from Year One (2017/18) of WSDOT’s Seattle Colman Project. During 99 days of marine mammal visual monitoring, 813 harbor seals were observed, an average of 8.212 animals/ day, with a one-day high of 43 observations on 10/24/17 (WSDOT 2018b). By adjusting the averaged observation of harbor seals to 11 animals/day as a conservative estimate to account for possible missed observation, and based on a total of 114 pile driving days for the WSDOT Seattle Colman Dock project, it is estimated that up to 1,254 harbor seals could be exposed to noise levels associated with PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Phocid Sfmt 4703 3.7 0.00 Otariid 0.3 0.00 All marine mammals 2,154 14.57 ‘‘take’’. Since 17 days would involve vibratory/impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles (16 days) and vibratory driving of and 108-in steel pile (1 day) with Level A zones beyond shutdown zones (231 m and 122 m, respectively, vs. the 60-m shutdown zone), we consider that 187 harbor seals exposed during these 17 days would experience Level A harassment. The difference between the 1,254 total takes and the 187 Level A takes makes up the harbor seal Level B takes, which is 1,067 animals. The California sea lion take estimate is also based on local sea lion abundance information from the Seattle Colman Project. During 99 days of marine mammal visual monitoring 1,047 California sea lions were observed, an average of 11 animals/day, with a one-day high of 48 observations on 1/8/2018. (WSDOT 2018b). By adjusting the averaged observation of harbor seals to 14 animals/day as a conservative estimate to account for possible missed observation, and based on a total of 114 pile driving days for the WSDOT Seattle Colman Dock project, it is estimated that up to 1,596 California sea lions could be exposed to noise levels associated with ‘‘take’’. Although the Level A zones of otariids are all very small (<33 m, Table 5) and WSDOT will implement strict shutdown measures if a sea lion is observed to be moving towards the Level A zone, it is still possible that in rare occasions an animal could enter the Level A zone undetected. We therefore, estimate that one California sea lion could be taken by Level A harassment on each of the 16 days that involve vibratory/impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles when the Level A zone is 32 m. Thus a total of 16 Level A harassment of California sea lion is estimated. The difference between the 1,596 total takes and the 16 Level A takes makes up the California sea lions Level B takes, which is 1,580 animals. The same reasoning for estimating Steller sea lion Level A takes, which results an estimated 16 Level A takes and 216 Level B takes. E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24288 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices The Common bottlenose dolphin estimate is based on sightings data from Cascadia Research Collective. Between September 2017 and March 2018, a group of up to five to six individuals was sighted in South Puget Sound (CRC 2017/18). It is assumed that this group is still present in the area. Given how rare Common bottlenose dolphins are in the area, it is unlikely they would be present on a daily basis. Instead it is assumed that they may be present in the Level B harassment zone once a month during the in-water work window (7 months), and adjusted for potential group size of 5–10 individuals with an average of 7 animals per group. The Long-beaked Common dolphin estimate is based on sightings data from Cascadia Research Collective. Four to six Long-beaked Common dolphins have remained in Puget Sound since June 2016, and four animals with distinct markings have been seen multiple times and in every season of the year as of October 2017 (CRC 2017). Given how rare Long-beaked Common dolphins are in the area, it is unlikely they would be present on a daily basis. Instead it is assumed that they may be present in the Level B harassment zone once a month during the in-water work window (7 months), and adjusted for potential group size of 5–10 individuals with an average of 7 animals per group. For harbor porpoise, density based Level A take calculation yields a total of 28 animals. However, due to the large Level A distance during the 36-in pile driving (990 m) during 16 days and the 108-in pile driving (296 m) during one day, its Level A take is readjusted to account for a typical animal group size of 3 multiplied by these 17 days with large Level A zones. Therefore, we estimate that a total of 51 harbor porpoise could be taken by Level A harassment. For Dall’s porpoise, due to its relatively uncommon occurrence in comparison to harbor porpoise, the estimated Level A take is scaled down by 1⁄3 that of harbor porpoise, yielding 17 Level A takes. For calculated take number less than 15, such as northern elephant seals, transient killer whales, gray whales, and minke whales, takes numbers were adjusted to account for group encounter and the likelihood of encountering. Specifically, for northern elephant seal, take of 15 animals is estimated based on the likelihood of encountering this species during the project period. For transient killer whale, takes of 30 animals is estimated based on the group size and the likelihood of encountering in the area. For gray whale and minke whale, takes of 30 and 8 animals each are estimated, respectively, based on the likelihood of encountering. For SRKWs, WSDOT will implement strict monitoring and mitigation measures and to suspend pile driving activities when such animal is detected in the vicinity of the action area (see Proposed Mitigation section below). A summary of estimated takes based on the above analysis is listed in Table 7. TABLE 7—ESTIMATED TAKE NUMBERS Estimated Level A take Species Pacific harbor seal ............................................................... Northern elephant seal ........................................................ California sea lion ................................................................ Steller sea lion ..................................................................... Killer whale, transient ........................................................... Killer whale, Southern Resident .......................................... Gray whale ........................................................................... Humpback whale ................................................................. Minke whale ......................................................................... Harbor porpoise ................................................................... Dall’s porpoise ..................................................................... Long-beaked common dolphin ............................................ Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... Estimated Level B take 187 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 51 17 0 0 Estimated total take 1,067 15 1,580 216 30 0 30 0 8 3,946 261 49 49 1,254 15 1,596 232 30 0 30 0 8 3,997 278 49 49 Abundance Percentage 11,036 81,368 296,750 67,290 243 84 20,990 1,918 202 11,233 25,750 101,305 1,921 11 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 2 * 36 1 0 3 * The percentage of individual harbor porpoises take is estimated to be notably smaller than this, as described in the ‘‘Small Numbers’’ section. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Proposed Mitigation In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 1. Time Restriction. E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24289 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. 2. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, and Shutdown Zones. WSDOT shall establish shutdown zones that encompass the distances within which marine mammals could be taken by Level A harassment (see Table 7 above) except for harbor seal. For Level A harassment zones that is less than 10 m from the source, a minimum of 10 m distance should be established as a shutdown zone. For harbor seal, a maximum of 60 m shutdown zone would be implemented if the actual Level A harassment zone exceeds 60 m. This is because there are a few habituated harbor seals that repeated occur within the larger Level A zone, which makes implementing a shutdown zone larger than 60 m infeasible. A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 8. TABLE 8—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES AND MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS Injury zone (m) Pile type, size & pile driving method LF cetacean amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Vibratory drive/removal, 24″ & 30″ steel piles, 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile ........................................................................ Vibratory removal 30″ steel pile, 1 pile/day, 20 min/pile ..... Vibratory drive 36″ steel pile, 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile ........ Vibratory drive 36″ steel pile, 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile ........ Impact drive (proof) 36″ steel pile, 8 piles/day, 300 strikes/ pile .................................................................................... Vibratory drive 108″ steel pile, 1 pile/day, 120 min/pile ...... Vibratory remove 14″ timber pile, 20 piles/day, 15 min/pile Vibratory remove 12″ steel pile, 11 piles/day, 20 min/pile .. Vibratory remove 14″ steel H pile, 10 piles/day, 20 min/ pile .................................................................................... WSDOT shall also establish a Zone of Influence (ZOI) based on the Level B harassment zones for take monitoring where received underwater SPLs are higher than 160 dBrms re 1 mPa for impulsive noise sources (impact pile driving) and 120 dBrms re 1 mPa for nonimpulsive noise sources (vibratory pile driving and pile removal). NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSO) shall conduct an initial 30-minute survey of the exclusion zones to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zones before pile driving and pile removal of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within the exclusion zone, pile driving of the segment would be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor would wait 15 minutes. If no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it can be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone. If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to commencement of pile driving, or if a shutdown occurs due to marine mammal sighting, the observer(s) must notify the pile driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until the marine mammal has exited the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 MF cetacean HF cetacean Otariid 97 24 126 153 10 10 11 14 143 36 187 227 59 15 60 60 10 10 10 10 432 200 10 10 15 18 10 10 515 296 12 10 60 60 10 10 17 10 10 10 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ exclusion zone or 30 minutes have elapsed since the last sighting. 3. Soft-Start. A ‘‘soft-start’’ technique is intended to allow marine mammals to vacate the area before the impact pile driver reaches full power. Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up procedures described below. Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at the beginning of impact pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes. 4. Shutdown Measures. WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is detected within an exclusion zone or is about to enter an exclusion zone listed in Tables 8. WSDOT shall also implement shutdown measures if SRKWs or humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the ZOI during in-water construction activities. If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the shutdown measure. PO 00000 Phocid Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 If a SRKW, an unidentified killer whale, or a humpback whale enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall be suspended until the whale exits the ZOI to avoid further level B harassment. Further, WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the IHA or if a marine mammal observed is not authorized for take under this IHA, if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during in-water construction activities. 5. Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network. Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the Orca Network and/or Center for Whale Research will be contacted by WSDOT to find out the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government agency personnel in the U.S. and Canada. Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately distributed to other sighting networks including: The NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the Whale Museum Hotline and the British Columbia Sightings Network. Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a system of E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24290 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology and local climatic conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic network, combined with the volunteer (incidental) visual sighting network allows researchers to document presence and location of various marine mammal species. With this level of coordination in the region of activity, WSDOT will be able to get real-time information on the presence or absence of whales before starting any pile driving. Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the prescribed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Proposed Monitoring and Reporting In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following: • Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density); • Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas); • Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors; • How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks; • Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and • Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness. Proposed Monitoring Measures WSDOT shall employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its dolphin relocation project at Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals. The purposes of marine mammal monitoring are to implement mitigation measures and learn more about impacts to marine mammals from WSDOT’s construction activities. The PSOs will observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following requirements: 1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are required; 2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer; 3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; 4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer; and 5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs. Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 × 42 power). Due to the different sizes of ZOI from different pile types, three different ZOIs and different monitoring protocols corresponding to a specific pile type will be established. • For Level B harassment zones with radii less than 1,600 m, 3 PSOs will be monitoring from land. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 1,600 m but smaller than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land. • For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land with an additional 1 PSO monitoring from a ferry. 6. PSOs shall collect the following information during marine mammal monitoring: • Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for each day conducted (monitoring period); • Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven; • Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile types, average driving times, etc.; • Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, percent cloud cover, visibility); • Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea state, tide state); • For each marine mammal sighting: Æ Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals; Æ Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity; Æ Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point; and Æ Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the Level B zone; • Description of implementation of mitigation measures within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay); • Other human activity in the area within each monitoring period To verify the required monitoring distance, the exclusion zones and ZOIs will be determined by using a range finder or hand-held global positioning system device. WSDOT will conduct noise field measurement to determine the actual Level B distance from the source during vibratory pile of the first pile. If the actual Level B harassment distance is less than modelled, the number of PSOs will be adjusted based on the criteria listed above. Reporting Measures WSDOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. In the case if WSDOT intends to renew the IHA (if issued) in a subsequent year, a E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 monitoring report should be submitted 60 days before the expiration of the current IHA (if issued). This report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if NMFS has comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days. In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources and NMFS’ West Coast Stranding Coordinator within 48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the construction site. WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the Stranding Network with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if available). In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that is not in the construction area, WSDOT would report the same information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible. Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS’ implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels). To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 7, given that the anticipated effects of WSDOT’s Seattle Multimodal at Colman Dock project involving pile driving and pile removal on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis by species for this activity, or else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed. Although a few marine mammals (132 harbor seals, 12 harbor porpoises, and 1 Dall’s porpoise) are estimated to experience Level A harassment in the form of PTS if they stay within the Level A harassment zone during the entire pile driving for the day, the degree of injury is expected to be mild and is not likely to affect the reproduction or survival of the individual animals. It is expected that, if hearing impairments occurs, most likely the affected animal would lose a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is not likely to affect its survival and recruitment. Hearing impairment that occur for these individual animals would be limited to the dominant frequency of the noise sources, i.e., in the low-frequency region below 2 kHz. Therefore, the degree of PTS is not likely to affect the echolocation performance of the two porpoise species, which use frequencies mostly above 100 kHz. Nevertheless, for all marine mammal species, it is known that in general animals avoid areas where sound levels could cause hearing impairment. Therefore, it is not likely that an animal would stay in an area with intense noise that could cause severe levels of hearing damage. In addition, even if an animal receives a TTS, the TTS would be a one-time event from the exposure, making it unlikely that the TTS would evolve into PTS. Furthermore, Level A take estimates are based on the assumption that the animals are randomly distributed in the project area and would not avoid intense noise levels that could cause TTS or PTS. In reality, animals tend to avoid areas where noise levels are high (Richardson et al., 1995). Nonetheless, we evaluate the estimated take in this negligible impact analysis. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24291 For these species except harbor seal, harbor porpoise and Dall’s porpoise, takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral and TTS). Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise. A few marine mammals could experience TTS if they occur within the Level B TTS ZOI. However, as discussed earlier in this document, TTS is a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity when exposed to loud sound, and the hearing threshold is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours. Therefore, it is not considered an injury. Portions of the SRKW is within the proposed action area. However, WSDOT would be required to implement strict mitigation measures to suspend pile driving or pile removal activities when this stock is detected in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the potential effects to SRKW would be fully mitigated. There is no other important areas for marine mammals, such as know important feeding, pupping, or other areas. The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals’ habitat, as analyzed in detail in the ‘‘Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat’’ subsection. There is no ESA designated critical area in the vicinity of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock area. The project activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus impacting marine mammals’ foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range. However, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species and their physical environment, WSDOT’s proposed construction activity at Colman Dock would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat. • Injury—only 3 species of marine mammals would experience Level A affects in the form of mild PTS, which is expected to be of small degree. • Behavioral disturbance—eleven species/stocks of marine mammals would experience behavioral E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24292 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 disturbance and TTS from the WSDOT’s Seattle Colman Dock project. However, as discussed earlier, the area to be affected is small and the duration of the project is short. Although portion of the SWKR critical habitat is within the project area, strict mitigation measures such as implementing shutdown measures and suspending pile driving will mitigate such effects. No other important habitat for marine mammals exist in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the overall impacts are expected to be insignificant. 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 take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks. Small Numbers As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals anticipated to be taken to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether an authorization would be limited to small numbers of marine mammals. The estimated takes are below 13 percent of the population for all marine mammals except harbor porpoise (Table 7). For harbor porpoise, the estimate of 3,997 incidences of takes would be 36 percent of the population, if each single take were a unique individual. However, this is highly unlikely because the harbor porpoise in Washington waters shows site fidelity to small areas for periods of time that can extend between seasons (Hanson et al., 1999; Hanson 2007a, 2007b). For example, Hanson et al., (1999) tracked a female harbor porpoise for 215 days, during which it remained exclusively within the southern Strait of Georgia region. Based on studies by Jefferson et al. (2016), harbor porpoise abundance in the southern Puget Sound region, which encompasses waters off Seattle, is 550. Therefore, if the estimated incidents of take accrued to all the animals expected to occur in the entire southern Puget Sound area (550 animals), it would be 4.90 percent of the Washington inland water stock of the harbor porpoise. Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the prescribed mitigation and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of each species or stock will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks. Unmitigable Adverse Impact Subsistence Analysis and Determination There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The California-Oregon-Washington stock of humpback whale and the Southern Resident stock of killer whale are the only marine mammal species listed under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity of WSDOT’s proposed construction projects. Two DPSs of humpback whales, the Mexico DPS and the Central America DPS, are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, respectively. NMFS is proposing to authorize take of California/Oregon/ Washington stock of humpback whale, which are listed under the ESA. NMFS worked with WSDOT to implement shutdown measures in the IHA that would avoid takes of both SR killer whale and humpback whales. Therefore, NMFS determined that no ESA-listed marine mammal species would be affected as a result of WSDOT’s Seattle Colman Dock construction project. Proposed Authorization As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to WSDOT for conducting Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle, Washington, between August 1, 2018, and July 31, 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued). PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1. This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2018, through July 31, 2019. 2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with in-water construction work at the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in the State of Washington. 3. (a) The species authorized taking by Level A and Level B harassments and in the numbers shown in Table 7 are: Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), killer whale (Orcinus orca), long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall’s porpoise (P. dali), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). (b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources and from the following activities: (1) Vibratory pile and impact pile driving; and (2) Vibratory pile removal. 4. Prohibitions. (a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in Table 7 of this notice. The taking by serious injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or exempted under the MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization. (b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this Authorization. 5. Mitigation. (a) Time Restriction. In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight hours. (b) Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, and Shutdown Zones. (i) Before the commencement of inwater pile driving/removal activities, WSDOT shall establish Level A harassment zones. The modeled Level A zones are summarized in Table 5. (ii) Before the commencement of inwater pile driving/removal activities, WSDOT shall establish Level B harassment zones. The modeled Level B zones are summarized in Table 5. (iii) Before the commencement of inwater pile driving/removal activities, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones. E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices The proposed exclusion zones are summarized in Table 8. (iv) If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to commencement of pile driving, or if a shutdown occurs due to marine mammal sighting, the observer(s) must notify the pile driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until the marine mammal has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have elapsed since the last sighting. (c) Monitoring of marine mammals shall take place starting 30 minutes before pile driving begins until 30 minutes after pile driving ends. (d) Soft Start (i) When there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up procedures described below. (ii) Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at the beginning of impact pile driving or removal, or if pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes. (e) Shutdown Measures (i) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is detected within or to be approaching the exclusion zones provided in Table 8 of this notice. (ii) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if SRKWs (SRKWs) or humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (zone of influence, or ZOI) during in-water construction activities. (iii) If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the shutdown measure identified in 6(e)(ii). (iv) If a SRKW or a humpback whale enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall be suspended until the SRKW exits the ZOI to avoid further level B harassment. (v) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA or if a marine mammal observed is not authorized for take under this IHA, if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during pile removal activities. (f) Coordination with Local Marine Mammal Research Network and obtaining marine mammal sightings and acoustic detection data. Prior to the start of pile driving, WSDOT will contact the Orca Network and/or Center for Whale Research to get real-time information on the presence or absence of whales before starting any pile driving, 6. Monitoring. (a) Protected Species Observers. WSDOT shall employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its construction project. NMFS-approved PSOs will meet the following qualifications. (i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are required. (ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer. (iii) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience. (iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer. (v) NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs. (b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall be present on site at all times during pile removal and driving. (i) A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A 30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required after the last pile driving or pile removal of the day. If the constructors take a break between subsequent pile driving or pile removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required before the next start-up of pile driving or pile removal. (ii) Marine mammal visual monitoring will be conducted for different zones of influence (ZOIs) based on different sizes of piles being driven or removed. (A) For Level B harassment zones with radii less than 1,600 m, 3 PSOs will be monitoring from land. (B) For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 1,600 m but smaller than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land. (C) For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land with an additional 1 PSO monitoring from a ferry. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24293 (iii) If marine mammals are observed, the following information will be documented: (A) Species of observed marine mammals; (B) Number of observed marine mammal individuals; (C) Behavior of observed marine mammals; and (D) Location within the ZOI. (c) Passive Acoustic Monitoring: (i) WSDOT will conduct noise field measurement to determine the actual Level B distance from the source during vibratory pile of the first pile. (ii) If the actual Level B harassment distance is less than modelled, the number of PSOs will be adjusted based on the criteria listed above. 7. Reporting. (a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work or within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes first. This report shall detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. (b) IF WSDOT plans to renew the IHA for an additional year, a monitoring report must be received within 60 days before the expiration of an existing IHA. (c) If comments are received from NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final report. (d) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality, WSDOT shall immediately cease all operations and immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following information: (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/ longitude) of the incident; (ii) description of the incident; (iii) status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident; (iv) environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, sea state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth); (v) description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident; (vi) species identification or description of the animal(s) involved; (vii) the fate of the animal(s); and (viii) photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available). E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 24294 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2018 / Notices amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 (e) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with WSDOT to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WSDOT may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. (f) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), WSDOT will immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the same information identified above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with WSDOT to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate. (g) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), WSDOT shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. WSDOT shall provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. WSDOT can continue its operations under such a case. 8. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals. 9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each contractor who performs the construction work at the Colman ferry terminals. Request for Public Comments We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed WSDOT Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 May 24, 2018 Jkt 241001 Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization. On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met: • A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the current IHA. • The request for renewal must include the following: (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates, or mitigation and monitoring requirements. (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized. Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and the original findings remain valid. Dated: May 22, 2018. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2018–11334 Filed 5–24–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Ombudsman Survey The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. Title: Ombudsman Survey. OMB Control Number: 0651–0078. Form Number(s): None. Type of Request: Regular. Number of Respondents: 1,100 responses per year. Average Hours per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take approximately 5 minutes (0.08 hours) to complete the survey. Burden Hours: 91.67 hours per year. Cost Burden: $0. Needs and Uses: The objectives of the Patents Ombudsman Program are: (1) To facilitate complaint-handling for pro se applicants and applicant’s representatives whose applications have stalled in the examination process; (2) to track complaints to ensure each is handled within ten business days; (3) to provide feedback and early warning alerts to USPTO management regarding training needs based on complaint trends; and (4) to build a database of frequently asked questions accessible to the public that address commonly seen problems and provide effective resolutions. The USPTO Ombudsman survey is a key component in the agency’s evaluation of the program, providing a mechanism to monitor the effectiveness of the program and identify potential opportunities for program enhancement. This survey is being conducted by the USPTO’s Ombudsman Program and will be developed, administered, and summarized by USPTO personnel. Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions. Frequency: On occasion. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, email: Nicholas_A._Fraser@ omb.eop.gov. Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB. Further information can be obtained by: • Email: InformationCollection@ uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0078 copy request’’ in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before June 25, 2018 to Nicholas A. E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24279-24294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11334]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG219


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project in 
Seattle, Washington; Correction

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

ACTION: Proposed incidental harassment authorization (IHA); request for 
comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS published a document in the Federal Register on May 22, 
2018, and the document contained outdated information and this document 
has been corrected and is republished in its entirety. NMFS has 
received a request from Washington State Department of Transportation 
(WSDOT) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the 
Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle, Washington. 
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting 
comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to incidentally take marine 
mammals during the specified activities.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 25, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments 
should be sent to [email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or 
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111 without change. All personal 
identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the notice published on May 22, 2018 (83 FR 23643), FR Doc. 
2018-10871 contained outdated information and this document corrects 
the IHA.

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth.
    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an 
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably 
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.
    The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, 
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine 
mammal.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,

[[Page 24280]]

feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

National Environmental Policy Act

    Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5)(D) authorization requires compliance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    NMFS preliminary determined the issuance of the proposed IHA is 
consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 (issuance 
of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and 
(D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or mortality is 
anticipated) of NOAA's Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, and we have not 
identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the 
Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude this categorical 
exclusion under NEPA.
    We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice 
prior to making a final decision as to whether application of this CE 
is appropriate in this circumstance.

Summary of Request

    On November 21, 2017, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting 
an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of marine mammal 
species incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in 
Seattle, Washington, from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019. After 
receiving the revised project description and the revised IHA 
application, NMFS determined that the IHA application is adequate and 
complete on April 4, 2018. NMFS is proposing to authorize the take by 
Level A and Level B harassments of the following marine mammal species: 
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); northern elephant seal (Mirounga 
angustirostris); California sea lion (Zalophus californianus); Steller 
sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); killer whale (Orcinus orca); long-beaked 
common dolphin (Delphinus capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 
truncatus), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); humpback whale 
(Megaptera novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); 
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); and Dall's porpoise (P. dalli). 
Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity 
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
    NMFS previously issued an IHA to WSDOT for the first year of this 
project (FR 21579; July 7, 2017). WSDOT complied with all the 
requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the 
previous IHA and information regarding their monitoring results may be 
found in the Estimated Take section.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    The purpose of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock is to 
preserve the transportation function of an aging, deteriorating and 
seismically deficient facility to continue providing safe and reliable 
service. The project will also address existing safety concerns related 
to conflicts between vehicles and pedestrian traffic and operational 
inefficiencies.

Dates and Duration

    Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water 
work timing restrictions to protect ESA-listed salmonids, planned WSDOT 
in-water construction is limited each year to July 16 through February 
15.

Specified Geographic Region

    The Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock, serving State Route 519, 
is located on the downtown Seattle waterfront, in King County, 
Washington. The terminal services vessels from the Bainbridge Island 
and Bremerton routes, and is the most heavily used terminal in the 
Washington State Ferry system. The Seattle terminal is located in 
Section 6, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, and is adjacent to Elliott 
Bay, tributary to Puget Sound (Figure 1-2 of the IHA application). Land 
use in the area is highly urban, and includes business, industrial, the 
Port of Seattle container loading facility, residential, the Pioneer 
Square Historic District and local parks.

Detailed Description of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock: 
Year 2

    The project will reconfigure the Colman Dock while maintaining 
approximately the same vehicle holding capacity as current conditions. 
The construction began in August 2017. In the 2017-2018 season, the 
construction activities were focused on the South Trestle, Terminal 
Building Foundation, and the temporary and permanent Passenger 
Offloading Facility.
    In the 2018-2019 season, WSDOT plans to continue the project by 
constructing the North Trestle, and Slip 3 bridge seat, overhead 
loading, wingwall, and inner dolphin. Both impact pile driving and 
vibratory pile driving and pile removal would be conducted. A total of 
37 days are estimated for pile driving and 77 days for pile removal.
    In-water construction methods include:
     Installing 119 36-inch (in) permanent steel piles with a 
vibratory hammer, and then proofed with an impact hammer for the last 
5-10 feet;
     Installing six 36-in and (8) 30-in steel piles with a 
vibratory hammer;
     Installing one 108-in steel pile with a vibratory hammer;
     Removing all existing 12-in steel, 14-in timber, 14-in H, 
24-in steel and 30-in steel piles with a vibratory hammer;
     Installing and then removing eight 24-in Slip 3 Overhead 
loading temporary piles with a vibratory hammer; and
     Installing and then removing 147 24-in temporary template 
piles with a vibratory hammer.
    A list of pile driving and removal activities is provided in Table 
1.

                                            Table 1--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving and Removal Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pile size                                                                 Duration
                Method                        Pile type             (inch)        Pile number      Piles/day          Minutes/pile            (days)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive......................  Steel (temporary)......              24             147               8  20......................              18
Vibratory drive......................  Steel (Slip 3).........              24               8               8  20......................               1
Vibratory drive......................  Steel..................              30               8               8  20......................               1
Vibratory drive......................  Steel..................              36               6               6  20......................               1
Vibratory drive *....................  Steel..................              36             119               8  20......................              15
Impact drive (proof) *...............  Steel..................              36             119               8  300 strikes.............              15
Vibratory drive......................  Steel..................             108               1               1  120.....................               1
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal.........................  .......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ........................              37
Vibratory remove.....................  Timber.................              14             925              20  15......................              47
Vibratory remove.....................  Steel..................              12              22              11  20......................               2
Vibratory remove.....................  Steel H................              14              19              10  20......................               2

[[Page 24281]]

 
Vibratory remove.....................  Steel..................              24              35               8  20......................               5
Vibratory remove.....................  Steel (Slip 3).........              24               8               8  20......................               1
Vibratory remove.....................  Steel (temporary)......              24             147               8  20......................              19
Vibratory remove.....................  Steel..................              30               1               1  20......................               1
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal.........................  .......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ........................              77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These two activities occur on the same day.

    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see ``Proposed 
Mitigation'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting'').

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical 
and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website 
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
    Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
the lower Puget Sound area and summarizes information related to the 
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA 
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in 
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For harbor seal Washington northern inland waters 
stock, the abundance is based on radio-tagging studies conducted at 
three Washington inland waters with correcting factors described in the 
2016 SARs (Jefferies et al., 2003; Carretta et al., 2017). For some 
species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All 
managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's 2016 U.S. Pacific 
Draft Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta et al., 2017). All values presented 
in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and 
are available in the 2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 2017); and draft 2017 
SARs (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).

                Table 2--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Stock
                                                                                 abundance
                                                                     ESA/MMPA   (CV, Nmin,
                                                                     status;       most                Annual M/
         Common name            Scientific name        Stock        strategic     recent       PBR       SI \3\
                                                                    (Y/N) \1\    abundance
                                                                                  survey)
                                                                                    \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale...............  Eschrichtius      Eastern North     N                20,990        624        132
                                robustus.         Pacific.
Family Balaenopteridae:
    Humpback whale...........  Megaptera         California/       Y                 1,918       11.0       >6.5
                                novaneagliae.     Oregon/
                                                  Washington.
    Minke whale..............  Balaenoptera      California/       N                   636        3.5       >1.3
                                acutorostrata.    Oregon/
                                                  Washington.
Family Delphinidae:
    Killer whale.............  Orcinus orca....  Eastern N.        Y                    81       0.14          0
                                                  Pacific
                                                  Southern
                                                  resident.
                                                 West coast        N                   243        2.4          0
                                                  transient.
    Long-beaked common         Delphinus         California......  N               101,305        657      >35.4
     dolphin.                   capensis.
    Bottlenose dolphin.......  Tursiops          California/       N                 1,924        198      >0.84
                                truncatus.        Oregon/
                                                  Washington
                                                  offshore.
Family Phocoenidae
 (porpoises):
    Harbor porpoise..........  Phocoena          Washington        N                11,233         66        7.2
                                phocoena.         inland waters.
    Dall's porpoise..........  P. dali.........  California/       N                25,750        172        0.3
                                                  Oregon/.
                                                 Washington......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals
 and sea lions):
    California sea lion......  Zalophus          U.S.............  N               296,750      9,200        389
                                californianus.
    Steller sea lion.........  Eumetopias        Eastern U.S.....  N                71,562      2,498        108
                                jubatus.
Family Phocidae (earless
 seals):
    Harbor seal..............  Phoca vitulina..  Washington        N            \4\ 11,036      1,641         43
                                                  northern inland
                                                  waters.

[[Page 24282]]

 
    Northern elephant seal...  Mirounga          California        N               179,000      4,882        8.8
                                angustirostris.   breeding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-)
  indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the
  MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is
  determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or
  stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of
  variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury
  from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined
  precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality
  due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for
  use here (Jefferies et al., 2003; Carretta et al., 2017).

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 2. However, the temporal and/or spatial 
occurrence of humpback whale and Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) 
and the implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures are such 
that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further 
beyond the explanation provided here. The occurrence of humpback whale 
in the WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal Project area is considered 
extralimital, and WSDOT's 2017 monitoring report showed no sighting of 
this species. Although the SRKW could occur in the vicinity of the 
project area, WSDOT proposes to implement strict monitoring and 
mitigation measures with assistance from local marine mammal 
researchers and observers. Thus, the take of this marine mammal stock 
can be avoided (see details in Proposed Mitigation section).
    In addition, the sea otter may be found in Puget Sound area 
However, this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
and are not considered further in this document.

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine 
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect 
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided 
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated 
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, 
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with 
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the 
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower 
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and 
the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these 
frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with 
the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every 
species within that group):
     Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 
kilohertz (kHz);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked 
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur 
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and 
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members 
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data 
and genetic data): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
     Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz;
     Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
     The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from 
Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid 
species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of 
hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 
2013).
    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al., 
2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. 
Eleven marine mammal species (7 cetacean and 4 pinniped (2 otariid and 
2 phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the 
proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean 
species that may be present, one species is classified as low-frequency 
cetaceans (i.e., gray whale), two are classified as high-frequency 
cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise), and the rest of 
them mid-frequency cetaceans.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section 
later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the 
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. 
The ``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section will 
consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by 
Incidental Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed

[[Page 24283]]

Mitigation'' section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts 
of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of 
individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact 
marine mammal species or stocks.
    Potential impacts to marine mammals from the proposed Bremerton and 
Edmonds ferry terminals dolphin relocation project are from noise 
generated during in-water pile driving and pile removal activities.

Acoustic Effects

    Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal 
hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active 
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
    The WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal Project using in-water pile driving 
and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal species and 
stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the 
activity area.
    Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may 
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift 
(TS)--an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise 
(Finneran et al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold 
shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal 
pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of 
hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following 
cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of TS just after exposure 
is the initial TS. If the TS eventually returns to zero (i.e., the 
threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is a temporary 
threshold shift (TTS) (Southall et al., 2007).
    Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals 
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an 
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound 
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced TS. An animal 
can experience TTS or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last 
from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can 
occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a 
temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 
10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's 
hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced 
by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can 
also occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above 
for TTS.
    For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive 
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless 
porpoise (Finneran, 2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to 
measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California 
sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b).
    Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing 
it to airgun noise with a received sound pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 
dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 micropascal ([mu]Pa), which corresponds to a 
sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa\2\ s after integrating 
exposure. Because the airgun noise is a broadband impulse, one cannot 
directly determine the equivalent of root mean square (rms) SPL from 
the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative 
conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys 
(McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-to-
peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL 
for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, and the received 
levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher. 
Therefore, based on these studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor 
porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically tested 
(Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and 
Jennings, 2012).
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious 
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a 
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively 
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs 
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many 
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer 
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical 
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious 
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects 
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered 
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, 
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been 
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall 
et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with 
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
    In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-
intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for 
marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions 
(Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as 
from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals 
such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental 
sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain 
circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment 
are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
    Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. 
Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly 
concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high 
frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, 
lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of 
communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such 
as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when 
they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space 
of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels 
(e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
    Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial 
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or 
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects 
both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term 
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent 
science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased 
by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the 
world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases 
are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). For WSDOT's dolphin 
relocation project, noises from vibratory pile driving and pile removal 
contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels in the project area, 
thus increasing potential for or severity of masking. Baseline ambient 
noise levels in the vicinity of project area are high due to ongoing 
shipping, construction and other activities in the Puget Sound.
    Finally, marine mammals' exposure to certain sounds could lead to 
behavioral

[[Page 24284]]

disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), such as changing durations of 
surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction 
and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of 
certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible 
startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or 
jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/
or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts 
or rookeries).
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et 
al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises 
(such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for 
continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the WSDOT's 
Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Ferry Terminal, both 120-dB and 
160-dB levels are considered for effects analysis because WSDOT plans 
to use both impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile 
removal.
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects 
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, 
duration, and context of the effects.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are 
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile 
removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts 
to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
    With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to 
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson 
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the 
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors 
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially 
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the 
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
    The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior 
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to 
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the 
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold 
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition 
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of 
sound (such as noise from impact pile driving) rather than continuous 
signals (such as noise from vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al., 
1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal 
intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the 
same level.
    During the coastal construction, only a small fraction of the 
available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to 
fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the 
proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on marine 
mammals' prey availability in the area where construction work is 
planned.
    Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid 
the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration 
of whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to noise generated from vibratory pile driving 
and removal. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated 
effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown measures--
discussed in detail below in Proposed Mitigation section), Level A 
harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized 
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: 
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available 
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur 
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of 
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the 
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; 
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these 
components in more detail and present the take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g. 
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
    Applicant's proposed activity includes the generation of impulse 
(impact pile driving) and non-impulse (vibratory pile driving and 
removal)

[[Page 24285]]

sources; and, therefore, both 160- and 120-dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are 
used.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to 
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine 
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to 
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). 
Applicant's proposed activity would generate and non-impulsive 
(vibratory pile driving and pile removal) noises. These thresholds were 
developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and 
soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers 
to inform the final product and are provided in the table below. The 
references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the 
thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be 
accessed at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

                 Table 3--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Non-Explosive Sound Underwater
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      PTS onset thresholds                     Behavioral thresholds
        Hearing group         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Impulsive      Non-impulsive          Impulsive             Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.  Lpk,flat: 219     LE,LF,24h: 199   Lrms,flat: 160 dB.....  Lrms,flat: 120 dB.
                                dB; LE,LF,24h:    dB.
                                183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.  Lpk,flat: 230     LE,MF,24h: 198
                                dB; LE,MF,24h:    dB.
                                185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans  Lpk,flat: 202     LE,HF,24h: 173
                                dB; LE,HF,24h:    dB.
                                155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)........  Lpk,flat: 218     LE,PW,24h: 201
(Underwater).................   dB; LE,PW,24h:    dB.
                                185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW).......  Lpk,flat: 232     LE,OW,24h: 219
(Underwater).................   dB; LE,OW,24h:    dB.
                                203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
  calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
  thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
  a reference value of 1[mu]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
  Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
  frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
  being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
  designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
  that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
  exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
  is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds.

Source Levels

    The source level for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24- 
and 30-in steel pile is based on vibratory pile driving of the 30-in 
steel pile at Port Townsend (WSDOT, 2010). The unweighted 
SPLrms source level at 10 meters (m) from the pile is 174 dB 
re 1 re 1 [mu]Pa.
    The source level for vibratory pile driving of the 36-in steel 
piles is based on vibratory test pile driving of 36-in steel piles at 
Port Townsend in 2010 (Laughlin 2011). Recordings of vibratory pile 
driving were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile. The results show 
that the unweighted SPLrms for vibratory pile driving of 36-
in steel pile was 177 dB re 1 [mu]Pa.
    The source level for vibratory pile driving of the 108-in steel 
pile is based on measurements of 72-in steel piles vibratory driving 
conducted by CALTRANS. The unweighted SPLrms source level 
ranged between 170 and 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m from the pile 
(CALTRANS 2015). The value of 180 dB is chosen to be more conservative.
    The source level for impact pile driving of the 36-in steel pile is 
based on impact test pile driving for the 36-in steel pile at Mukilteo 
in November 2006 (WSDOT 2007). Recordings of the impact pile driving 
that were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile were analyzed using 
Matlab. The results show that the unweighted source levels are 178 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s for SELss and 193 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for 
SPLrms. The peak source level for impact pile driving of the 
36-in steel pile is based on measurement conducted by CALTRANS for the 
same type and dimension of the pile, which is 210 dBpk re 1 
[mu]Pa.
    The source level for vibratory pile removal of 14-in timber pile is 
based measurements conducted at the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal during 
vibratory removal of a 12-in timber pile by WSDOT (Laughlin 2011). The 
recorded source level is 152 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa at 16 m from 
the pile, with an adjusted source level of 155 dBrms re 1 
[mu]Pa at 10 m.
    The source levels for vibratory pile removal of 12-in steel and 14-
in steel H piles are based on vibratory pile driving of 12-in steel 
pipe pile measured by CALTRANS. The unweighted source level is 155 
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m.
    A summary of source levels is presented in Table 4.

                             Table 4--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving Source Levels
                                              [At 10 m from source]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   SEL, dB  re 1  SPLrms, dB  re   SPLpk, dB  re
                Method                    Pile type/size (inch)     [mu]Pa\2\-s      1 [mu]Pa        1 [mu]Pa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving/removal.............  Steel, 24-in............             174             174  ..............
Vibratory driving/removal.............  Steel, 30-in............             174             174  ..............
Vibratory driving.....................  Steel, 36-in............             177             177  ..............
Impact pile driving (proof)...........  Steel, 36-in............             178             193             210

[[Page 24286]]

 
Vibratory driving.....................  Steel, 108-in...........             180             180  ..............
Vibratory removal.....................  Timber, 14-in...........             155             155  ..............
Vibratory removal.....................  Steel, 12-in............             155             155  ..............
Vibratory removal.....................  Steel H, 14-in..........             155             155  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These source levels are used to compute the Level A injury zones 
and to estimate the Level B harassment zones. For Level A harassment 
zones, since the peak source levels for both pile driving are below the 
injury thresholds, cumulative SEL were used to do the calculations 
using the NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016).

Estimating Harassment Zones

    The Level B harassment ensonified areas for vibratory removal of 
the 14-in timber, 12-in steel, 14-in steel H, and 18-in concrete piles 
are based on the above source level of 155 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa 
at 10 m, applying practical spreading loss of 15*log(R) for 
transmission loss calculation. The derived distance to the 120-dB Level 
B zone is 2,175 m.
    For Level B harassment ensonified areas for vibratory pile driving 
and removal of the 24-in, 30-in, 36-in, and 108-in steel piles, the 
distance is based on measurements conducted during the year 1 Seattle 
multimodal project at Colman. The result showed that pile driving noise 
of two 36-in steel piles being concurrently driven was no longer 
detectable at a range of 5.4 miles (8.69 km) (WSDOT 2017). Therefore, 
the distance of 8,690 m is selected as the Level B harassment distance 
for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24-in, 30-in, 36-in and 
108-in steel piles.
    The Level B harassment ensonified area for impact pile driving of 
the 36-in steel piles is based on the above source level of 193 
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m, applying practical spreading loss 
of 15*log(R) for transmission loss calculation. The derived distance to 
the 160-dB Level B zone is 1,585 m.
    For Level A harassment, calculation is based on pile driving 
duration of each pile and the number of piles installed or removed per 
day, using NMFS optional spreadsheet.

                                                Table 5--Modeled Distances and Areas to Harassment Zones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             SL  (10m)                      Level A distance (m)  Level A area (km\2\)                        Level B
                                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  distance (m)
                                                                                                                                           Level A area
          Pile driving activity                                                                                                               (km\2\)
                                                SEL        LF  Cetacean    MF  Cetacean    HF  Cetacean       Phocid          Otariid    ---------------
                                                                                                                                            All marine
                                                                                                                                              mammals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive/removal, 24'' & 30''                 174            96.7             8.6           143.0            58.8             4.1           8,690
 steel piles, 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile..
                                                                    0.03            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00           74.29
Vibratory removal 30'' steel pile, 1                 174            24.2             2.1            35.7            14.7             1.0           8,960
 pile/day, 20 min/pile..................
                                                                    0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00           74.29
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile, 6 piles/            177           126.4            11.2           186.9            76.8             5.4           8,960
 day, 20 min/pile.......................
                                                                    0.05            0.00            0.11            0.02            0.00           74.29
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile, 8 piles/            177           153.3            13.6           226.6            93.2             6.5           8,960
 day, 20 min/pile.......................
                                                                    0.07            0.00            0.16            0.03            0.00           74.29
Impact drive (proof) 36'' steel pile, 8              178           830.9            19.6           989.7           444.7            32.4           1,585
 piles/day, 300 strikes/pile............
                                                                    2.17            0.00            3.08            0.62            0.00            7.89
Vibratory drive 108'' steel pile, 1 pile/            180           200.3            17.8           296.2           121.8             8.5           8,690
 day, 120 min/pile......................
                                                                    0.13            0.00            0.28            0.05            0.00           74.29
Vibratory remove 14'' timber pile, 20                155             8.0             0.7            11.8             4.8             0.3           2,154
 piles/day, 15 min/pile.................
                                                                    0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00           14.57
Vibratory remove 12'' steel pile, 11                 155             6.5             0.6             9.6             3.9             0.3           2,154
 piles/day, 20 min/pile.................
                                                                    0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00           14.57

[[Page 24287]]

 
Vibratory remove 14'' steel H pile, 10               155             6.1             0.5             9.0             3.7             0.3           2,154
 piles/day, 20 min/pile.................
                                                                    0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00           14.57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distances of ensonified area for different pile driving/removal 
activities for different marine mammal hearing groups is present in 
Table 5.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    All marine mammal density data except harbor seal, California sea 
lion, harbor porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, and short-beaked common 
dolphin are from the U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Report. For 
harbor seal and California sea lion, because WSDOT has better local 
distribution data based on recent survey in the area, local animal 
abundance are used to calculate the take numbers. Specifically, the 
occurrence of these two species are based on local seal abundance 
information off the Seattle area from Year One (2017/18) of WSDOT's 
Seattle Colman Project.
    For bottlenose dolphin and short-beaked common dolphin, no density 
estimate is available. Therefore, take numbers for these two species 
are based on prior anecdotal observations and strandings in the action 
area (Shuster et al., 2015; Huggins et al., 2016).
    Harbor porpoise density is based on a recent study by Smultea et 
al. (2017) for the Seattle area near the Colman Dock.
    A summary of marine mammal density, days and Level A and Level B 
harassment areas from different pile driving and removal activities is 
provided in Table 6.

Table 6--Marine Mammal Density and Local Occurrence in the WSDOT Project
                                  Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Density (#/km\2\) or animals/
                Species                                day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.............................  0.0051/km\2\.
Minke whale............................  0.00003/km\2\.
Killer whale (West coast transient)....  0.002/km\2\.
Bottlenose dolphin.....................  NA.
Short-beaked common dolphin............  NA.
Harbor porpoise........................  0.54/km\2\.
Dall's porpoise........................  0.048/km\2\.
California sea lion....................  11 animals/day.
Steller sea lion.......................  0.04/km\2\.
Harbor seal............................  8 animals/day.
Northern elephant seal.................  0.00001/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    For all other marine mammals, takes were calculated as: Take = 
ensonified area x average animal abundance in the area x pile driving 
days. All Level A takes were further adjusted by subtract animals that 
would occur within the Level A harassment zone (except for harbor seal 
where a 60-m shutdown zone would be implemented), where pile driving 
activities that could cause Level A injury for all marine mammals, 
except harbor seal, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise, would be 
suspended when an animal is observed to approach such a zone. Further, 
the number of Level B takes were adjusted to exclude those already 
counted for Level A takes.
    The harbor seal take estimate is based on local seal abundance 
information off the Seattle area from Year One (2017/18) of WSDOT's 
Seattle Colman Project. During 99 days of marine mammal visual 
monitoring, 813 harbor seals were observed, an average of 8.212 
animals/day, with a one-day high of 43 observations on 10/24/17 (WSDOT 
2018b). By adjusting the averaged observation of harbor seals to 11 
animals/day as a conservative estimate to account for possible missed 
observation, and based on a total of 114 pile driving days for the 
WSDOT Seattle Colman Dock project, it is estimated that up to 1,254 
harbor seals could be exposed to noise levels associated with ``take''. 
Since 17 days would involve vibratory/impact pile driving of 36-in 
steel piles (16 days) and vibratory driving of and 108-in steel pile (1 
day) with Level A zones beyond shutdown zones (231 m and 122 m, 
respectively, vs. the 60-m shutdown zone), we consider that 187 harbor 
seals exposed during these 17 days would experience Level A harassment. 
The difference between the 1,254 total takes and the 187 Level A takes 
makes up the harbor seal Level B takes, which is 1,067 animals.
    The California sea lion take estimate is also based on local sea 
lion abundance information from the Seattle Colman Project. During 99 
days of marine mammal visual monitoring 1,047 California sea lions were 
observed, an average of 11 animals/day, with a one-day high of 48 
observations on 1/8/2018. (WSDOT 2018b). By adjusting the averaged 
observation of harbor seals to 14 animals/day as a conservative 
estimate to account for possible missed observation, and based on a 
total of 114 pile driving days for the WSDOT Seattle Colman Dock 
project, it is estimated that up to 1,596 California sea lions could be 
exposed to noise levels associated with ``take''. Although the Level A 
zones of otariids are all very small (<33 m, Table 5) and WSDOT will 
implement strict shutdown measures if a sea lion is observed to be 
moving towards the Level A zone, it is still possible that in rare 
occasions an animal could enter the Level A zone undetected. We 
therefore, estimate that one California sea lion could be taken by 
Level A harassment on each of the 16 days that involve vibratory/impact 
pile driving of 36-in steel piles when the Level A zone is 32 m. Thus a 
total of 16 Level A harassment of California sea lion is estimated. The 
difference between the 1,596 total takes and the 16 Level A takes makes 
up the California sea lions Level B takes, which is 1,580 animals. The 
same reasoning for estimating Steller sea lion Level A takes, which 
results an estimated 16 Level A takes and 216 Level B takes.

[[Page 24288]]

    The Common bottlenose dolphin estimate is based on sightings data 
from Cascadia Research Collective. Between September 2017 and March 
2018, a group of up to five to six individuals was sighted in South 
Puget Sound (CRC 2017/18). It is assumed that this group is still 
present in the area.
    Given how rare Common bottlenose dolphins are in the area, it is 
unlikely they would be present on a daily basis. Instead it is assumed 
that they may be present in the Level B harassment zone once a month 
during the in-water work window (7 months), and adjusted for potential 
group size of 5-10 individuals with an average of 7 animals per group.
    The Long-beaked Common dolphin estimate is based on sightings data 
from Cascadia Research Collective. Four to six Long-beaked Common 
dolphins have remained in Puget Sound since June 2016, and four animals 
with distinct markings have been seen multiple times and in every 
season of the year as of October 2017 (CRC 2017).
    Given how rare Long-beaked Common dolphins are in the area, it is 
unlikely they would be present on a daily basis. Instead it is assumed 
that they may be present in the Level B harassment zone once a month 
during the in-water work window (7 months), and adjusted for potential 
group size of 5-10 individuals with an average of 7 animals per group.
    For harbor porpoise, density based Level A take calculation yields 
a total of 28 animals. However, due to the large Level A distance 
during the 36-in pile driving (990 m) during 16 days and the 108-in 
pile driving (296 m) during one day, its Level A take is readjusted to 
account for a typical animal group size of 3 multiplied by these 17 
days with large Level A zones. Therefore, we estimate that a total of 
51 harbor porpoise could be taken by Level A harassment.
    For Dall's porpoise, due to its relatively uncommon occurrence in 
comparison to harbor porpoise, the estimated Level A take is scaled 
down by \1/3\ that of harbor porpoise, yielding 17 Level A takes.
    For calculated take number less than 15, such as northern elephant 
seals, transient killer whales, gray whales, and minke whales, takes 
numbers were adjusted to account for group encounter and the likelihood 
of encountering. Specifically, for northern elephant seal, take of 15 
animals is estimated based on the likelihood of encountering this 
species during the project period. For transient killer whale, takes of 
30 animals is estimated based on the group size and the likelihood of 
encountering in the area. For gray whale and minke whale, takes of 30 
and 8 animals each are estimated, respectively, based on the likelihood 
of encountering.
    For SRKWs, WSDOT will implement strict monitoring and mitigation 
measures and to suspend pile driving activities when such animal is 
detected in the vicinity of the action area (see Proposed Mitigation 
section below).
    A summary of estimated takes based on the above analysis is listed 
in Table 7.

                                         Table 7--Estimated Take Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Estimated       Estimated       Estimated
             Species               Level A take    Level B take     total take       Abundance      Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific harbor seal.............             187           1,067           1,254          11,036              11
Northern elephant seal..........               0              15              15          81,368               0
California sea lion.............              16           1,580           1,596         296,750               1
Steller sea lion................              16             216             232          67,290               0
Killer whale, transient.........               0              30              30             243              12
Killer whale, Southern Resident.               0               0               0              84               0
Gray whale......................               0              30              30          20,990               0
Humpback whale..................               0               0               0           1,918               0
Minke whale.....................               0               8               8             202               2
Harbor porpoise.................              51           3,946           3,997          11,233            * 36
Dall's porpoise.................              17             261             278          25,750               1
Long-beaked common dolphin......               0              49              49         101,305               0
Bottlenose dolphin..............               0              49              49           1,921               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The percentage of individual harbor porpoises take is estimated to be notably smaller than this, as described
  in the ``Small Numbers'' section.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned); and
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    1. Time Restriction.

[[Page 24289]]

    Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring 
of marine mammals can be conducted.
    2. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, 
and Shutdown Zones.
    WSDOT shall establish shutdown zones that encompass the distances 
within which marine mammals could be taken by Level A harassment (see 
Table 7 above) except for harbor seal. For Level A harassment zones 
that is less than 10 m from the source, a minimum of 10 m distance 
should be established as a shutdown zone. For harbor seal, a maximum of 
60 m shutdown zone would be implemented if the actual Level A 
harassment zone exceeds 60 m. This is because there are a few 
habituated harbor seals that repeated occur within the larger Level A 
zone, which makes implementing a shutdown zone larger than 60 m 
infeasible.
    A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 8.

          Table 8--Shutdown Zones for Various Pile Driving Activities and Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Injury zone (m)
 Pile type, size & pile driving  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             method                 LF cetacean     MF cetacean     HF cetacean       Phocid          Otariid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive/removal, 24'' &               97              10             143              59              10
 30'' steel piles, 8 piles/day,
 20 min/pile....................
Vibratory removal 30'' steel                  24              10              36              15              10
 pile, 1 pile/day, 20 min/pile..
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile,             126              11             187              60              10
 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile.......
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile,             153              14             227              60              10
 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile.......
Impact drive (proof) 36'' steel              432              15             515              60              17
 pile, 8 piles/day, 300 strikes/
 pile...........................
Vibratory drive 108'' steel                  200              18             296              60              10
 pile, 1 pile/day, 120 min/pile.
Vibratory remove 14'' timber                  10              10              12              10              10
 pile, 20 piles/day, 15 min/pile
Vibratory remove 12'' steel                   10              10              10              10              10
 pile, 11 piles/day, 20 min/pile
Vibratory remove 14'' steel H     ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
 pile, 10 piles/day, 20 min/pile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WSDOT shall also establish a Zone of Influence (ZOI) based on the 
Level B harassment zones for take monitoring where received underwater 
SPLs are higher than 160 dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa for impulsive 
noise sources (impact pile driving) and 120 dBrms re 1 
[micro]Pa for non-impulsive noise sources (vibratory pile driving and 
pile removal).
    NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSO) shall conduct an 
initial 30-minute survey of the exclusion zones to ensure that no 
marine mammals are seen within the zones before pile driving and pile 
removal of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within 
the exclusion zone, pile driving of the segment would be delayed until 
they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and 
then dives below, the contractor would wait 15 minutes. If no marine 
mammals are seen by the observer in that time it can be assumed that 
the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
    If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a 
marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to 
commencement of pile driving, or if a shutdown occurs due to marine 
mammal sighting, the observer(s) must notify the pile driving operator 
(or other authorized individual) immediately and continue to monitor 
the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until the marine mammal 
has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have elapsed since the last 
sighting.
    3. Soft-Start.
    A ``soft-start'' technique is intended to allow marine mammals to 
vacate the area before the impact pile driver reaches full power. 
Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact 
pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up 
procedures described below.
    Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an 
initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent 
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent 
three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at 
the beginning of impact pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for 
more than 30 minutes.
    4. Shutdown Measures.
    WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is 
detected within an exclusion zone or is about to enter an exclusion 
zone listed in Tables 8.
    WSDOT shall also implement shutdown measures if SRKWs or humpback 
whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are 
approaching the ZOI during in-water construction activities.
    If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or 
removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer 
whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the 
shutdown measure.
    If a SRKW, an unidentified killer whale, or a humpback whale enters 
the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall be 
suspended until the whale exits the ZOI to avoid further level B 
harassment.
    Further, WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of 
authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the 
IHA or if a marine mammal observed is not authorized for take under 
this IHA, if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the 
project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during in-
water construction activities.
    5. Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network.
    Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the Orca Network 
and/or Center for Whale Research will be contacted by WSDOT to find out 
the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings 
Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, 
scientists, and government agency personnel in the U.S. and Canada. 
Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately 
distributed to other sighting networks including: The NMFS Northwest 
Fisheries Science Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia 
Research, the Whale Museum Hotline and the British Columbia Sightings 
Network.
    Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes 
detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a 
system of

[[Page 24290]]

interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine environment of Haro 
Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca communication, in-
water noise, bottom fish ecology and local climatic conditions. A 
hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center measures average 
in-water sound levels and automatically detects unusual sounds. These 
passive acoustic devices allow researchers to hear when different 
marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic network, combined 
with the volunteer (incidental) visual sighting network allows 
researchers to document presence and location of various marine mammal 
species.
    With this level of coordination in the region of activity, WSDOT 
will be able to get real-time information on the presence or absence of 
whales before starting any pile driving.
    Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the prescribed mitigation measures 
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the 
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Proposed Monitoring Measures

    WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal 
monitoring for its dolphin relocation project at Bremerton and Edmonds 
ferry terminals. The purposes of marine mammal monitoring are to 
implement mitigation measures and learn more about impacts to marine 
mammals from WSDOT's construction activities. The PSOs will observe and 
collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 
minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and 
pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following 
requirements:
    1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required;
    2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer;
    3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree 
in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
    4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer; and
    5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
    Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be 
conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power). 
Due to the different sizes of ZOI from different pile types, three 
different ZOIs and different monitoring protocols corresponding to a 
specific pile type will be established.
     For Level B harassment zones with radii less than 1,600 m, 
3 PSOs will be monitoring from land.
     For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 1,600 
m but smaller than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land.
     For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 2,500 
m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land with an additional 1 PSO 
monitoring from a ferry.
    6. PSOs shall collect the following information during marine 
mammal monitoring:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for 
each day conducted (monitoring period);
     Construction activities occurring during each daily 
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
     Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile 
types, average driving times, etc.;
     Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind 
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
     Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea 
state, tide state);
     For each marine mammal sighting:
    [cir] Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
    [cir] Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from 
pile driving activity;
    [cir] Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine 
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point; 
and
    [cir] Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the 
Level B zone;
     Description of implementation of mitigation measures 
within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay);
     Other human activity in the area within each monitoring 
period
    To verify the required monitoring distance, the exclusion zones and 
ZOIs will be determined by using a range finder or hand-held global 
positioning system device.
    WSDOT will conduct noise field measurement to determine the actual 
Level B distance from the source during vibratory pile of the first 
pile. If the actual Level B harassment distance is less than modelled, 
the number of PSOs will be adjusted based on the criteria listed above.

Reporting Measures

    WSDOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90 
days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the 
IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. In the case if WSDOT intends 
to renew the IHA (if issued) in a subsequent year, a

[[Page 24291]]

monitoring report should be submitted 60 days before the expiration of 
the current IHA (if issued). This report would detail the monitoring 
protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate 
the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would 
have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if NMFS has 
comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a final report to 
NMFS within 30 days.
    In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS' Office of 
Protected Resources and NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within 
48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the 
construction site. WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the Stranding Network 
with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the 
animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead), 
location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and 
photo or video (if available).
    In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that 
is not in the construction area, WSDOT would report the same 
information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses 
applies to all the species listed in Table 7, given that the 
anticipated effects of WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal at Colman Dock 
project involving pile driving and pile removal on marine mammals are 
expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information 
about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or 
structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different 
analysis by species for this activity, or else species-specific factors 
would be identified and analyzed.
    Although a few marine mammals (132 harbor seals, 12 harbor 
porpoises, and 1 Dall's porpoise) are estimated to experience Level A 
harassment in the form of PTS if they stay within the Level A 
harassment zone during the entire pile driving for the day, the degree 
of injury is expected to be mild and is not likely to affect the 
reproduction or survival of the individual animals. It is expected 
that, if hearing impairments occurs, most likely the affected animal 
would lose a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is 
not likely to affect its survival and recruitment. Hearing impairment 
that occur for these individual animals would be limited to the 
dominant frequency of the noise sources, i.e., in the low-frequency 
region below 2 kHz. Therefore, the degree of PTS is not likely to 
affect the echolocation performance of the two porpoise species, which 
use frequencies mostly above 100 kHz. Nevertheless, for all marine 
mammal species, it is known that in general animals avoid areas where 
sound levels could cause hearing impairment. Therefore, it is not 
likely that an animal would stay in an area with intense noise that 
could cause severe levels of hearing damage. In addition, even if an 
animal receives a TTS, the TTS would be a one-time event from the 
exposure, making it unlikely that the TTS would evolve into PTS. 
Furthermore, Level A take estimates are based on the assumption that 
the animals are randomly distributed in the project area and would not 
avoid intense noise levels that could cause TTS or PTS. In reality, 
animals tend to avoid areas where noise levels are high (Richardson et 
al., 1995). Nonetheless, we evaluate the estimated take in this 
negligible impact analysis.
    For these species except harbor seal, harbor porpoise and Dall's 
porpoise, takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be 
limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral and TTS). Marine 
mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B 
harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle 
reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during 
pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise. A few marine 
mammals could experience TTS if they occur within the Level B TTS ZOI. 
However, as discussed earlier in this document, TTS is a temporary loss 
of hearing sensitivity when exposed to loud sound, and the hearing 
threshold is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours. 
Therefore, it is not considered an injury.
    Portions of the SRKW is within the proposed action area. However, 
WSDOT would be required to implement strict mitigation measures to 
suspend pile driving or pile removal activities when this stock is 
detected in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the potential 
effects to SRKW would be fully mitigated. There is no other important 
areas for marine mammals, such as know important feeding, pupping, or 
other areas.
    The project also is not expected to have significant adverse 
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in 
the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' subsection. There 
is no ESA designated critical area in the vicinity of the Seattle 
Multimodal Project at Colman Dock area. The project activities would 
not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities 
may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, 
thus impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited 
portion of the foraging range. However, because of the short duration 
of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may 
be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to 
cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given 
the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species 
and their physical environment, WSDOT's proposed construction activity 
at Colman Dock would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
     Injury--only 3 species of marine mammals would experience 
Level A affects in the form of mild PTS, which is expected to be of 
small degree.
     Behavioral disturbance--eleven species/stocks of marine 
mammals would experience behavioral

[[Page 24292]]

disturbance and TTS from the WSDOT's Seattle Colman Dock project. 
However, as discussed earlier, the area to be affected is small and the 
duration of the project is short. Although portion of the SWKR critical 
habitat is within the project area, strict mitigation measures such as 
implementing shutdown measures and suspending pile driving will 
mitigate such effects. No other important habitat for marine mammals 
exist in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the overall 
impacts are expected to be insignificant.
    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 take from the proposed activity 
will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or 
stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified 
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not 
define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of 
individuals anticipated to be taken to the most appropriate estimation 
of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether 
an authorization would be limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
    The estimated takes are below 13 percent of the population for all 
marine mammals except harbor porpoise (Table 7). For harbor porpoise, 
the estimate of 3,997 incidences of takes would be 36 percent of the 
population, if each single take were a unique individual. However, this 
is highly unlikely because the harbor porpoise in Washington waters 
shows site fidelity to small areas for periods of time that can extend 
between seasons (Hanson et al., 1999; Hanson 2007a, 2007b). For 
example, Hanson et al., (1999) tracked a female harbor porpoise for 215 
days, during which it remained exclusively within the southern Strait 
of Georgia region. Based on studies by Jefferson et al. (2016), harbor 
porpoise abundance in the southern Puget Sound region, which 
encompasses waters off Seattle, is 550. Therefore, if the estimated 
incidents of take accrued to all the animals expected to occur in the 
entire southern Puget Sound area (550 animals), it would be 4.90 
percent of the Washington inland water stock of the harbor porpoise.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of 
each species or stock will be taken relative to the population size of 
the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Subsistence Analysis and Determination

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

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat.
    The California-Oregon-Washington stock of humpback whale and the 
Southern Resident stock of killer whale are the only marine mammal 
species listed under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity of 
WSDOT's proposed construction projects. Two DPSs of humpback whales, 
the Mexico DPS and the Central America DPS, are listed as threatened 
and endangered under the ESA, respectively. NMFS is proposing to 
authorize take of California/Oregon/Washington stock of humpback whale, 
which are listed under the ESA. NMFS worked with WSDOT to implement 
shutdown measures in the IHA that would avoid takes of both SR killer 
whale and humpback whales. Therefore, NMFS determined that no ESA-
listed marine mammal species would be affected as a result of WSDOT's 
Seattle Colman Dock construction project.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to WSDOT for conducting Seattle Multimodal Project at 
Colman Dock in Seattle, Washington, between August 1, 2018, and July 
31, 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft 
of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed 
for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
    1. This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2018, through July 
31, 2019.
    2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with 
in-water construction work at the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman 
Dock in the State of Washington.
    3. (a) The species authorized taking by Level A and Level B 
harassments and in the numbers shown in Table 7 are: Gray whale 
(Eschrichtius robustus), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), 
killer whale (Orcinus orca), long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus 
capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), harbor porpoise 
(Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (P. dali), California sea lion 
(Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), 
Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and northern elephant seal 
(Mirounga angustirostris).
    (b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the 
following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
    (1) Vibratory pile and impact pile driving; and
    (2) Vibratory pile removal.
    4. Prohibitions.
    (a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the 
species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in 
Table 7 of this notice. The taking by serious injury or death of these 
species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other 
species of marine mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or 
exempted under the MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension, 
or revocation of this Authorization.
    (b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the 
required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 
7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this 
Authorization.
    5. Mitigation.
    (a) Time Restriction. In-water construction work shall occur only 
during daylight hours.
    (b) Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, 
and Shutdown Zones.
    (i) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal 
activities, WSDOT shall establish Level A harassment zones. The modeled 
Level A zones are summarized in Table 5.
    (ii) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal 
activities, WSDOT shall establish Level B harassment zones. The modeled 
Level B zones are summarized in Table 5.
    (iii) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal 
activities, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones.

[[Page 24293]]

The proposed exclusion zones are summarized in Table 8.
    (iv) If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and 
a marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior 
to commencement of pile driving, or if a shutdown occurs due to marine 
mammal sighting, the observer(s) must notify the pile driving operator 
(or other authorized individual) immediately and continue to monitor 
the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until the marine mammal 
has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have elapsed since the last 
sighting.
    (c) Monitoring of marine mammals shall take place starting 30 
minutes before pile driving begins until 30 minutes after pile driving 
ends.
    (d) Soft Start
    (i) When there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without pile 
driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up 
procedures described below.
    (ii) Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide 
an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent 
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent 
three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at 
the beginning of impact pile driving or removal, or if pile driving has 
ceased for more than 30 minutes.
    (e) Shutdown Measures
    (i) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is 
detected within or to be approaching the exclusion zones provided in 
Table 8 of this notice.
    (ii) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if SRKWs (SRKWs) or 
humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and 
are approaching the Level B harassment zone (zone of influence, or ZOI) 
during in-water construction activities.
    (iii) If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or 
removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer 
whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the 
shutdown measure identified in 6(e)(ii).
    (iv) If a SRKW or a humpback whale enters the ZOI undetected, in-
water pile driving or pile removal shall be suspended until the SRKW 
exits the ZOI to avoid further level B harassment.
    (v) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any 
allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA or if a 
marine mammal observed is not authorized for take under this IHA, if 
such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area 
and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during pile removal 
activities.
    (f) Coordination with Local Marine Mammal Research Network and 
obtaining marine mammal sightings and acoustic detection data. Prior to 
the start of pile driving, WSDOT will contact the Orca Network and/or 
Center for Whale Research to get real-time information on the presence 
or absence of whales before starting any pile driving,
    6. Monitoring.
    (a) Protected Species Observers.
    WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal 
monitoring for its construction project. NMFS-approved PSOs will meet 
the following qualifications.
    (i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required.
    (ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    (iii) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate 
degree in biological science or related field) or training for 
experience.
    (iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    (v) NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
    (b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall be present on site at all 
times during pile removal and driving.
    (i) A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be 
required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A 
30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required 
after the last pile driving or pile removal of the day. If the 
constructors take a break between subsequent pile driving or pile 
removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional 30-minute pre-
construction marine mammal monitoring will be required before the next 
start-up of pile driving or pile removal.
    (ii) Marine mammal visual monitoring will be conducted for 
different zones of influence (ZOIs) based on different sizes of piles 
being driven or removed.
    (A) For Level B harassment zones with radii less than 1,600 m, 3 
PSOs will be monitoring from land.
    (B) For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 1,600 m but 
smaller than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land.
    (C) For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 2,500 m, 4 
PSOs will be monitoring from land with an additional 1 PSO monitoring 
from a ferry.
    (iii) If marine mammals are observed, the following information 
will be documented:
    (A) Species of observed marine mammals;
    (B) Number of observed marine mammal individuals;
    (C) Behavior of observed marine mammals; and
    (D) Location within the ZOI.
    (c) Passive Acoustic Monitoring:
    (i) WSDOT will conduct noise field measurement to determine the 
actual Level B distance from the source during vibratory pile of the 
first pile.
    (ii) If the actual Level B harassment distance is less than 
modelled, the number of PSOs will be adjusted based on the criteria 
listed above.
    7. Reporting.
    (a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 
90 days of the conclusion of the construction work or within 90 days of 
the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes first. This report shall 
detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during 
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have 
been harassed.
    (b) IF WSDOT plans to renew the IHA for an additional year, a 
monitoring report must be received within 60 days before the expiration 
of an existing IHA.
    (c) If comments are received from NMFS Office of Protected 
Resources on the draft report, a final report shall be submitted to 
NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, 
the draft report will be considered to be the final report.
    (d) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities 
clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by 
this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or 
mortality, WSDOT shall immediately cease all operations and immediately 
report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 
West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the 
following information:
    (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    (ii) description of the incident;
    (iii) status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    (iv) environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, sea 
state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);
    (v) description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (vi) species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (vii) the fate of the animal(s); and
    (viii) photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is 
available).

[[Page 24294]]

    (e) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with WSDOT to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WSDOT may not resume their 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
    (f) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
WSDOT will immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. 
The report must include the same information identified above. 
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 
incident. NMFS will work with WSDOT to determine whether modifications 
in the activities are appropriate.
    (g) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), WSDOT shall report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional 
Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. WSDOT shall 
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other 
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine 
Mammal Stranding Network. WSDOT can continue its operations under such 
a case.
    8. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if 
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if 
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible 
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
    9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each 
contractor who performs the construction work at the Colman ferry 
terminals.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed WSDOT 
Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock. We also request comment on 
the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the 
paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data 
or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the 
request for MMPA authorization.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA 
without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly 
identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section 
is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the 
IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the 
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, 
provided all of the following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the 
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed 
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates, 
or mitigation and monitoring requirements.
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
    Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected 
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines 
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the 
mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and 
the original findings remain valid.

    Dated: May 22, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11334 Filed 5-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.