Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30421 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG205 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Mukilteo 

Multimodal Project—Season 3 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Washington Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) Ferries 

Division (WSF) for an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) that 

would cover a subset of the take 

authorized in an IHA previously issued 

to WSDOT to incidentally take marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

during construction activities associated 

with the Mukilteo Multimodal Project, 

Puget Sound, Washington. During 

planning of season 2 of the project (for 

which NMFS issued an IHA) it was 

assumed that the project would be 

completed within the year timeframe; 

however, that was not accomplished. 

Therefore, WSDOT is requesting, and 

NMFS is proposing to issue, an IHA 

authorizing incidental take for the 

remaining work which was already 

analyzed in an 2017 IHA issued to 

WSDOT on August 3, 2017 (herein after 

referred to as the 2017 IHA) (September 

21, 2017). However, some changes have 

occurred during this year’s evaluation of 

the project. Source levels and 

harassment distances have been 

adjusted based on recent acoustic 

measurements and amount of time pile 

driving expected to occur each day. In 

addition, WSDOT has requested take for 

three species not included in the 2017 

IHA (minke whales (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata), bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus), and long-beaked 

common dolphins (Delphinus delphis 

bairdii)) based on recent marine 

mammal monitoring. The proposed 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures remain the same as prescribed 

in the 2017 IHA with slight 

modifications (e.g., shut down zones 

distance changes) as described below. 

NMFS is requesting comments on its 

proposal to issue an IHA to incidentally 

take marine mammals during the 

completion of Phase 2 of the Mukilteo 

Multimodal Project. NMFS will 

consider public comments prior to 

making any final decision on the 

issuance of the requested MMPA 

authorization and agency responses will 

be summarized in the final notice of our 

decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 30, 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.daly@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 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: 

Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8438. 

Electronic copies of the original 

application and supporting documents 

(including NMFS FR notices of the 

original proposed and final 

authorizations), 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: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of 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, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
30422 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On April 7, 2016, WSDOT submitted 

a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for 

the possible harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammal species 

incidental to construction associated 

with Phase 2 of the Mukilteo 

Multimodal Project in Mukilteo, 

Washington, between August 1, 2017, 

and July 31, 2018. NMFS issued the 

requested IHA on August 3, 2017, which 

covered Phase 2 of the project in its 

entirety and expires on July 31, 2018 (82 

FR 44164; September 21, 2017). On 

January 9, 2018, we received a request 

from WSDOT for a subsequent 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to the project because they 

realized all of the Phase 2 work would 

not be able to be completed under the 

existing IHA. A final version of the 

application, which we deemed adequate 

and complete, was submitted on March 

1, 2018. 

Description of the Proposed Activity 

and Anticipated Impacts 

WSDOT operates and maintains 19 

ferry terminals and one maintenance 

facility, all of which are located in Puget 

Sound or the San Juan Islands (Georgia 

Basin) (Figure 1–1 in WSDOT’s 

application). The Mukilteo Multimodal 

Project is a multi-year construction 

project designed to improve the 

operations and facilities serving the 

mainland terminus of the MukilteoClinton ferry route in Washington State. 

The 2017 IHA covered the installation 

of 661 piles of various sizes over an 

estimated 175 days of pile driving and 

removal (Table 1). WSDOT did not 

complete all the work, and now requests 

that this proposed IHA cover take 

incidental to the installation of the 

remaining piles (Table 1). The 2017 IHA 

authorized Level A and B harassment of 

two species of marine mammals and 

Level B harassment of seven species of 

marine mammals (Table 2). WSDOT 

requests authorization to harass these 

same species and an additional three 

species based on recent marine mammal 

monitoring near the project area 

(Table 2). 

To support public review and 

comment on the IHA that NMFS is 

proposing to issue here, we refer to the 

documents related to the previously 

issued IHA and discuss any new or 

changed information here. The previous 

documents include the Federal Register 

notice of the proposed IHA (82 FR 

29713; May 10, 2017), Federal Register 

notice of issuance of the 2017 IHA (82 

FR 44164, September 21, 2017), and all 

associated references and documents. 

We also refer the reader to WSDOT’s 

previous and current applications and 

monitoring reports which can be found 

at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/ 

23111. 

Detailed Description of the Action—A 

detailed description of the proposed 

vibratory and impact pile driving and 

removal activities at the Mukilteo 

Terminal is found in the 

aforementioned documents. The 

location, timing, and nature of the pile 

driving operations, including the type 

and size of piles and the methods of pile 

driving, are identical to those described 

in the previous notices, except that only 

a subset of the type and number of piles 

are proposed to be driven. In total, 116 

piles would be installed with a vibratory 

hammer. Sixty five of those piles would 

also be proofed with an impact hammer 

on the same day vibratory pile driving 

would occur. Sixty five of the installed 

24-in piles (some of which may be 

proofed with the impact hammer) 

would be temporary and would also be 

removed. WSDOT anticipates piles 

equal to or less than 36′′ would be 

installed at a rate of 3 per day for a total 

of 38 days. An additional two days is 

needed to install the 78-in piles and 

120-in piles. Sixty five of those piles 

would be removed at a rate of five per 

day for a total of 22 days. In total, up 

to 63 days of pile driving and removal 

may occur. WSDOT anticipates pile 

driving could occur over a seven month 

in-water work window (July 15- 

February 15). 

TABLE 1—DESCRIPTION OF WORK PLANNED, ANALYZED, AND COMPLETED UNDER THE 2017 IHA AND REMAINING WORK

PLANNED FOR 2018–2019 

Method Pile size 

(in) 

Season 2 

planned 

(2017 IHA) 

Season 2 

completed 

Season 3 

planned 

(2018 IHA) 

Number 

of days Comment 

Vibratory Driving ........ 12 139 134 0 0 Fewer needed, complete. 

24 69 4 65 22 Up to 69 temporary. 

24 48 0 26 9 Fewer needed, permanent. 

30 40 25 16 5 Permanent. 

36 6 0 6 2 Permanent. 

78 2 0 2 1 Permanent. 

120 1 0 1 2 Permanent. 

sheet 90 0 0 0 Design change, not needed. 

Vibratory Removal ..... 24 69 4 65 22 Temporary. 

30 9 0 0 0 Delayed. 

sheet 90 0 0 0 Design change, not needed. 

Impact Driving ............ 24 69 4 65 1 22 Proofed for load-bearing. 

30 30 25 0 0 Fewer needed, complete. 

1 Impact hammering would be conducted on same day as vibratory pile driving so these are not additional days. 

Description of Marine Mammals—A 

description of the marine mammals in 

the area of the activities is found in the 

previously cited documents, which 

remains applicable to this IHA as well. 

In addition, we include information 

here on three additional species which 

have been recently reported in Puget 

Sound and which WSDOT now requests 

take. We include a summary table here 

for all species and stocks for which take 

is requested. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30423 

TABLE 2—SPECIES AND STOCKS EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN 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 ......................... Eschrichtius robustus ................ Eastern North Pacific ................ N 20,990 (0.05, 20,125, 

2014).

624 132 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeangliae .......... California/Oregon/Washington .. Y 1,918 (0.03, 1,876, 2017) 11.0 9.2 

Minke whale * ...................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata ...... California/Oregon/Washington .. N 636 (0.72, 369, 2016) ..... 3.5 1.3 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale ......................... Orcinus orca ............................. Eastern North Pacific Southern 

Resident.

Y 76 (n/a, 76, 2017) 4 ......... 0 0.14 

West coast transient ................. N unk (unk, 243 2013) ....... 2.4 0 

Bottlenose dolphin * ............ Tursiops truncatus .................... California coastal ...................... N 453 (0.06, 346, 2016) ..... 2.7 ≥2 

Long-beaked common dolphin *.Delphinus delphis bairdii ........... California ................................... N 101,305 (0.49, 68,432, 

2016).

657 35.4 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise .................. Phocoena phocoena ................. Washington inland waters ........ N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 

2016).

66 7.2 

Dall’s porpoise .................... Phocoenoides dalli .................... California/Oregon/Washington .. N 25,750 (0.45, 17,954, 

2016).

172 0.3 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

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

2014).

9,200 389 

Steller sea lion .................... Eumetopias jubatus .................. Eastern U.S .............................. N 52,139 (n/a, 41,638, 

2015).

2,498 108 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vitulina ........................... Washington northern inland 

waters.

N 11,036 (0.15, 1999) ........ 1,641 43 

Elephant seal ...................... Mirounga angustirostris ............ California breeding .................... N 179,000 (n/a, 81,368, 

2014).

2,882 8.8 

1Endangered 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. 3These 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. 4SRWK population abundance as of December 31, 2017 according to the Center for Whale Research. 

5 Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are greater than 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here. * Indicates species added. 

For species analyzed in the 2017 IHA, 

NMFS has reviewed recent draft Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs), information 

on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, 

and recent scientific literature, and 

determined that no new information 

affects our original analysis of impacts 

or previous determinations except what 

is provided below. Since issuing the 

2017 IHA, NMFS published draft SARs 

(82 FR 60181; 19 December 2017) and 

the annual census for Southern Resident 

killer whales concluded. Stock 

information is updated for two species 

that have the potential to occur in the 

activity area: Humpback whale and 

Southern Resident killer whale. Total 

annual mortality and serious injury for 

humpback whales increased from 6.5 to 

9.2 and Southern Resident killer whale 

abundance decreased from 78 to 76 

individuals (the most recent SAR 

information, i.e., the draft 2017 SAR for 

this stock, includes an abundance 

estimate of 83; however, we use the 

December 31, 2017, Center for Whale 

Research population estimate here). 

These proposed changes in the draft 

2017 SARs do not affect our estimated 

take numbers or negligible impact and 

small numbers determinations, and 

therefore these changes do not affect our 

analysis. The potential presence of the 

three additional species (described 

below) during pile driving is very low; 

however, we are proposing to authorize 

take due to WSDOT’s request and 

evidence there is a possibility they may 

be in the action area, albeit rarely. 

Minke whale—The California-OregonWashington (CA-OR-WA) stock of 

minke whale may be found near the 

project site; however, this species is not 

common in Puget Sound. From 2013 

through 2016, year-round systematic 

aerial surveys were conducted to better 

estimate marine mammal density. No 

minke whales were observed during 

these surveys within Puget Sound and 

on only two occasions in September 

2014 were minke whales (n=2) observed 

in nearby Strait of Juan de Fuca 

(Smultea et al. 2017). For the years 2010 

to 2016, in the August to February 

timeframe scheduled for this project, 

The Whale Museum reported a total of 

six sightings days for minke whale in 

the Mukilteo project area (TWM, 2017). 

During 51 days of monitoring from 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
30424 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

September 2017 to February 2018 under 

the 2017 IHA, zero minke whales were 

observed (WSDOT, 2018). 

Bottlenose dolphin—Bottlenose 

dolphins tend to inhabit warmer 

temperate and tropical waters and are 

not usually found in the colder waters 

of Puget Sound. However, bottlenose 

dolphins have been observed in Puget 

Sound as occasional visitors from both 

the offshore CA–OR–WA stock and 

California coastal stock since 1998 (CRC 

2017a). More recently a group of 

dolphins observed in 2017 were 

positively identified as part of the CA 

coastal stock (CRC, 2017a, 2018). The 

more recent sightings in Puget Sound of 

several animals suggest a possible 

significant expansion of their range if 

they remain in the area. Such long 

distance travel outside their traditional 

range (>800 miles) may be due to long 

term changes in climate and shorter 

term fluctuations in coastal water 

conditions, such as those during El Nin ̃ o 

events (CRC, 2017a). From September 

2017 to February 2018, WSF conducted 

marine mammal monitoring during Year 

Two of the Mukilteo Multimodal 

Project. During 51 days of monitoring 

from September 2017 to February 2018 

under the 2017 IHA, zero bottlenose 

dolphins were observed (WSDOT, 

2018). 

Long-beaked common dolphin—Longbeaked common dolphins from the 

California stock could be present near 

the project area. The earliest 

documented sighting of long-beaked 

common dolphins in Puget Sound was 

July 2003. In June 2011, two longbeaked common dolphins were sighted 

in South Puget Sound. Sightings 

continued in 2012, and in 2016–17. 

Four to twelve sightings were reported 

regularly, with confirmed sightings of 

up to 30 individuals. Four to six 

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 

2017b). During 51 days of monitoring 

from September 2017 to February 2018 

under the 2017 IHA, zero long-beaked 

common dolphins were observed 

(WSDOT, 2018). 

Potential Effects on Marine 

Mammals—A description of the 

potential effects of the specified 

activities on marine mammals and their 

habitat is found in these previous 

documents, which remains applicable to 

this IHA. There is no new information 

on potential effects and we anticipate 

the effects evaluated last year are 

germane to the three additional species 

(minke whale, bottlenose dolphin, and 

long-beaked common dolphin) 

authorized to be taken this year. 

Harassment Zones—We updated 

three source levels (24-in vibratory pile 

driving and removal and 24-in impact 

driving) for use in calculating Level A 

harassment isopleths. The 2017 IHA 

reflected a 24-in vibratory pile driving 

source level of 162 decibels (dB) root 

mean square (rms) based on 

measurements at Friday Harbor; 

however, we believe that measurements 

of vibratory driving of 24-in piles at 

Manette Bridge support a higher source 

level of 166 dB rms (Loughlin, 2010). 

We propose to carry over that source 

level to estimate noise levels generated 

by vibratory removal of the same size 

pile. New analysis of measurements 

made at the Coupeville Terminal also 

supports increasing the sound exposure 

level (single-strike; SEL) during 24-in 

impact pile driving from 174 dB SEL to 

178 dB SEL (WSDOT, 2017). To 

estimate distances to the Level B 

harassment isopleth for vibratory 

driving 24–36-in piles, we applied new 

acoustic measurement data (Loughlin, 

2017). For this proposed IHA, we also 

modified the method used to estimate 

Level A harassment zones. The 2017 

IHA analysis used a more sophisticated 

modeling technique, described in detail 

in our 2017 Notice of Proposed IHA 

(citation). It is not warranted to replicate 

that complicated process for this action. 

Therefore, we used the NMFS User 

Spreadsheet tool to estimate Level A 

harassment distances. This approach is 

more conservative than the previous 

modeling effort because it considers a 

single frequency weighting factor 

adjustment (WFA) in lieu of considering 

the full frequency spectrum. Using a 

single frequency WFA is likely to overpredict Level A harassment distances as 

described in NMFS (2016), resulting in 

larger Level A harassment distances. 

The inputs used in the spreadsheet and 

resulting Level A harassment distances 

are presented in Table 3 and 4, 

respectively. Table 4 also contains the 

distances estimated to the Level B 

harassment zones from each type of 

work. Table 5 provides the 

corresponding Level B harassment 

areas, as well as the Level A harassment 

areas for those species for which we 

propose to authorize take by Level A 

harassment. 

TABLE 3—INPUTS INTO NMFS USER SPREADSHEET

Input parameter Vibratory pile driving Impact pile driving 

Weighting Factor Adjustment 1 ....................................... 2.5 kHz ......................................................................... 2 kHz. 

Source Level (SL) .......................................................... See Table 4 .................................................................. See Table 4 (SEL value). 

Duration .......................................................................... 3 hours (24–36′′ piles) ..................................................

2 hours (78′′ piles) ........................................................

1 hour (120′′ pile) .........................................................

n/a. 

Strikes per pile ............................................................... n/a ................................................................................. 300. 

Piles per day .................................................................. n/a ................................................................................. 3. 

Transmission loss coefficient ......................................... 15 .................................................................................. 15. 

Distance from SL measurement .................................... 10 m .............................................................................. 10 m. 

1 In instances where full auditory weighting functions associated with the SELcum metric cannot be applied, NMFS has recommended the default, single frequency weighting factor adjustments (WFAs) provided here. As described in Appendix D of NMFS’ Technical Guidance (NMFS, 

2016), the intent of the WFA is to broadly account for auditory weighting functions below the 95 frequency contour percentile. Use of single frequency WFA is likely to over-predict Level A harassment distances. 

TABLE 4—LEVEL A HARASSMENT DISTANCES CONSIDERING PILE DRIVING DURATION PER 24 HOURS

Method Pile Size Source Level 

(dB) 

Level A 

(meters) Level B 

(m) 

LF 1 MF 1 HF 1 PH 1 OT 1

Vibratory ................ 24 166 rms 2 .......................................... 30.6 2.7 45.3 18.6 1.3 6 8000 

30 174 rms 3 .......................................... 104.5 9.3 154.5 63.5 4.5 6 8000 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30425 

TABLE 4—LEVEL A HARASSMENT DISTANCES CONSIDERING PILE DRIVING DURATION PER 24 HOURS—Continued 

Method Pile Size Source Level 

(dB) 

Level A 

(meters) Level B 

(m) 

LF 1 MF 1 HF 1 PH 1 OT 1

36 177 rms 3 .......................................... 165.6 14.7 244.9 100.7 7.1 7 8700 

78 180 rms 4 .......................................... 200.3 17.8 296.2 121.8 8.5 8 20,000 

120 180 rms 4 .......................................... 126.2 11.2 186.6 76.7 5.4 ................

Impact .................... 24 178 SEL (single strike)/193 rms 5 .... 432.1 15.4 514.7 231.2 16.8 1,585 

1The abbreviatation mean: LF = low frequency cetacean, MF = mid-frequency cetacean, HF = high-frequency cetacean, PH = phocid, OT = 

otariid. 2We assume vibratory removal and vibratory driving the same size pile would result in equal sound levels. Source level for 24′′ piles is based 

on direct measurements during the Manette Bridge project (Loughlin, 2010a). 3Source levels for 30-in and 36-in piles is based on direct measurements during the Port Townsend Project (Loughlin, 2010b). 

4WSDOT does not have noise data for 78 and 120-in piles; therefore, we used data from Caltrans (2015). 

5Single strike SEL and rms values for impact driving 24-in piles is based on direct measurements during pile driving using a bubble curtain 

(i.e., source levels are attenuated) at the Coupeville Terminal (WSDOT, 2017). 6 Measurements during 30′′ vibratory pile driving at Mukilteo in 2017 indicate pile driving was not detected at range of 7.9 km (Laughlin, 

2017a). This equates to 66 km2. 7At the Coleman Terminal, vibratory installation of two 36′′ piles driven simultaneously was not detectable at 8.69 km (5.4 miles) (Laughlin 

2017b). This equates to 69 km2. 8The calculated Level B zone using a practical spreading loss model is 85,770 m; however, land is reached at a maximum of 20,000 m (Lowell Point on Camano Island). This equates to 107 km2. 

TABLE 5—CORRESPONDING HARASSMENT THRESHOLD ENSONIFIED AREAS

Method Pile size 

Level A 

(km2) 1 Level B 

(km2) 2

HF PH OT 

Vibratory ............................................................................... 24 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 66 

30 <0.01 <0.01 ........................ 66 

36 0.06 0.06 ........................ 69 

78 0.01 0.01 ........................ 107 

120 0.01 0.01 ........................ ........................

Impact .................................................................................. 24 0.4 0.4 ........................ 4 

1 Level A harassment areas are provided for species hearing groups for which Level A take is proposed. 

2 Level B harassment areas are germane to all species. 

Estimated Take—A description of the 

methods used to estimate take 

anticipated to occur from the project is 

found in the project’s aforementioned 

documents. The methods of estimating 

take are identical to those used in the 

previous IHA, including the use of the 

Navy 2015 marine mammal densities for 

inland Washington or most recent 

pinniped counts. We also updated 

harbor porpoise and Dall’s porpoise 

density based on new information 

(Smultea et al., 2017 and Navy 2015, 

respectively). Because bottlenose 

dolphin and long-beaked common 

dolphin densities do not exist for this 

area, we used available data to estimate 

a sighting rate. Table 6 includes marine 

mammal count or density information 

used in the estimated take calculations. 

TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL COUNTS AND DENSITIES USED TO ESTIMATE TAKE

Density (ind/ 

km2) Count 

Harbor seal ..................................................................................................................................... ........................ 30/day 1. 

CSL ................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 14/day 2. 

N. elephant seal ............................................................................................................................. ........................ 1/30 days 3. 

Killer whale—transient .................................................................................................................... ........................ 0.3/day 4. 

SSL ................................................................................................................................................. 5 0.0368. 

Gray whale ..................................................................................................................................... 5 0.00051. 

Humpback whale ............................................................................................................................ 5 0.00007. 

Dall’s porpoise ................................................................................................................................ 5 0.039. 

Harbor porpoise .............................................................................................................................. 6 0.75. 

Minke whale ................................................................................................................................... 5 0.002. 

Bottlenose dolphin .......................................................................................................................... ........................ 1 group of 7/30 days 7. 

Long-beaked common dolphin ....................................................................................................... ........................ 1 group of 7/30 days 7. 

1 During 51 days of marine mammal monitoring at the Mukilteo Terminal during 2017–2018 construction (conducted under WSDOT’s previous 

IHA), 1,525 harbor seals were observed for a an average of 30 seals per day. 2 During 51 days of marine mammal monitoring at the Mukilteo Terminal during 2017–2018 construction (conducted under WSDOT’s previous 

IHA), 707 California sea lions were observed for a an average of 14 sea lions per day. 3WSDOT estimates 1 Northern elephant seal may occur in the action area once per month. 

4 During 51 days of marine mammal monitoring at the Mukilteo Terminal during 2017–2018 construction (conducted under WSDOT’s previous 

IHA), 16 transient killer whales observed for an average of 0.3 killer whales per day. 5These densities were derived for the Navy’s Northwest Testing and Training Range Inland Waters (Navy, 2015). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
30426 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

6 Density based on East Whidbey stratum, Table 17 in Smultea (2017). 

7Average group size and sihting frequency based on CRC, 2017. 

The rationale for the amount of take 

requested and proposed is as follows: 

For all estimates, we consider 76 days 

over seven months of pile driving. For 

density based estimates, the equation 

used is density × area × number of pile 

driving days summed across all piles 

types (Table 7) Because 24-in and 30-in 

piles have the same Level B harassment 

zone, we grouped these together. We 

also combined 78-in and 120-piles as 

they also have the same Level B 

harassment zone. 

For harbor porpoise, we calculated 

take using the density identified in 

Table 6; however, this greatly exceeded 

expected take based on previous marine 

mammal monitoring efforts around the 

terminal (e.g., WSDOT, 2018); therefore, 

we applied a 10 percent correction 

factor. For 24-in and 30-in piles: 0.75 × 

66 km2 × 61 days (vibratory installation 

and removal) equals 3020 animals. For 

36-in piles: 0.75 × 69 km2 × 2 days 

equals 104 animals. For 78-in and 120- 

in piles: 0.75 × 107km2 × 2 days = 161 

animals. In total, we calculate 3,285 

harbor porpoise could be taken. 

However, marine mammal monitoring 

conducted under the 2017 IHA yielded 

only 85 harbor porpoise sightings of 

which 28 were taken by harassment. 

Therefore, we are proposing to authorize 

10 percent of the calculate take for a 

total of 329 harbor porpoise. We also 

calculated Level A takes of harbor 

porpoise for the four days vibratory 

driving 36-in through 120-in piles 

would occur and the 30 days of impact 

hammering 24-inch piles because 

vibratory driving 24-in piles does not 

produce a Level A harassment zone 

greater than the shut down zone and is 

very close to the pile (18.6 m). The 

resulting Level A harassment take is 12 

harbor porpoise. We repeated this 

approach for Dall’s porpoise and the 

Level B harassment take estimate 

approach for minke whales, humpback 

whales, gray whales, and Steller sea 

lions. We are not proposing Level A 

harassment take of the latter three 

species. 

For estimates considering counts, we 

considered the following. Over 51 days 

of marine mammal monitoring during 

the 2017/18 Mukilteo project, 1,525 

harbor seals were observed. During 

active pile driving, 499 Level B takes 

and 15 Level A takes (or 3 percent of 

authorized Level B takes of harbor seals) 

were recorded, approximately 34 

percent of the number of animals 

observed. To be conservative, it is 

assumed that up to 75 percent of the 

seals observed may be taken under this 

IHA, or 21 seals per day × 76 days = 

1,596. We are allocating five percent of 

that amount to Level A take which is 

slightly greater than the three percent 

documented under the 2017 IHA. 

Therefore, we propose to authorize 80 

Level A harassment takes and 1516 

Level B harassment takes for a total of 

1,596 harbor seal takes. California sea 

lion takes considered 14 animals × 76 

days for a total of 1,064 Level B 

harassment takes. We are not proposing 

to authorize Level A harassment 

because the Level A harassment zones 

are very small based on one to three 

hours of pile driving and no California 

sea lions were taken by Level A 

harassment under the 2017 IHA. 

Northern elephant seals are rare but we 

are proposing to authorize take, by Level 

B harassment only, of 7 individuals (one 

per month). Up to 23 positively 

identified transient killer whales may be 

taken (0.3 animals × 76 days; see 

mitigation on killer whale 

identification) while only 5 gray whales 

and 6 humpback whales (see 

Endangered Species Act section) are 

proposed to be taken. See Table 7 for all 

proposed take numbers, by species, and 

the respective amount of the population 

that take represents. 

TABLE 7—REQUESTED TAKE AMOUNT, PER SPECIES, RELATIVE TO POPULATION SIZE

Level A Level B Total take % Population 

Harbor seal ...................................................................................................... 80 1,516 1,596 14.5 

CSL .................................................................................................................. 0 1,064 1,064 0.4 

N. elephant seal ............................................................................................... 0 7 7 >0.01 

Killer whale—transient ..................................................................................... 0 23 23 9.5 

SSL .................................................................................................................. 0 161 161 0.2 

Gray whale ....................................................................................................... 0 5 5 0.02 

Humpback whale ............................................................................................. 0 6 6 0.3 

Dall’s porpoise ................................................................................................. 4 7 12 0.05 

Harbor porpoise ............................................................................................... 12 329 341 3.04 

Minke whale ..................................................................................................... 0 7 8 1.3 

Bottlenose dolphin ........................................................................................... 0 49 49 10.8 

Long-beaked common dolphin ........................................................................ 0 49 49 0.04 

Description of Proposed Mitigation, 

Monitoring and Reporting Measures—A 

description of proposed mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures is 

found in the previous documents, 

which are nearly identical in this 

proposed IHA. In summary, mitigation 

includes use of an unconfined bubble 

curtain (with operational standards set 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

and soft start techniques during impact 

pile driving in greater than 2 ft of water, 

minimum 10 m shut down zone, and 

species-dependent shut down zones as 

described in Table 8. Some of these shut 

down zones fully encompass the Level 

A harassment zone; however, for species 

where we propose Level A take, this 

might not always be the case. 

TABLE 8—SHUT-DOWN ZONES

Method Pile size 

Level A (meters) Level B 

(m) LF MF HF PH OT 

Vibratory ....................... 24 35 10 50 20 10 8,000 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30427 

TABLE 8—SHUT-DOWN ZONES—Continued 

Method Pile size 

Level A (meters) Level B 

(m) LF MF HF PH OT 

30 105 10 150 60 ........................ 8,000 

36 170 20 200 ........................ ........................ 8,690 

78 205 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 20,000 

120 130 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Impact .......................... 24 435 ........................ ........................ ........................ 20 1,585 

Monitoring requirements would be 

similar to the 2017 IHA requirements 

(see an updated Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111). 

The number and location of Protected 

Species Observers (PSOs) is dependent 

upon activity and weather conditions 

and are as follows: 

(i) Three land-based PSOs during 

impact driving of 24-in piles; 

(ii) four land-based and one ferrybased PSOs during 24-, 30-, 36-in steel 

vibratory driving/removal; 

(iii) five land-based and one ferrybased PSOs during 78- and 120-in steel 

vibratory driving/removal; and 

(iv) two ferry-based PSOs in addition 

to land-based PSOs when weather 

conditions are poor. 

In April, 2018, WSDOT submitted a 

monitoring report for construction that 

had been completed under the 2017 

IHA. WSDOT complied with all 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

protocols. Recorded takes were below 

the number authorized for the 

corresponding amount of work. The 

monitoring report can be viewed on 

NMFS’s website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. 

WSDOT will conduct acoustic 

monitoring during impact pile driving 

of 24-in piles per the acoustic 

monitoring plan submitted for the 

previous IHA. WSDOT will also 

conduct acoustic monitoring during 

vibratory driving 78-in and 120-in piles. 

Both the impact and vibratory acoustic 

monitoring plans are available at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/ 

23111. 

Preliminary Determinations 

WSDOT proposes to conduct a subset 

of activities identical to those covered in 

the previous 2017 IHA. We have 

included take for three new species 

noting these are precautionary as these 

species are not common in the action 

area and these species were not 

observed during the project during 

previous construction. We also believe 

the potential behavioral reactions and 

effects on the cetacean species 

previously analyzed is applicable to 

these species, if not to some lesser 

extent due to lower probability of 

occurrence. 

When issuing the 2017 IHA, NMFS 

found Phase 2 of the Mukilteo 

Multimodal Project, in its entirety, 

would have a negligible impact to 

species or stocks’ rates of recruitment 

and survival and the amount of taking 

would be small relative to the 

population size of such species or stock 

(less than 15 percent). As described 

above, the number of estimated takes of 

the same stocks are less than takes 

authorized in the 2017 IHA and the 

anticipated impacts from the project are 

similar to those previously analyzed. 

The amount of take for the additional 

three species is also small (less than 11 

percent of each stock). The proposed 

IHA includes identical required 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures (albeit some minor 

modification to harassment and 

shutdown distances) as the 2017 IHA. In 

conclusion, there is no new information 

suggesting that our analysis or findings 

should change. 

Based on the information contained 

here and in the referenced documents, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined the 

following: (1) The required mitigation 

measures will effect the least practicable 

impact on marine mammal species or 

stocks and their habitat; (2) the 

authorized takes will have a negligible 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species or stocks; (3) the authorized 

takes represent small numbers of marine 

mammals relative to the affected stock 

abundances; and (4) WSDOT’s activities 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on taking for subsistence 

purposes as no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals are implicated by 

this action. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency 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. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the West Coast Region 

Protected Resources Division Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take of 

humpback whales from the Central 

American and Mexico DPSs, which are 

listed under the ESA. 

The effects of this proposed Federal 

action were adequately analyzed in 

NMFS’ Biological Opinion for the 

Mukilteo Multimodal Project, 

Snohomish, Washington, dated August 

1, 2017, which concluded that issuance 

of an IHA would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify any designated critical 

habitat. NMFS West Coast Region has 

confirmed the Incidental Take 

Statement issued in 2017 is applicable 

for the proposed IHA. That ITS 

authorizes the take of six humpback 

whales. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, we are proposing to 

issue an IHA to WSDOT to conduct the 

specified activities at the Mukilteo Ferry 

Terminal from September 1, 2018, 

through August 31, 2019, provided the 

previously described 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 

September 1, 2018, through August 31, 

2019. 

2. This Authorization is valid only for 

activities associated with Phase 2 of the 

Mukilteo Multimodal Project, Puget 

Sound, Washington. 

3. General Conditions. 

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

possession of WSDOT, its designees, 

and work crew personnel operating 

under the authority of this IHA. 

(b) The species authorized for taking 

are found in Table 7. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
30428 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

(c) The taking, by Level A and B 

harassment only, is limited to the 

species listed in condition 3(b). See 

Table 7 for numbers of take authorized. 

(d) The taking by serious injury or 

death of any of the species listed in 

condition 3(b) of the Authorization or 

any taking of any other species of 

marine mammal is prohibited and may 

result in the modification, suspension, 

or revocation of this IHA. 

(e) WSDOT shall conduct briefings 

between construction supervisors and 

crews, marine mammal monitoring 

team, acoustical monitoring team, and 

WSDOT staff prior to the start of all pile 

driving, and when new personnel join 

the work, in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

4. Mitigation. 

(a) In-water construction work shall 

occur only during daylight hours during 

the established in-water work window 

(July 15 through February 15). 

(b) For in-water heavy machinery 

activities other than pile driving, if a 

marine mammal comes within 10 m, 

operations shall cease and vessels shall 

reduce speed to the minimum level 

required to maintain steerage and safe 

working conditions. 

(c) Pre-activity monitoring shall take 

place from 30 minutes prior to initiation 

of pile driving activity and post-activity 

monitoring shall continue through 30 

minutes post-completion of pile driving 

activity. Pile driving may commence at 

the end of the 30-minute pre-activity 

monitoring period, provided observers 

have determined that the shutdown 

zone is clear of marine mammals, which 

includes delaying start of pile driving 

activities if a marine mammal is sighted 

in the zones identified in Table 8. 

(d) If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during 

activities or pre-activity monitoring, all 

pile driving activities at that location 

shall be halted or delayed, respectively. 

If pile driving is halted or delayed due 

to the presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not resume or commence 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

left and been visually confirmed beyond 

the shutdown zone and 15 minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than thirty 

minutes. 

(e) WSDOT shall use soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors to provide 

an initial set of strikes at reduced 

energy, followed by a thirty-second 

waiting period, then two subsequent 

reduced energy strike sets. Soft start 

shall be implemented at the start of each 

day’s impact pile driving and at any 

time following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of thirty minutes or 

longer. 

(f) WSDOT shall use a bubble curtain 

during impact driving of 24-in piles in 

greater than 2 feet of water. Should 

acoustic measurements identify that 

average source levels exceed those 

estimated for this activity (173 dB SEL, 

193 dB rms), WSDOT shall contact 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

within 48 hours to determine if 

adjustments to harassment zones are 

warranted. 

(g) For all pile activities, the number 

and location of Protected Species 

Observers (PSOs) is dependent upon 

activity and weather conditions and are 

as follows: 

(i) three land-based PSOs during 

impact driving of 24-in piles; 

(ii) four land-based and one ferrybased PSOs during 24-, 30-, 36-inch 

steel vibratory driving/removal; 

(iii) five land-based and one ferrybased PSOs during 78- and 120-inch 

steel vibratory driving/removal; and 

(iv) two ferry-based PSOs in addition 

to land-based PSOs when weather 

conditions are poor. 

(h) Southern Resident Killer Whales 

(SRKW) 

(i) If a killer whale approaches the 

monitoring zone 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 4(k). 

(ii) If a SRKW enters the monitoring 

zone undetected, WSDOT shall contact 

the Offices of Protected Resources 

within 24 hours to determine if 

additional monitoring is necessary to 

avoid future incidences. 

(iii) Coordination with Local Marine 

Mammal Research Network—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. WSDOT will also monitor the 

Orca Network site for visual and 

acoustic detections. 

(k) If a species for which 

authorization has not been granted, or a 

species for which authorization has 

been granted but the authorized takes 

are met, is observed approaching or 

within the Level B harassment zone for 

the pile size and method used (Table 8), 

pile driving and removal activities must 

shut down immediately using delay and 

shut-down procedures. Activities must 

not resume until the animal has been 

confirmed to have left the area or the 

observation time period, as indicated in 

4(d) above, has elapsed. 

5. Monitoring. 

(a) Monitoring of pile driving shall be 

conducted by qualified PSOs (see 

below), who shall have no other 

assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. WSDOT shall adhere to the 

following conditions when selecting 

observers: 

(iv) Independent PSOs shall be used 

(i.e., not construction personnel). 

(ii) At least one PSO must have prior 

experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction 

activities. 

(iii) Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience. 

(iv) Where a team of three or more 

PSOs are required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator shall be 

designated. The lead observer must have 

prior experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction. 

(v) WSDOT shall submit PSO CVs for 

approval by NMFS prior to the onset of 

pile driving. 

(vi) WSDOT shall ensure that 

observers have the following additional 

qualifications: 

(vii) Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols. 

(viii) Experience or training in the 

field identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors. 

(ix) Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations. 

(x) Writing skills sufficient to prepare 

a report of observations including but 

not limited to the number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior. 

(xi) Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

(b) WSDOT shall conduct acoustic 

monitoring per their impact and 

vibratory monitoring plans. Acoustic 

monitoring shall be conducted early at 

the onset of pile work. 

6. Reporting. 

(a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with 

a draft monitoring report within 90 days 

of the conclusion of the construction 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30429 

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 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. 

(c) 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) Fate of the animal(s); and 

(viii) Photographs or video footage of 

the animal (if equipment is available). 

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. 

(d) 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. 

(e) 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. 

7. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein or if NMFS 

determines the authorized taking is 

having more than a negligible impact on 

the species or stock of affected marine 

mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this Notice of Proposed 

IHA for the remaining work associated 

with the Mukilteo Multimodal Project. 

We also request comment on the 

potential for renewal of this proposed 

IHA as described in the paragraph 

below. Please include with your 

comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform our 

final decision on the request for MMPA 

authorization. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a second one-year IHA without 

additional notice when (1) another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Specified Activities 

section is planned or (2) the activities 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a second IHA would 

allow for completion of the activities 

beyond that described in the Dates and 

Duration section, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

(a) A request for renewal is received 

no later than 60 days prior to expiration 

of the current IHA. 

(b) The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(i) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted beyond the initial dates 

either are identical to the previously 

analyzed activities or include changes 

so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 

that the changes do not affect the 

previous analyses, take estimates, or 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements; and 

(ii) 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. 

(c) 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: June 25, 2018. 

Elaine T. Saiz, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13940 Filed 6–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Defense Innovation Board; Notice of 

Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Chief Management Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of federal advisory 

committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) is publishing this notice to 

announce that the following Federal 

Advisory Committee meeting of the 

Defense Innovation Board (DIB) will 

take place. 

DATES: Open to the public Wednesday, 

July 11, 2018 from 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Defense Innovation Unit 

Experimental (DIUx) Auditorium, 230 

RT Jones Road, Mountain View, CA 

94043. Additionally, the meeting will be 

live streamed for those who are unable 

to physically attend the meeting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael L. Gable, (571) 372–0933 

(Voice), (Facsimile), 

michael.l.gable.civ@mail.mil (Email). 

Mailing address is Defense Innovation 

Board, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Room 

5E572, Washington, DC 20301–9010. 

Website: http://innovation.defense.gov. 

The most up-to-date changes to the 

meeting agenda can be found on the 

website. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

Department of Defense (DoD) and the 

Designated Federal Officer, the Defense 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1