35226 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

institutions; state, local or tribal 

governments; individuals or 

households; federal government. 

Frequency: Annually and on occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow 

the instructions to view Department of 

Commerce collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. 

Dated: July 20, 2018. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15873 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

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 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that we have issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) to take small 

numbers of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to Seattle 

Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in 

Seattle, Washington. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from August 1, 2018, through July 31, 

2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as the 

issued IHA, may be obtained online at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities. 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). 

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 was adequate and 

complete on April 4, 2018. NMFS is 

authorizing the take by Level A and 

Level B harassment 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 delphis), 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), 

gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); 

humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae), minke whale 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata); harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); and 

Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides 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 Specified 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 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed 

salmonids, planned WSDOT in-water 

construction is limited each year to July 

16 through February 15. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman 

Dock 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35227 

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 will 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

Method Pile type Pile size 

(inch) Pile number Piles/day Minutes/pile Duration (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 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 

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. 

** Strikes. 

Prescribed mitigation, monitoring, 

and reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

‘‘Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Monitoring and 

Reporting’’). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA was published in the Federal 

Register on May 25, 2018 (83 FR 24279). 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS received comment letters 

from the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission) and the Center for 

Biological Diversity (CBD). Specific 

comments and responses are provided 

below. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS reduce the 

shut-down zone from 60 meters (m) to 

15 m for harbor seals during vibratory 

installation/removal and/or impact 

installation of 24-, 30, 36, and 108-in 

piles and increase the number of Level 

A harassment takes for harbor seals, if 

necessary. 

Response: NMFS reviewed WSDOT’s 

Seattle Year 1 draft monitoring report 

and worked with WSDOT on the 

number of harbor seals that could be 

potentially taken by Level A harassment 

and the practicability of implementing 

shutdown measures. Based on the 

assessment, NMFS learned that during 

the construction window between 

August 1, 2017, and February 15, 2018, 

for the Seattle Year 1 project, a total of 

23 harbor seals were taken by Level A 

harassment while implementing a 50-m 

shutdown distance. For the Seattle Year 

1 project, a total of 77 days had Level 

A harassment zones beyond the 50-m 

shutdown distance, with the authorized 

Level A harassment take of harbor seal 

of 364 animals. This shows that the 

actual Level A takes during WSDOT’s 

Seattle Year 1 activity were much less 

than authorized. 

For the current IHA, WSDOT 

estimated that a total of 17 days would 

have Level A harassment zones beyond 

the newly required 60-m shutdown 

distance. Level A harassment distance 

for the 24-in vibratory pile driving and 

removal is less than the 60-m shutdown 

distance due to fewer piles being driven 

per day. Finally, there is no indication 

that the environment in the project area 

has changed that there are more harbor 

seals in the region that warrant to 

increase take numbers. 

In conclusion, based on the planned 

construction activity level for the Seattle 

Year 2 project, harbor seal abundance in 

the project area, harbor seal Level A 

harassment takes from Seattle Year 1 

monitoring report, and the feasibility of 

WSDOT to implement a 60-m shutdown 

measure for harbor seals, we think that 

requiring WSDOT to implement a 60-m 

shutdown zone for harbor seal with an 

authorized Level A harassment take of 

187 animals is feasible for WSDOT and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
35228 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

beneficial to the resources. Therefore, 

NMFS does not agree with the 

Commission’s recommendation to 

reduce shutdown distance to 15-m 

while increasing harbor seal Level A 

harassment takes. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS more 

thoroughly assess the proposed 

shutdown zones that are to be 

implemented and the associated 

numbers of Level A harassment takes 

requested for each proposed incidental 

take authorization prior to publication 

in the Federal Register. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission’s recommendation, and 

agrees that the proposed shutdown 

zones that are to be implemented and 

the associated numbers of Level A 

harassment hakes for this IHA as well as 

other incidental take authorizations 

should be thoroughly assessed at early 

review team meetings prior to drafting 

the proposed IHAs. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

commented that the method NMFS used 

to estimate the numbers of takes during 

the proposed activities, which summed 

fractions of takes for each species across 

project days, does not account for and 

negates the intent of NMFS’ 24-hour 

reset policy. The Commission also 

recommends that NMFS develop and 

share guidance on this issue. 

Response: NMFS has provided the 

guidance to the Commission as 

recommended. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

requested clarification of certain issues 

associated with NMFS’s notice that oneyear renewals could be issued in certain 

limited circumstances and expressed 

concern that the process would bypass 

the public notice and comment 

requirements. The Commission also 

suggested that NMFS should discuss the 

possibility of renewals through a more 

general route, such as a rulemaking, 

instead of notice in a specific 

authorization. The Commission further 

recommended that if NMFS did not 

pursue a more general route, that the 

agency provide the Commission and the 

public with a legal analysis supporting 

our conclusion that this process is 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. 

Response: The process of issuing a 

renewal IHA does not bypass the public 

notice and comment requirements of the 

MMPA. The notice of the proposed IHA 

expressly notifies the public that under 

certain, limited conditions an applicant 

could seek a renewal IHA for an 

additional year. The notice describes the 

conditions under which such a renewal 

request could be considered and 

expressly seeks public comment in the 

event such a renewal is sought. 

Additional reference to this solicitation 

of public comment has recently been 

added at the beginning of FR notices 

that consider renewals. NMFS 

appreciates the streamlining achieved 

by the use of abbreviated FR notices and 

intends to continue using them for 

proposed IHAs that include minor 

changes from previously issued IHAs, 

but which do not satisfy the renewal 

requirements. However, we believe our 

proposed method for issuing renewals 

meets statutory requirements and 

maximizes efficiency. Importantly, such 

renewals would be limited to where the 

activities are identical or nearly 

identical to those analyzed in the 

proposed IHA, monitoring does not 

indicate impacts that were not 

previously analyzed and authorized, 

and the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements remain the same, all of 

which allow the public to comment on 

the appropriateness and effects of a 

renewal at the same time the public 

provides comments on the initial IHA. 

NMFS has, however, modified the 

language for future proposed IHAs to 

clarify that all IHAs, including renewal 

IHAs, are valid for no more than one 

year and that the agency would consider 

only one renewal for a project at this 

time. In addition, notice of issuance or 

denial of a renewal IHA would be 

published in the Federal Register, as are 

all IHAs. Last, NMFS will publish on 

our website a description of the renewal 

process before any renewal is issued 

utilizing the new process. 

Comment 5: The CBD recommends 

that the authorization include 

mitigation measures on operation of the 

ferries that will result from construction 

activities. Specifically, the CBD 

recommends that NMFS find ways to 

support and accelerate transition of the 

Washington State ferry system to quieter 

designs and technologies. 

Response: While NMFS shares the 

concerns with CBD regarding the 

elevated underwater noise from ferry 

operations and general shipping 

activities in the Puget Sound area, the 

specific recommendation raised by the 

CBD is irrelevant in evaluating the 

potential impacts from ferry terminal 

construction on marine mammals. For 

the issuance of the IHA to take marine 

mammals incidental to WSDOT’s 

Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman 

Dock, we analyzed the impacts from 

construction related activities that may 

affect marine mammals, which are 

mostly from underwater noise generated 

during in-water pile driving and pile 

removal. Please see Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat section 

below for detailed analysis. 

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; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessment-reportsregion#reports). 

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 (2017). PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s 2017 U.S. Pacific Marine 

Mammal SARs (Carretta et al., 2018). 

The 2017 SAR is available online at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region#reports. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35229 

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 2PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae 

Gray whale ........................................ Eschrichtius robustus ........................ Eastern North Pacific ........................ -; N 20,990 624 132 

Family Balaenopteridae 

Humpback whale ............................... Megaptera novaneagliae ................... California/Oregon/Washington .......... E/D; Y 1,918 11.0 >6.5 

Minke whale ....................................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata ............... California/Oregon/Washington .......... -; N 636 3.5 >1.3 

Family Delphinidae 

Killer whale ........................................ Orcinus orca ...................................... Eastern N. Pacific Southern resident E/D; Y 83 0.14 0 

West coast transient .......................... -; N 243 2.4 0 

Long-beaked common dolphin .......... Delphinus capensis ........................... California ........................................... -; N 101,305 657 >35.4 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................. Tursiops truncatus ............................. California/Oregon/Washington offshore.-; N 1,924 11 >1.6 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise ................................. Phocoena phocoena ......................... Washington inland waters ................. -; N 11,233 66 7.2 

Dall’s porpoise ................................... P. dali ................................................ California/Oregon/Washington .......... -; N 25,750 172 0.3 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion .............................. Zalophus californianus ...................... U.S ..................................................... -; N 296,750 9,200 389 

Steller sea lion ................................... Eumetopias jubatus ........................... Eastern U.S ....................................... -; N 41,638 2,498 108 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ........................................ Phoca vitulina .................................... Washington northern inland waters ... -; N 4 11,036 1,641 43 

Northern elephant seal ...................... Mirounga angustirostris ..................... California breeding ............................ -; N 179,000 4,882 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region#reports. 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. 4 Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are greater than 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here (Jeffries et al., 2003; Carretta et al., 

2017). 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed construction 

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 rare, 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 is required 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 

Mitigation section). 

In addition, the sea otter may be 

found in Puget Sound area. However, 

this species is managed by the USFWS 

and is 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 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); 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
35230 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

• 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 

(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 construction 

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’’ 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’’ section, and the 

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 Seattle Multimodal Colman 

Dock 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 TS include 

the amplitude, duration, frequency 

content, temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of noise exposure. The 

magnitude of hearing TS 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 preexposure 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 (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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35231 

(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 Seattle Multimodal 

at Colman Dock 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 

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. 

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 A 

and Level B harassment. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
35232 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

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., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 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) sources. 

Applicant’s proposed activity 

includes the generation of impulse 

(impact pile driving) and non-impulse 

(vibratory pile driving and removal) 

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.fisheries.noaa.

gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/marine-mammal-acoustictechnical-guidance. 

TABLE 3—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE SOUND UNDERWATER

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds Behavioral thresholds 

Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans Lpk,flat: 219 dB ............................

LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ........................

LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans Lpk,flat: 230 dB ............................

LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................

LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans Lpk,flat: 202 dB ............................

LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................

LE,HF,24h: 173 dB ........................ Lrms,flat: 160 dB ... Lrms,flat: 120 dB 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).Lpk,flat: 218 dB ............................

LE,PW,24h: 185 dB .......................

LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) ..............

(Underwater) ...............................

Lpk,flat: 232 dB ............................

LE,OW,24h: 203 dB .......................

LE,OW,24h: 219 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 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 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35233 

(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 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 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

[at 10 m from source] 

Method Pile type/size (inch) SEL, dB re 

1 μPa2-s 

SPLrms, dB re 

1 μPa 

SPLpk, dB re 

1 μPa 

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 

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 harassment 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 

loss of 15*log(R) for transmission loss 

calculation. The derived distance to the 

120-dB Level B zone is 2,54 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 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

Pile driving activity 

SL (10m) Level A distance (m) 

Level A area (km2) 

Level B 

distance (m) 

Level B 

area (km2) 

SEL LF 

Cetacean 

MF 

Cetacean 

HF 

Cetacean Phocid Otariid All marine 

mammals 

Vibratory drive/removal, 24′′ & 30′′ steel 

piles, 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile ............... 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 

29.6 

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 .......................................... 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
35234 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 5—MODELED DISTANCES AND AREAS TO HARASSMENT ZONES—Continued 

Pile driving activity 

SL (10m) Level A distance (m) 

Level A area (km2) 

Level B 

distance (m) 

Level B 

area (km2) 

SEL LF 

Cetacean 

MF 

Cetacean 

HF 

Cetacean Phocid Otariid All marine 

mammals 

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 

Vibratory remove 14′′ steel H pile, 10 

piles/day, 20 min/pile ............................ 155 6.1 

0.00 

0.5 

0.00 

9.0 

0.00 

3.7 

0.00 

0.3 

0.00 

2,154 

14.57 

Distances of ensonified area for 

different pile driving/removal activities 

for different marine mammal hearing 

groups is presented 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 long-beaked common dolphin are 

from the U.S. Navy Marine Species 

Density Report. For harbor seal and 

California sea lion, because WSDOT has 

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 longbeaked 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

Species Density (#/km 2) or Animals/day 

Gray whale ............................................................................................... 0.00051/km 2. 

Minke whale .............................................................................................. 0.00003/km 2. 

Killer whale (West coast transient) ........................................................... 0.002/km 2. 

Bottlenose dolphin .................................................................................... NA. 

Long-beaked common dolphin ................................................................. NA. 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................ 0.54/km 2. 

Dall’s porpoise .......................................................................................... 0.048/km 2. 

California sea lion ..................................................................................... 14 animals/day. 

Steller sea lion .......................................................................................... 0.04/km 2. 

Harbor seal ............................................................................................... 11 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. 

In general, marine mammal takes 

were calculated as: Take = ensonified 

area × average animal abundance in the 

area × pile driving days. All Level A 

harassment takes were further adjusted 

by subtracting 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 harassment 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 harassment takes 

were adjusted to exclude those already 

counted for Level A harassment 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 harassment zones beyond 

shutdown zones (445 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 harassment takes 

makes up the harbor seal Level B 

harassment takes, which is 1,067 

animals. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35235 

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 

California sea lions 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 harassment 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 is used for 

estimating Steller sea lion Level A takes, 

which results in an estimated 16 Level 

A takes and 215 Level B takes. 

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 harassment take calculation 

yields a total of 28 animals. However, 

due to the large Level A harassment 

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 harassment take is readjusted to 

account for a typical animal group size 

of 3 multiplied by these 17 days with 

large Level A harassment 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 harassment take is 

scaled down by 1⁄3 that of harbor 

porpoise, yielding 17 Level A 

harassment 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 

Mitigation section below). 

A summary of estimated takes based 

on the above analysis is listed in Table 

7. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED TAKE NUMBERS

Species Estimated 

level A take 

Estimated 

level B take 

Estimated 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 ..................................................................... 16 215 231 41,638 1 

Killer whale, transient ........................................................... 0 30 30 243 12 

Killer whale, Southern Resident .......................................... 0 0 0 83 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 3,069 3,120 11,233 *28 

Dall’s porpoise ..................................................................... 17 260 277 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. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
35236 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

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. 

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

Pile type, size & pile driving method 

Shutdown zone (m) 

LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory drive/removal, 24′′ & 30′′ steel piles, 8 piles/day, 

20 min/pile ........................................................................ 97 10 143 59 10 

Vibratory removal 30′′ steel pile, 1 pile/day, 20 min/pile ..... 24 10 36 15 10 

Vibratory drive 36′′ steel pile, 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile ........ 126 11 187 60 10 

Vibratory drive 36′′ steel pile, 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile ........ 153 14 227 60 10 

Impact drive (proof) 36′′ steel pile, 8 piles/day, 300 strikes/ 

pile .................................................................................... 831 30 990 60 32 

Vibratory drive 108′′ steel pile, 1 pile/day, 120 min/pile ...... 200 18 296 60 10 

Vibratory remove 14′′ timber pile, 20 piles/day, 15 min/pile 10 10 12 10 10 

Vibratory remove 12′′ steel pile, 11 piles/day, 20 min/pile .. 10 10 10 10 10 

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 

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 Table 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35237 

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 United States 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 

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 

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. 

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. 

Monitoring Measures 

WSDOT shall employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine 

mammal monitoring for the Seattle 

Multimodal Year 2 Project at Colman 

Dock. 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: 

Æ Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

Æ Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
35238 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

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); and 

• 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 driving of the first 36-in 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, whichever 

comes earlier. In the case if WSDOT 

intends to renew the IHA in a 

subsequent year, a 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’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

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, 

California sea lion, Steller sea lion, 

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. 

There are no other important areas for 

marine mammals, such as 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35239 

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. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• Injury—only five species of marine 

mammals would experience Level A 

harassment in the form of mild PTS, 

which is expected to be of small degree; 

and 

• Behavioral disturbance—eleven 

species/stocks of marine mammals 

would experience behavioral 

disturbance 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. 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, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

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 

3,120 incidences of takes would be 28 

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 

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. 

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. 

NMFS has determined the issuance of 

the 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. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 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 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. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation for the Seattle 

Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in 

Washington State, provided the 

previously described mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: July 20, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15874 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES