Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45897 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties and/or 

countervailing duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this POR. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in 

Commerce’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

and/or countervailing duties has 

occurred, and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties and/or an increase in the amount 

of antidumping duties by the amount of 

the countervailing duties. 

These preliminary results are issued 

and published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: September 4, 2018. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix 1 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

IV. Scope of the Order 

V. Discussion of the Methodology 

VI. Recommendation 

Appendix 2 

List of Companies Not Receiving Separate 

Rate Status 

1. BC Tyre Group Limited 

2. Best Choice International Trade Co., 

Limited 

3. Chen Shin Tire & Rubber (China) Co., Ltd. 

4. Crown International Corporation 

5. Hankook Tire China Co., Ltd. 

6. Hebei Tianrui Rubber Co., Ltd. 

7. Hong Kong Tiancheng Investment & 

Trading Co., Limited 

8. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire Co., Limited 

9. Hwa Fong Rubber (Hong Kong) Ltd. 

10. Hwa Fong Rubber (Suzhou) Ltd. 

11. Qingdao Fullrun Tyre Corp. Ltd. 

12. Qingdao Fullrun Tyre Tech Corp. Ltd. 

13. Qingdao Nexen Tire Corporation 

14. Qingdao Qianzhen Tyre Co., Ltd. 

15. Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. 

16. Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd. 

17. Shandong Duratti Rubber Corporation 

Co., Ltd. 

18. Shandong Haohua Tire Co., Ltd. 

19. Shandong Haolong Rubber Tire Co., Ltd. 

20. Shandong Haolong Rubber Co., Ltd. 

21. Shandgong Hongsheng Rubber Co., Ltd. 

22. Shandong Province Sanli Tire 

23. Shifeng Juxing Tire Co., Ltd. 

24. Southeast Mariner International Co., Ltd. 

25. Toyo Tire (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19699 Filed 9–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG011 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental 

To Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Bremerton and 

Edmonds Ferry Terminals Dolphin 

Relocation Project in Washington State 

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 Bremerton 

and Edmonds ferry terminals dolphin 

relocation project in Washington State. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from October 1, 2018, through 

September 30, 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: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/construction.htm. 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 October 4, 2017, WSDOT 

submitted a request to NMFS requesting 

an IHA for the possible harassment of 

small numbers of marine mammal 

species incidental to the dolphin 

relocation project at the Bremerton and 

Edmonds ferry terminals in Washington 

State, between October 1, 2018, to 

September 30, 2019. NMFS determined 

that the IHA application is adequate and 

complete on December 4, 2017, with a 

few minor comments and questions. 

WSDOT subsequently addressed all 

NMFS comments and submitted a 

revised IHA application on March 1, 

2018. NMFS is proposing to authorize 

the take by 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); gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus); humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae); minke whale 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata); harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); Dall’s 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45898 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli); and longbeaked common dolphin (Delphinus 

delphis). 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The WSDOT is proposing to relocate 

one dolphin to improve safety at each of 

the Bremerton and Edmonds ferry 

terminals. The Olympic Class ferries 

have an atypical shape, which at some 

terminals causes the vessel to make 

contact with the inner dolphin prior to 

the stern reaching the intermediate or 

outer dolphin. This tends to cause 

rotation of the vessel away from the 

wingwalls and presents a safety issue. 

The project will reduce the risk of 

landing issues for Olympic Class ferries 

at the Bremerton and Edmonds ferry 

terminals. 

Dates and Duration 

Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water 

work timing restrictions to protect ESAlisted salmonids, planned WSDOT inwater construction is limited each year 

to July 16 through February 15. 

In-water construction at the 

Bremerton Ferry Terminal will 

commence after October 1, and is 

planned during the August 1, 2018, to 

February 15, 2019 in-water work 

window. In-water construction at the 

Edmonds Ferry Terminal will 

commence October 1, and is planned 

during the July 15, 2018, to February 15, 

2019 in-water work window. 

Specified Geographic Region 

The Bremerton Ferry Terminal is 

located in the city of Bremerton, east of 

the Navy shipyard. Bremerton is on the 

shoreline of Sinclair Inlet, south of 

Bainbridge Island. Located in Kitsap 

County, Washington, the terminal is 

located in Section 24, Township 24 

North, Range 1 East. The Edmonds Ferry 

Terminal is located in the city of 

Edmonds, along the downtown 

waterfront. Edmonds is in Snohomish 

County, approximately 15 miles north of 

Seattle. The terminal is located in 

Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 

3 East (Figure 1–2 in the IHA 

application). Land use near both ferry 

terminals is a mix of residential, 

commercial, industrial, and open space 

and/or undeveloped lands. 

Detailed Description of In-Water Pile 

Driving and Removal Associated With 

the Dolphin Relocation Project at 

Bremerton and Edmonds Ferry 

Terminals 

The proposed project includes 

vibratory hammer driving and removal 

creating elevated in-water and in-air 

noise that may impact marine mammals. 

The following construction activities 

(in sequence) are anticipated for the 

Bremerton Ferry Terminal. 

• Install one temporary 36-inch 

diameter steel indicator pile with a 

vibratory hammer. The temporary 

indicator pile will be used as a visual 

landing aid reference for vessel captains 

during construction. It will be relocated 

to become a fender pile for the new 

dolphin. 

• Remove the existing left outer 

dolphin that consists of six 36-inch 

diameter steel pipe piles with a 

vibratory hammer and/or by direct pull 

and clamshell removal. 

• Using a vibratory hammer, install 

three 30-inch steel pile reaction piles. 

This is a back group of piles that 

provide stability to the dolphin. 

• Install a concrete diaphragm (the 

diaphragm joins the piles at their tops), 

then use a vibratory hammer to install 

the remaining four 30-inch reaction 

piles. 

• Using a vibratory hammer, install 

three 36-inch diameter steel pipe fender 

piles; install fenders and attach rub 

panels to the fender piles. Fender piles 

absorb much of the energy as the ferry 

vessel makes contact with the dolphin. 

• Using a vibratory hammer, remove 

the 36-inch temporary indicator pile 

and install it as the last remaining 

fender pile along with the fender and 

fender panel. 

The following construction activities 

(in sequence) are anticipated for the 

Edmonds Ferry Terminal. 

• Install one temporary 36-inch 

diameter steel indicator pile with a 

vibratory hammer. The temporary 

indicator pile will be used as a visual 

landing aid reference for vessel captains 

during construction. 

• Using a vibratory hammer, install 

one 30-inch reaction pile. 

• Using a vibratory hammer, install 

the two remaining reaction piles 

through the diaphragm. 

• Using a vibratory hammer, remove 

three 36-inch steel pipe fender piles and 

reinstall them in their new locations. 

• Using a vibratory hammer, remove 

the 36-inch temporary indicator pile 

(this portion of the project will not reuse 

the indicator pile). 

A summary of the piles to be installed 

and removed, along with pile driving 

information, is provided in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL DURATIONS

Location Pile element Method Pile type Size 

(inch) Pile No. 

Duration/ 

pile 

(min) 

Number 

pile/day 

Duration 

(days) 

Bremerton ..................... Indicator pile ................. Vibratory install ............. Steel ........ 36 1 20 1 1 

Indicator pile ................. Vibratory removal ......... Steel ........ 36 1 15 1 1 

Existing dolphin ............ Vibratory removal ......... Steel ........ 36 6 15 3 2 

Relocate dolphin install Vibratory install ............. Steel ........ 36 4 20 3 2 

Relocated dolphin install Vibratory install ............. Steel ........ 30 7 20 3 3 

Subtotal .................. ....................................... ....................................... ................. .................... 19 345 .................... 9 

Edmond ......................... Indicator pile ................. Vibratory install ............. Steel ........ 36 1 20 1 1 

Indicator pile ................. Vibratory removal ......... Steel ........ 36 1 15 1 1 

Existing dolphin removal Vibratory removal ......... Steel ........ 36 3 15 3 1 

Relocated dolphin ......... Vibratory install ............. Steel ........ 36 3 20 3 1 

Relocated dolphin ......... Vibratory install ............. Steel ........ 30 3 20 3 1 

Subtotal .................. ....................................... ....................................... ................. .................... 11 200 .................... 5 

Total ................ ....................................... ....................................... ................. .................... 30 545 .................... 14 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

‘‘Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Monitoring and 

Reporting’’ sections). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA was published in the Federal 

Register on April 16, 2018 (83 FR 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45899 

16330). During the 30-day public 

comment period, NMFS received 

comment letters from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission) 

and the Whale and Dolphin 

Conservation (WDC). Specific comments 

and responses are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require 

WSDOT to collect spectral data at the 

source to verify the spectrum of 36-in 

piles and adjust the Level A harassment 

zones as necessary, rather than continue 

to use the spectrum associated with 30- 

in piles. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission that if WSDOT plans to 

conduct pile driving source level 

measurements, spectral data should be 

required to calculate Level A 

harassment zones. However, WSDOT 

stated that it does not plan to conduct 

source level measurements for the 

Bremerton-Edmonds ferry terminal 

construction. Instead, WSDOT plans to 

use broadband source level 

measurement on the 36-in piles 

collected at Edmonds Ferry Terminal in 

2017 and applies the 30-in pile 

spectrum to model for Level A 

harassment zones. NMFS has 

determined that this is acceptable for 

this activity, though we plan to continue 

evaluating this determination as new 

information is collected. Therefore, 

since WSDOT does not plan to conduct 

source measurements for the BremertonEdmonds ferry terminal project, NMFS 

will not request it to acquire spectral 

data. 

Comment 2: 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; and, as 

described therein and discussed 

subsequently, we have determined that 

the method used for rounding take 

estimates here is appropriate and does 

not conflict with the methodology that 

the Commission refers to as the ‘‘24- 

hour reset policy.’’ 

Comment 3: 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 Federal 

Register 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 4: The WDC states that as 

part of the recently initiated Washington 

State Southern Resident Recovery Task 

Force, WSDOT should utilize locally 

available resources, including a 

hydrophone network and well-informed 

local sightings network, to monitor the 

presence, abundance, and movement of 

killer whales in the area during the 

project. WDC further recommends that 

if a protected species observer (PSO) is 

unable to differentiate between transient 

and resident killer whales, any killer 

whale sighting near the shutdown zone 

should result in shutdown measures. In 

addition, WDC recommends WSDOT 

employ soft-start or ramp-up methods 

for pile driving activities to give any 

marine mammal within hearing range 

time to respond to increased noise 

levels and leave the area before work 

begins. 

Response: NMFS agrees with WDC’s 

recommendations. In fact, all the 

recommended mitigation and 

monitoring measures in the WDC’s 

comment letter were already in the 

proposed IHA. These measures include, 

but not limited to, (1) coordinating with 

the Orca Network on a daily basis 

during pile driving to understand 

marine mammal presence near the 

project areas and also sharing project 

sightings data with Orca Network; (2) 

implementing shutdown measures if a 

killer whale is sighted near the 

shutdown zone when the ecotype of the 

killer whale is unknown, and (3) 

implementing ramp-up methods for pile 

driving activities. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

We have reviewed the applicant’s 

species information, which summarizes 

available information regarding status 

and trends, distribution and habitat 

preferences, behavior and life history, 

and auditory capabilities of the 

potentially affected species—for 

accuracy and completeness and refer the 

reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the 

applications, as well as to NMFS’ 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 Bremerton 

and Edmonds ferry terminal project area 

and summarizes information related to 

the population or stock, including 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR, 

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, is 

considered in concert with known 

sources of ongoing anthropogenic 

mortality to assess the population-level 

effects of the anticipated mortality from 

a specific project (as described in 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45900 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

NMFS’ SARs). While no mortality is 

anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 

annual serious injury and mortality 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’ 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’ 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. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae 

Gray whale .............................. Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern North Pacific ............. -; N 20,990 (0.05, 20,125) ............. 624 132 

Family Balaenopteridae 

Humpback whale ..................... Megaptera novaneagliae ........ California/Oregon/Washington E/D;Y 1,918 (0.03, 1,976) ................. 11.0 >6.5 

Minke whale ............................ Balaenoptera acutorostrata .... California/Oregon/Washington -; N 636 (0.72, 369) ....................... 3.5 >1.3 

Family Delphinidae 

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

resident.

E/D; Y 83 (NA, 83) ............................. 0.14 0 

West coast transient .............. -; N 243 (NA, 243) ......................... 2.4 0 

Long-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis ................... California ................................ -; N 101,305 (0.49, 68,432) ........... 657 >35.4 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise ...................... Phocoena phocoena .............. Washington inland waters ...... -; N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308) ............... 66 7.2 

Dall’s porpoise ......................... Phocoenoides dali .................. California/Oregon/Washington -; N 25,750 (0.45, 17,954) ............. 172 0.3 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion .................... Zalophus californianus ........... U.S. ........................................ -; N 296,750 (NA, 153,337) ........... 9,200 389 

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

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

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

waters.

-; N 11,036 4 (unk, unk) ................. 1,641 43 

Northern elephant seal ............ Mirounga angustirostris .......... California breeding ................. -; N 179,000 (NA, 81,368) ............. 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. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4 Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed construction 

areas are included in Table 2. Although 

the SRKW could occur in the vicinity of 

the project area, WSDOT proposes to 

implement strict monitoring and 

mitigation measures with assistance 

from local marine mammal researchers 

and observers. Thus, the take of this 

marine mammal stock can be avoided 

(see details in Mitigation section). 

In addition, sea otters may be found 

in Puget Sound area. However, this 

species is managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and are not considered 

further in this document. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45901 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 

kilohertz (kHz); 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz. 

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, 

humpback, and minke whales), two are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(killer whale and long-beaked common 

dolphin), and two are classified as highfrequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor and 

Dall’s porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

will consider the content of this section, 

the ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the 

‘‘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 Bremerton-Edmonds ferry 

terminal construction 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 Bremerton-Edmond 

ferry terminal construction project using 

in-water pile driving and pile removal 

could adversely affect marine mammal 

species and stocks by exposing them to 

elevated noise levels in the vicinity of 

the activity area. 

Exposure to high intensity sound for 

a sufficient duration may result in 

auditory effects such as a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS)—an increase in the 

auditory threshold after exposure to 

noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors 

that influence the amount of threshold 

shift include the amplitude, duration, 

frequency content, temporal pattern, 

and energy distribution of noise 

exposure. The magnitude of hearing 

threshold shift normally decreases over 

time following cessation of the noise 

exposure. The amount of TS just after 

exposure is the initial TS. If the TS 

eventually returns to zero (i.e., the 

threshold returns to the pre-exposure 

value), it is a temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) (Southall et al., 2007). 

Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of 

hearing)—When animals exhibit 

reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds 

must be louder for an animal to detect 

them) following exposure to an intense 

sound or sound for long duration, it is 

referred to as a noise-induced TS. An 

animal can experience TTS or 

permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS 

can last from minutes or hours to days 

(i.e., there is complete recovery), can 

occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., 

an animal might only have a temporary 

loss of hearing sensitivity between the 

frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 

be of varying amounts (for example, an 

animal’s hearing sensitivity might be 

reduced initially by only 6 dB or 

reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, 

but some recovery is possible. PTS can 

also occur in a specific frequency range 

and amount as mentioned above for 

TTS. 

For marine mammals, published data 

are limited to the captive bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and 

Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran, 

2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are 

limited to measurements of TTS in 

harbor seals, an elephant seal, and 

California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 

2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b). 

Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a 

harbor porpoise after exposing it to 

airgun noise with a received sound 

pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 dB (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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45902 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that occurs during a 

time where ambient noise is lower and 

there are not as many competing sounds 

present. Alternatively, a larger amount 

and longer duration of TTS sustained 

during time when communication is 

critical for successful mother/calf 

interactions could have more serious 

impacts. Also, depending on the degree 

and frequency range, the effects of PTS 

on an animal could range in severity, 

although it is considered generally more 

serious because it is a permanent 

condition. Of note, reduced hearing 

sensitivity as a simple function of aging 

has been observed in marine mammals, 

as well as humans and other taxa 

(Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer 

that strategies exist for coping with this 

condition to some degree, though likely 

not without cost. 

In addition, chronic exposure to 

excessive, though not high-intensity, 

noise could cause masking at particular 

frequencies for marine mammals, which 

utilize sound for vital biological 

functions (Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic 

masking is when other noises such as 

from human sources interfere with 

animal detection of acoustic signals 

such as communication calls, 

echolocation sounds, and 

environmental sounds important to 

marine mammals. Therefore, under 

certain circumstances, marine mammals 

whose acoustical sensors or 

environment are being severely masked 

could also be impaired from maximizing 

their performance fitness in survival 

and reproduction. 

Masking occurs at the frequency band 

that the animals utilize. Therefore, since 

noise generated from vibratory pile 

driving is mostly concentrated at low 

frequency ranges, it may have less effect 

on high frequency echolocation sounds 

by odontocetes (toothed whales). 

However, lower frequency man-made 

noises are more likely to affect detection 

of communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as surf and prey noise. It may also 

affect communication signals when they 

occur near the noise band and thus 

reduce the communication space of 

animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and 

cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote 

et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009). 

Unlike TS, masking, which can occur 

over large temporal and spatial scales, 

can potentially affect the species at 

population, community, or even 

ecosystem levels, as well as individual 

levels. Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of the signals and could have 

long-term chronic effects on marine 

mammal species and populations. 

Recent science suggests that low 

frequency ambient sound levels have 

increased by as much as 20 dB (more 

than three times in terms of SPL) in the 

world’s ocean from pre-industrial 

periods, and most of these increases are 

from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 

2009). For WSDOT’s BremertonEdmonds ferry terminal 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 

Bremerton-Edmonds ferry terminal 

project, only 120-dB level is considered 

for effects analysis because WSDOT 

plans to use only 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45903 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to noise generated from 

vibratory pile driving and removal. 

Based on the nature of the activity and 

the anticipated effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown 

measures—discussed in detail below in 

Mitigation section), Level A harassment 

is neither anticipated nor authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g. vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

Applicant’s proposed activity 

includes the generation of non-impulse 

(vibratory pile driving and removal) 

source; and, only the 120-dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) is 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: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. 

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 .... Lrms,flat: 160 dB ...... Lrms,flat: 120 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.

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 project includes vibratory 

removal and/or driving of 30-inch and 

36-inch diameter hollow steel piles. 

Based on in-water measurements at 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45904 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

Edmonds Ferry Terminal in 2017 

(WSDOT 2017), vibratory driving of 30- 

inch steel piles generated 174 dB rms re 

1 mPa at 10 meters and vibratory pile 

driving of a 36-inch steel pile generated 

177 dB rms re 1 mPa measured at 10 

meters. As a conservative estimate, 

vibratory pile removal source level of 

36-in steel pile is based on 36-in pile 

installation level of 177 dB re 1 mPa 

SEL. 

A summary of source levels from 

different pile driving and pile removal 

activities is provided in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS

[At 10 m from source] 

Method Pile type/size SEL 

(dB re 1 μPa2¥s) 

SPLrms

(dB re 1 μPa) 

Vibratory driving/removal ........................................ 36-in steel pile ........................................................ 177 177 

Vibratory driving ...................................................... 30-in steel pile ........................................................ 174 174 

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 

For Level B harassment, ensonified 

areas are based on WSDOT’s source 

measurements (see above) computed 

using 15 * log(R) for transmission loss 

to derive the distances up to 120-dB 

isopleths. 

For Level A harassment, calculation is 

based on duration of installation/ 

removal per pile and number of piles 

installed or removed per day, using 

spectral modeling based on vibratory 

pile driving recordings made at 

Edmonds Ferry Terminal for the same 

piles. One-second sound exposure level 

(SEL) power spectral densities (PSDs) 

were calculated and used as 

representative pile driving sources to 

assess Level A harassment for marine 

mammals in different hearing groups. 

Initial results showed that Level A 

harassment zones from the 3-in piles 

were smaller than those from 30-in piles 

for high-frequency cetaceans, despite 

the broadband noise level from the 36- 

in pile being 3 dB higher than that of 30- 

in pile. Close examination of the pile 

driving spectra revealed some unusual 

high decay rate in the 36-in pile driving 

sound above 2 kHz. This unusual decay 

was probably due to the specific 

sediment in the pile driving location. 

Therefore, the spectrum for the 30-in 

pile was used to model the 36-in pile 

and scaled up to the 177 dB broadband 

level. 

Transmission loss due to absorption 

was also incorporated based using the 

equation 

TL(f) = 15log(R) + a(f) * R/1000 

where TL(f) is frequency dependent 

transmission loss, and a(f) is frequency 

dependent transmission loss coefficient. 

Distances of ensonified area for 

different pile driving/removal activities 

for different marine mammal hearing 

groups is present in Table 5. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

In most cases, marine mammal 

density data are from the U.S. Navy 

Marine Species Density Database (U.S. 

Navy 2015) except California sea lion 

and harbor porpoise. California sea lion 

density at Bremerton area is based on 

survey data of California sea lions at the 

Navy Shipyard at Bremerton from 2012– 

2016 (Navy 2017). Survey results 

indicate as many as 144 animals hauled 

out each day during this time period, 

with the majority of animals observed 

August through May and the greatest 

numbers observed in November. The 

average of the monthly maximum 

counts during the in-water work 

window provides an estimate of 69 sea 

lions per day. For harbor porpoise, 

because Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife has better local 

distribution data based on recent survey 

in the area, local animal abundance are 

used to calculate the take numbers 

(Evenson, 2016). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45905 

A summary of marine mammal 

density and local occurrence used for 

take estimates is provided in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY

AND LOCAL OCCURRENCE IN THE

WSDOT PROJECT AREA

Species Density 

(#/km2) 

Gray whale .............................................. 0.0051 

Humpback whale ..................................... 0.0007 

Minke whale ............................................ 0.00003 

Killer whale (West coast transient) ......... 0.002 

Long-beaked common dolphin ................ 0.002 

Harbor porpoise ...................................... 0.58 

Dall’s porpoise ......................................... 0.048 

California sea lion ................................... * 0.03 

Steller sea lion ........................................ 0.04 

Harbor seal .............................................. 1.22 

Northern elephant seal ............................ 0.00001 

* This density is only used for Edmonds Ferry Terminal area. For animals at Bremerton Ferry Terminal, 

a daily sighting of 69 animals is used for take 

estimates. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

For all marine mammals except 

California sea lion at Bremerton Ferry 

Terminal area, takes were calculated as: 

Take = ensonified area × average animal 

abundance in the area × pile driving 

days and rounded up to the nearest 

integer. For California sea lion at 

Bremerton, take estimate is based on the 

average daily sighting of 69 animals 

within the area multiplied by the nine 

project days, which yield a total of 621 

estimated takes. 

For calculated take number less than 

10, such as northern elephant seals, 

transient killer whales, humpback 

whales, minke whales, and long-beaked 

common dolphins, 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 humpback and minke 

whales, takes of eight animals each are 

estimated based on the likelihood of 

encountering. For long-beaked common 

dolphin, take of 50 animals is estimated 

based on the group size and the 

likelihood of encountering in the area. 

No Level A harassment take is 

calculated using the aforementioned 

estimation method because of the small 

injury zones and relatively low average 

animal density in the area. Since the 

largest Level A harassment distance is 

only 35 m from the source for highfrequency cetaceans (harbor porpoise 

and Dall’s porpoise), NMFS considers 

that WSDOT can effectively monitor 

such small zones to implement 

shutdown measures and avoid Level A 

harassment takes. Therefore, no Level A 

harassment take of marine mammal is 

anticipated for the dolphin replacement 

project at the Bremerton and Edmonds 

ferry terminals. 

A summary of estimated takes based 

on the above analysis is listed in Table 

7. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICESEN11SE18.000</GPH>
45906 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO RECEIVED NOISE LEVELS THAT CAUSE

LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Species 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

take 

Abundance Percentage 

Gray whale ................................................................................................................................... 10 20,990 0 

Humpback whale ......................................................................................................................... 8 1,918 0 

Minke whale ................................................................................................................................. 8 636 2 

Killer whale (West coast transient) .............................................................................................. 30 243 12 

Killer whale (Southern resident) .................................................................................................. 0 83 0 

Long-beaked common dolphin .................................................................................................... 50 101,305 0 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................................................... 1,087 11,233 10 

Dall’s porpoise ............................................................................................................................. 90 25,750 0 

California sea lion ........................................................................................................................ 1,149 296,750 0 

Steller sea lion ............................................................................................................................. 75 41,638 0 

Harbor seal .................................................................................................................................. 2,286 11,036 21 

Northern elephant seal ................................................................................................................ 15 179,000 0 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned); and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

1. Time Restriction 

In-water work must 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 

Before the commencement of in-water 

construction activities, which include 

vibratory pile driving and pile removal, 

WSDOT must establish Level A 

harassment zones where received 

underwater SELcum could cause PTS (see 

above). 

WSDOT must also establish Level B 

harassment zones where received 

underwater SPLs are higher than 120 

dBrms re 1 mPa for non-impulsive noise 

sources (vibratory pile driving and pile 

removal). 

WSDOT must establish shutdown 

zones within which marine mammals 

could be taken by Level A harassment. 

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. 

A summary of shutdown zones is 

provided in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—SHUTDOWN DISTANCES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES AND MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

Pile type, size & pile driving method 

Shutdown distance 

(m) 

LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid 

36′′ indicate pile install (1 pile/day) ...................................... 10 10 25 10 10 

36′′ indicate pile removal (1 pile/day) .................................. 10 10 10 10 10 

36′′ steel pile (existing dolphin) removal (3 piles/day) ........ 25 10 35 10 10 

36′′ steel pile (relocated dolphin) install (3 piles/day) ......... 25 10 35 10 10 

30′′ steel pile (relocated dolphin) install (3 piles/day) ......... 25 10 25 10 10 

NMFS-approved protected species 

observers (PSO) shall conduct an initial 

30-minute survey of the shutdown 

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 

shutdown zone, pile driving of the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45907 

segment must be delayed until they 

move out of the area. If a marine 

mammal is seen above water and then 

dives below, the contractor must 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 shutdown zone. 

If pile driving of a segment ceases for 

30 minutes or more and a marine 

mammal is sighted within the 

designated shutdown zone prior to 

commencement of pile driving, the 

observer(s) must notify the pile driving 

operator (or other authorized 

individual) immediately and continue 

to monitor the shutdown zone. 

Operations may not resume until the 

marine mammal has exited the 

shutdown zone or 30 minutes have 

elapsed since the last sighting. 

To verify the required monitoring 

distance, the shutdown zones and ZOIs 

will be determined by using a range 

finder or hand-held global positioning 

system device. 

3. Shutdown Measures 

WSDOT must implement shutdown 

measures if a marine mammal is 

detected within or to be approaching the 

shutdown zones provided in Table 8 of 

this notice. 

WSDOT must implement shutdown 

measures if Southern Resident killer 

whales (SRKWs) are sighted within the 

vicinity of the project area and are 

approaching the Level B harassment 

zone (zone of influence, or ZOI) during 

in-water construction activities. 

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 must be 

assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT 

shall implement the shutdown measure 

described above. 

If a SRKW enters the ZOI undetected, 

in-water pile driving or pile removal 

must be suspended until the SRKW 

exits the ZOI to avoid further level B 

harassment. 

WSDOT must implement shutdown 

measures if the number of any allotted 

marine mammal takes reaches the limit 

under the IHA or if a marine mammal 

observed is not authorized for take 

under this IHA, if such marine 

mammals are sighted within the vicinity 

of the project area and are approaching 

the Level B harassment zone during pile 

removal activities. 

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). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Monitoring Measures 

WSDOT must employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine 

mammal monitoring for its dolphin 

relocation project at Bremerton and 

Edmonds ferry terminals. The purposes 

of marine mammal monitoring are to 

implement mitigation measures and 

learn more about impacts to marine 

mammals from WSDOT’s construction 

activities. The PSOs must 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 must 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 

must 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 zones of influence 

(ZOI) from different pile types, two 

different ZOIs and different monitoring 

protocols corresponding to a specific 

pile type must be established. 

• For all vibratory driving/removal at 

the Bremerton Ferry Terminal, two 

land-based PSOs and one monitoring 

boat with one PSO and boat operator 

must monitor the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. 

• For all vibratory driving/removal at 

the Edmonds Ferry Terminal, five landbased PSOs and two ferry-based PSOs 

must monitor the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. 

• If the in-situ measurement showed 

that the Level B harassment zone at the 

Edmonds Ferry Terminal is under 15 

km from the source, three land-based 

PSOs and one ferry-based PSO must be 

monitoring the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. 

Locations of the land-based PSOs and 

routes of monitoring vessels are shown 

in WSDOT’s Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan, which is available 

online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.

gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-construction-activities. 

6. PSOs must collect the following 

information during marine mammal 

monitoring: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins and ends for each day 

conducted (monitoring period); 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45908 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

• 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; 

• 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, 

the following information shall be 

collected: 

Æ Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

Æ Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

Æ Location and distance from pile 

driving activities to marine mammals 

and distance from the marine mammals 

to the observation point; and 

Æ Estimated amount of time that the 

animals remained in the Level B 

harassment zone; 

Æ Description of implementation of 

mitigation measures within each 

monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or 

delay); and 

Æ Other human activity in the area 

within each monitoring period. 

WSDOT may conduct noise field 

measurement at the Edmonds Ferry 

Terminal to determine the actual Level 

B harassment distance from the source 

during vibratory pile driving of 36’’ 

piles. 

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 

must report the same information as 

listed above to NMFS as soon as 

operationally feasible. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

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 

Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals 

dolphin relocation 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 speciesspecific factors would be identified and 

analyzed. 

For all marine mammal species, takes 

that are anticipated and authorized are 

expected to be limited to short-term 

Level B harassment, because of the 

small scale (only a total of 30 piles to 

be installed and removed) and short 

durations (maximum nine days pile 

driving/removal at Bremerton Ferry 

Terminal and five days pile driving/ 

removal at Edmonds Ferry Terminal). 

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. For these reasons, 

these behavioral impacts are not 

expected to affect marine mammals’ 

growth, survival, and reproduction, 

especially considering the limited 

geographic area that would be affected 

in comparison to the much larger 

habitat for marine mammals in the 

Pacific Northwest. 

Take calculation based on marine 

mammal densities within the ensonified 

areas did not predict a Level A 

harassment take. In addition, the 

estimated Level A harassment zones are 

small (less than 35 m from the source) 

and can be effectively monitored to 

implement a shutdown measure if a 

marine mammal is detected to be 

moving towards that zone. The impacts 

are not expected to affect survival, and 

reproduction of the marine mammal 

population in the project vicinity. 

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’’ 

section. There is no ESA designated 

critical area in the vicinity of the 

Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminal 

areas. 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; but, 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 

Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45909 

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 injury, serious injury, or 

mortality is anticipated or authorized; 

• All harassment is Level B 

harassment in the form of short-term 

behavioral modification; and 

• No areas of specific importance to 

affected species are impacted. 

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 

prescribed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total take 

from the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals 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. 

The estimated takes are below 21 

percent of the population for all marine 

mammals. 

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 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the population size of the affected 

species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

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 Categorical 

Exclusion 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 (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with NMFS West Coast Region 

Protected Resources Division, whenever 

we propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

The humpback whale and the killer 

whale (southern resident distinct 

population segment (DPS)) are the only 

marine mammal species listed under the 

ESA that could occur in the vicinity of 

WSDOT’s proposed construction 

project. Two DPSs of the humpback 

whale stock, the Mexico DPS and the 

Central America DPS, are listed as 

threatened and endangered under the 

ESA, respectively. NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources has initiated 

consultation with NMFS West Coast 

Regional Office under section 7 of the 

ESA on the issuance of an IHA to 

WSDOT under section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA for this activity. NMFS is 

authorizing take of California/Oregon/ 

Washington stock of humpback whale, 

which are listed under the ESA. 

In March 2018, NMFS finished 

conducting its section 7 consultation 

and issued a Biological Opinion 

concluding that the issuance of the IHA 

associated with WSDOT’s BremertonEdmonds ferry terminals construction 

project is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the endangered 

humpback and the Southern Resident 

killer whales. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation for the Bremerton and 

Edmonds ferry terminals dolphin 

relocation project in Washington State, 

provided the previously described 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: September 5, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19592 Filed 9–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, 

September 14, 2018. 

PLACE: Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st 

Street NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor 

Commission Conference Room. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Enforcement matters. In the event that 

the time, date, or location of this 

meeting changes, an announcement of 

the change, along with the new time, 

date, and/or place of the meeting will be 

posted on the Commission’s website at 

http://www.cftc.gov. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202–418–5964. 

Natise L. Allen, 

Secretariat Program Assistant. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19832 Filed 9–7–18; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Renewal of the Agricultural Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Agricultural Advisory 

Committee renewal. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (Commission) is 

publishing this notice to announce the 

renewal of the Agricultural Advisory 

Committee (AAC). The Commission has 

determined that the renewal of the AAC 

is necessary and in the public’s interest, 

and the Commission has consulted with 

the General Services Administration’s 

Committee Management Secretariat 

regarding the AAC’s renewal. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES