44164 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 

fisheries. The overall goal of these 

workshops is to provide participants 

with the skills needed to reduce the 

mortality of protected species and 

prohibited sharks, which may prevent 

additional regulations on these fisheries 

in the future. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: September 18, 2017. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20115 Filed 9–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF340 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Mukilteo 

Multimodal Construction 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 Mukilteo 

Multimodal Construction Project in 

Washington State. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from August 1, 2017, through July 31, 

2018. 

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). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5) 

authorization requires compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

NMFS 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 the 

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. 

Summary of Request 

NMFS received a request from 

WSDOT for an IHA to take marine 

mammals incidental to Mukilteo 

Multimodal Project in Mukilteo, 

Washington. WSDOT’s request was for 

harassment only and NMFS concurs 

that serious injury or mortality is not 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

On April 7, 2016, WSDOT submitted 

a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for 

the possible harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammal species 

incidental to construction associated 

with the Mukilteo Multimodal Project in 

Mukilteo, Washington, between August 

1, 2017, and July 31, 2018. WSDOT 

subsequently updated its project scope 

and submitted a revised IHA application 

on April 10, 2017. NMFS determined 

the IHA application was complete on 

April 14, 2017. NMFS is proposing to 

authorize the take by Level A and Level 

B harassment of the following marine 

mammal species: Harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus), Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus), northern elephant 

seal (Mirounga angustirostris), killer 

whale (Orcinus orca), gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback 

whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and 

Dall’s porpoise (P. dalli). 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The purpose of the Mukilteo 

Multimodal Project is to provide safe, 

reliable, and effective service and 

connection for general-purpose 

transportation, transit, high occupancy 

vehicles (HOV), pedestrians, and 

bicyclists traveling between Island 

County and the Seattle/Everett 

metropolitan area and beyond by 

constructing a new ferry terminal. The 

current Mukilteo Ferry Terminal has not 

had significant improvements for almost 

30 years and needs key repairs. The 

existing facility is deficient in a number 

of aspects, such as safety, multimodal 

connectivity, capacity, and the ability to 

support the goals of local and regional 

long-range transportation and 

comprehensive plans. The project is 

intended to: 

• Reduce conflicts, congestion, and 

safety concerns for pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and motorists by improving 

local traffic and safety at the terminal 

and the surrounding area that serves 

these transportation needs. 

• Provide a terminal and supporting 

facilities with the infrastructure and 

operating characteristics needed to 

improve the safety, security, quality, 

reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness 

of multimodal transportation. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 44165 

• Accommodate future demand 

projected for transit, HOV, pedestrian, 

bicycle, and general-purpose traffic. 

The proposed Mukilteo Multimodal 

Project would involve in-water impact 

and vibratory pile driving and vibratory 

pile removal. Details of the proposed 

construction project are provided below. 

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. For this 

project, in-water construction is 

planned to take place between August 1, 

2017 and February 15, 2018. The total 

worst-case time for pile installation and 

removal is 175 days (Table 1). 

Specified Geographic Region 

The Mukilteo Ferry Terminal is 

located in the City of Mukilteo, 

Snohomish County, Washington. The 

terminal is located in Township 28 

North, Range 4 East, Section 3, in 

Possession Sound. The new terminal 

will be approximately 1,700 feet (ft) east 

of the existing terminal in Township 28 

North, Range 4 East, Section 33 (Figure 

1–2 of the IHA application). Land use in 

the Mukilteo area is a mix of residential, 

commercial, industrial, and open space 

and/or undeveloped lands. 

Detailed Description of In-Water Pile 

Driving Associated With Mukilteo 

Multimodal Project 

The proposed project has two 

elements involving noise production 

that may affect marine mammals: 

Vibratory hammer driving and removal, 

and impact hammer driving. Details of 

the pile driving and pile removal 

activities are provided in the Federal 

Register notice (82 FR 21793; May 10, 

2017) for the proposed IHA and is 

summarized in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING DURATIONS

Method Pile type Pile size 

(inch) Pile number 

Duration 

(min./sec.) 

per pile (vib.) or 

strikes per pile 

(impact) 

Duration 

(days) 

Vibratory driving .............................................................. Steel ............. 24 117 60/3,600 39 

Vibratory removal ............................................................ Steel ............. 24 69 15/900 23 

Vibratory driving .............................................................. Steel ............. 30 40 60/3,600 14 

Vibratory removal ............................................................ Steel ............. 30 2 30/1,800 1 

Vibratory removal ............................................................ Steel ............. 30 7 15/1,800 1 

Vibratory driving .............................................................. Steel ............. 36 6 60/3,600 2 

Vibratory driving .............................................................. Steel shaft .... 78 2 60/3,600 2 

Vibratory driving .............................................................. Steel shaft .... 120 1 60/3,600 1 

Vibratory driving .............................................................. Steel H-pile .. 12 139 30/1,800 14 

Vibratory driving .............................................................. Steel sheet ... ........................ 90 30/1,800 30 

Vibratory removal ............................................................ Steel sheet ... ........................ 90 15/900 15

Impact proofing ................................................................ Steel ............. 24 68 300 23 

Impact driving .................................................................. Steel ............. 30 25 3,000 9 

Impact proofing ................................................................ Steel ............. 30 5 300 1 

Total ......................................................................... ...................... ........................ 661 .............................. 175 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA was published in the Federal 

Register on May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21793). 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS received a comment letter 

from the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission). No other comments were 

received. Specific comments and 

responses are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commission noted 

several typographic errors in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA. Specifically, Level B harassment 

for Steller sea lion, gray whales, harbor 

porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise should be 

320, 44, 6,650, and 414, instead of 323, 

45, 6,698, and 417, respectively. 

Further, the Commission recommends 

that NMFS issue the incidental 

harassment authorization, subject to the 

inclusion of the proposed mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission’s assessment and made 

corrections to these errors. Specifically, 

Level B harassment for Steller sea lion, 

gray whales, harbor porpoise, and Dall’s 

porpoise are changed to 320, 44, 6,650, 

and 414, from the previous 323, 45, 

6,698, and 417, respectively. All these 

corrections are included in this 

document in the Estimated Takes 

section. The reduced takes do not affect 

our analysis of negligible impact 

determination and small number 

conclusion as discussed later in this 

document. 

Comment 2: The Commission had 

questions about the method used to 

estimate the numbers of takes during the 

proposed activities, which summed 

fractions of takes for each species across 

project days. The Commission had 

concerns that this method does not 

account for and negates the intent of 

NMFS’s 24-hour reset policy. 

Response: While for certain projects 

NMFS has rounded to the whole 

number for daily takes, for projects like 

this one, when the objective of take 

estimation is to provide more accurate 

assessments of potential impacts to 

marine mammals for the entire project, 

rounding in the middle of a calculation 

would introduce large errors into the 

process. In addition, while NMFS uses 

a 24-hour reset for its take calculation to 

ensure that individual animals are not 

counted as a take more than once per 

day, that fact does not make the 

calculation of take across the entire 

activity period inherently incorrect. 

There is no need for daily (24-hour) 

rounding in this case because there is no 

daily limit of takes, as long as total 

authorized takes of marine mammal are 

not exceeded. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

The marine mammal species under 

NMFS jurisdiction that have the 

potential to occur in the proposed 

construction area include Pacific harbor 

seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus), northern 

elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), 

killer whale (Orcinus orca), gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44166 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 

whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and 

Dall’s porpoise (P. dalli). A list of 

marine mammals that have the potential 

to occur in the vicinity of the action and 

their legal status under the MMPA and 

ESA are provided in Table 2. 

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 20,990 624 132 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

Humpback whale .......................... Megaptera novaeangliae ............. California/Oregon/Washington ..... Y 1,918 11.0 6.5 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae 

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

Resident.

Y 78 0 0 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

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

Dall’s porpoise .............................. P. dalli .......................................... 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 71,562 2,498 108 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

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

waters.

N 4 11,036 1,641 43 

Elephant seal ............................... Mirounga angustirostris ............... California breeding ....................... N 179,000 2,882 8.8 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

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

General information on the marine 

mammal species found in Washington 

coastal waters can be found in Caretta 

et al. (2016), which is available online 

at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/ 

pdf/pacific2015_final.pdf. Refer to that 

document for information on these 

species. Specific information 

concerning these species in the vicinity 

of the proposed action area is provided 

in detail in the WSDOT’s IHA 

application and in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 

21793; May 10, 2017). 

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 decibels 

(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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 44167 

approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 

kilohertz (kHz), with best hearing 

estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 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, 

with best hearing from 10 to less than 

100 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, with best hearing between 1– 

50 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, 

with best hearing between 2–48 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). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Nine marine 

mammal species (5 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, 2 

are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 1 

is classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., killer whale), and 2 are classified 

as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor 

porpoise 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 includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

considers 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. 

The WSDOT’s Mukilteo Multimodal 

construction work 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—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 threshold shift 

just after exposure is the initial 

threshold shift. If the threshold shift 

eventually returns to zero (i.e., the 

threshold returns to the pre-exposure 

value), it is a temporary threshold shift 

(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 threshold 

shift (TS). An animal can experience 

temporary threshold shift (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 et 

al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a, 

2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; 

Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a, 

2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; 

Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et al., 

2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). 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 rms SPL 

from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. 

However, applying a conservative 

conversion factor of 16 dB for 

broadband signals from seismic surveys 

(McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for 

the difference between peak-to-peak 

levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) 

and rms SPLs, the rms SPL for TTS 

would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 

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 

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

that strategies exist for coping with this 

condition to some degree, though likely 

not without cost. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44168 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 

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 sound 

pressure level) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, and most of 

these increases are from distant 

shipping (Hildebrand 2009). For 

WSDOT’s Mukilteo Multimodal 

construction activities, 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 (root mean 

squared (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 Mukilteo Multimodal 

construction activities, both of these 

noise levels are considered for effects 

analysis because WSDOT plans to use 

both impact and vibratory pile driving, 

as well as vibratory 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 primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as noise from 

pile driving and removal has the 

potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns for individual 

marine mammals. There is also some 

potential for auditory injury (Level A 

harassment) to result, primarily for high 

frequency cetaceans and phocids due to 

larger predicted auditory injury zones. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 

low- and mid-frequency cetaceans and 

otariids. The prescribed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 44169 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 

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 use of continuous 

(vibratory pile driving and removal) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, 

and therefore the 120 and 160 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) are applicable. 

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 includes the use of impulsive 

(impact pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving and pile removal) 

sources. 

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 pile 

driving and removal of 24-, 30-, and 36- 

inch (in) steel piles, vibratory driving of 

78- and 120-in steel shaft, vibratory 

driving of steel H-piles, vibratory 

driving and removal of steel sheet piles, 

and impact pile driving and proofing of 

24- and 30-in steel piles. 

Source levels of the above pile driving 

activities are based on measurements of 

the same material types and same or 

similar dimensions of piles measured at 

Mukilteo or elsewhere. Specifically, the 

source level for vibratory pile driving 

and removal of the 24-in steel pile is 

based on vibratory test pile driving of 

the same pile at the Friday Harbor 

(WSDOT 2010a). The unweighted 

SPLrms source level at 10 meters (m) 

from the pile is 162 dB re 1 re 1 mPa. 

We consider that using vibratory pile 

installation source level as a proxy for 

vibratory pile removal is conservative. 

The source level for vibratory pile 

driving and removal of the 30-in steel 

pile is based on vibratory pile driving of 

the same pile at Port Townsend 

(WSDOT, 2010b). The unweighted 

SPLrms source level at 10 m from the pile 

is 174 dB re 1 re 1 mPa. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44170 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 

The source level for vibratory pile 

driving 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. 

Source level for vibratory pile driving 

of the 78- and 120-in steel shaft 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 2012). The value of 180 dB 

is chosen to be more conservative. 

The source level for vibratory pile 

driving of steel H-piles is based on 

measurements conducted by the 

California Department of Transportation 

(CALTRANS). The unweighted SPLrms

source level is 150 dB re 1 re 1 mPa at 

10 m from the pile (CALTRANS, 2012). 

The source level for vibratory sheet 

pile driving and removal is based on 

measurements at the Elliott Bay Seawall 

Project. The unweighted SPLrms source 

level is 164 dB re 1 re 1 mPa at 10 m 

from the pile (Greenbusch 2015). 

Source levels for impact pile driving 

of the 24-in steel piles are based on 

impact test pile driving of the same steel 

pile during the Vashon Acoustic 

Monitoring by WSDOT (Laughlin, 

2015). The unweighted back-calculated 

source levels at 10 m are 174 dB re 1 

mPa2-s for single strike SEL (SELss) and 

189 dB re 1 mPa for SPLrms. 

Source levels for impact pile driving 

of the 30-in steel pile are based on 

impact test pile driving for the 36-in 

steel pile at Mukilteo in November 

2006. 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. 

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 

(inch) 

SEL (SELss

for impact pile 

driving), dB re 

1 μPa2¥s 

SPLrms, dB re 

1 μPa2

Vibratory driving/removal ........................................................................... Steel, 24 .......................................... 162 162 

Vibratory driving/removal ........................................................................... Steel, 30 .......................................... 174 174 

Vibratory driving ......................................................................................... Steel, 36 .......................................... 177 177 

Vibratory driving ......................................................................................... Steel shaft, 78 ................................. 180 180 

Vibratory driving ......................................................................................... Steel shaft, 120 ............................... 180 180 

Vibratory driving ......................................................................................... Steel H-pile, 12 ................................ 150 150 

Vibratory driving/removal ........................................................................... Steel sheet ...................................... 164 164 

Impact driving ............................................................................................ Steel, 24 .......................................... 174 189 

Impact driving ............................................................................................ Steel, 30 .......................................... 178 193 

These source levels are used to 

compute the Level A ensonified zones 

and to estimate the Level B harassment 

zones. For Level A harassment zones, 

zones calculated using cumulative SEL 

are all larger than those calculated using 

SPLpeak, therefore, only zones based on 

cumulative SEL for Level A harassment 

are used. 

Source spectrum of the 36-in steel 

pile recording is used for spectral 

modeling for the 24-, 30-, and 36-in steel 

pile vibratory pile driving and removal 

to calculate Level A exposure distances 

based on cumulative SEL metric (see 

below). 

For other piles where no recording is 

available, source modeling cannot be 

performed. In such cases, the weighting 

factor adjustment (WFA) recommended 

by NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 

2016) was used to determine Level A 

exposure distances. 

Estimating Injury Zones 

Calculation and modeling of 

applicable ensonified zones are based 

on source measurements of comparable 

types and sizes of piles driven by 

different methods (impact vs. vibratory 

hammers) as described above. 

When NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which will result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A take. However, 

these tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools, and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For peak SPL (Lpk), distances to 

marine mammal injury thresholds were 

calculated using a simple geometric 

spreading model using a transmission 

loss coefficient of 15. For cumulative 

SEL (LE), distances to marine mammal 

injury thresholds were computed using 

spectral modeling that incorporates 

frequency specific absorption. 

Isopleths to Level B behavioral zones 

are based on root-mean-square SPL 

(SPLrms) that are specific for impulse 

(impact pile driving) and non-impulse 

(vibratory pile driving) sources. 

Distances to marine mammal behavior 

thresholds were calculated using 

practical spreading. 

A summary of the measured and 

modeled harassment zones is provided 

in Table 5. The maximum distance is 

20,500 m from the source, since this is 

where landmass intercepts underwater 

sound propagation. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 44171 

TABLE 5—DISTANCES TO HARASSMENT ZONES

Pile type, size and pile driving method 

Injury zone 

(m) Behavior 

zone 

(m) LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory removal, 24-in steel pile, 3 

piles/day ............................................... 10 10 55 10 10 6,040 

Vibratory driving, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/ 

day ........................................................ 175 45 995 85 10 6,040 

Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 2 

piles/day ............................................... 55 10 345 25 10 * 20,500 

Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 7 

piles/day ............................................... 125 35 725 55 10 * 20,500 

Vibratory driving, 30-in steel pile, 3 piles/ 

day ........................................................ 175 45 995 85 10 * 20,500 

Vibratory driving, 36-in steel pile, 3 piles/ 

day ........................................................ 175 45 995 85 10 * 20,500 

Vibratory driving, 78-in steel shaft, 1 pile/ 

day ........................................................ 126 11 186 77 5 * 20,500 

Vibratory driving, 120-in steel shaft, 1 

pile/day ................................................. 126 11 186 77 5 * 20,500 

Vibratory driving, steel 12-in H-pile, 10 

piles/day ............................................... 4 1 6 2 0 1,000 

Vibratory driving, steel sheet, 3 piles/day 14 1 21 9 1 8,577 

Vibratory removal, steel sheet, 6 piles/ 

day ........................................................ 23 2 33 14 1 8,577 

Impact proofing, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/ 

day ........................................................ 135 10 75 35 10 875 

Impact driving, 30-in steel pile, 3 piles/ 

day ........................................................ 1,065 10 505 225 10 1,585 

Impact proofing, 30-in steel pile, 5 piles/ 

day ........................................................ 355 10 175 75 10 1,585 

* Landmass intercepts at a distance of 20,500 m from project area. 

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. 

Incidental take is estimated for each 

species by estimating the likelihood of 

a marine mammal being present within 

a Level A or Level B harassment zone 

during active pile driving or removal. 

The Level A calculation includes a 

duration component, along with an 

assumption (which can lead to 

overestimates in some cases) that 

animals within the zone stay in that area 

for the whole duration of the pile 

driving activity within a day. For all 

marine mammal species except harbor 

seals, California sea lions, and northern 

elephant seals, estimated takes are 

calculated based on ensonified area for 

a specific pile driving activity 

multiplied by the marine mammal 

density in the action area, multiplied by 

the number of pile driving (or removal) 

days. In most cases, marine mammal 

density data are from the U.S. Navy 

Marine Species Density Database (Navy 

2015). Harbor porpoise density is based 

on a recent study by Jefferson et al. 

(2016) for the Eastern Whidbey area 

near the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal. 

Harbor seal, northern elephant seal, and 

California sea lion takes are based on 

observations in the Mukilteo area, since 

these data provide the best information 

on distribution and presence of these 

species that are often associated with 

nearby haulouts (see below). 

The Level A take total was further 

adjusted by subtracting animals 

expected to occur within the exclusion 

zone, where pile driving activities are 

suspended when an animal is observed 

in or approaching the zone (see 

Mitigation section). Further, the number 

of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude 

those already counted for Level A takes. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

The harbor seal take estimate is based 

on local seal abundance information 

from monitoring during the Mukilteo 

pier removal project. Marine mammal 

visual monitoring during Mukilteo Ferry 

Terminal pier removal project showed 

an average daily observation of 7 harbor 

seals (WSDOT 2015). Based on a total of 

175 pile driving days for the WSDOT 

Mukilteo Multimodal Phase 2 project, it 

is estimated that up to 1,225 harbor 

seals could be exposed to noise levels 

associated with ‘‘take.’’ Since 9 days 

would involve impact pile driving of 30- 

in piles with Level A harassment zones 

beyond the required shutdown zones 

(225 m vs 160 m shutdown zone), we 

consider that 63 harbor seals exposed 

during these 9 days would experience 

Level A harassment. 

The California sea lion take estimate 

is based on local sea lion abundance 

information during the Mukilteo Ferry 

Terminal pier removal project (WSDOT 

2015). Marine mammal visual 

monitoring during the Mukilteo pier 

removal project indicates on average 7 

sea lions were observed in the general 

area of the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal per 

day (WSDOT 2015). Based on a total of 

175 pile driving days for the WSDOT 

Mukilteo Multimodal project, it is 

estimated that up to 1,225 California sea 

lions could be exposed to noise levels 

associated with ‘‘take’’. Since the Level 

A harassment zones of otarids are all 

very small (max. 10 m, Table 5), we do 

not consider it likely that any sea lions 

would be taken by Level A harassment. 

Therefore, all California sea lion takes 

estimated here are expected to be by 

Level B harassment. 

Northern elephant seal is not common 

in the Mukilteo Multimodal Project 

area, however, their presence has been 

observed in Edmonds area just south of 

Mukilteo (Huey, Pers. Comm. April 

2017). Therefore, a potential take of 20 

animals by Level B harassment during 

the project period is assessed. Since 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44172 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 

northern elephant seal is very 

uncommon in the project area, we do 

not consider it likely that any elephant 

seal would be taken by Level A 

harassment. 

However, the method used in take 

estimates does not account for single 

individuals being taken multiple times 

during the entire project period of 175 

days. Therefore, the percent of marine 

mammals that are likely to be taken for 

a given population would be far less 

than the ratio of numbers of animals 

taken divided by the population size. 

For harbor porpoise, the estimated 

incidences of takes at 6,759 animals 

would be 60.2 percent of the 

population, if each single take were a 

unique individual. However, this is 

highly unlikely because the results of 

telemetry and photo-identification 

studies in Washington waters have 

demonstrated that harbor porpoise 

shows site fidelity to small areas for 

periods of time that can extend between 

seasons (Hanson et al. 1999; Hanson 

2007a, 2007b). Based on studies by 

Jefferson et al. (2016), harbor porpoise 

abundance in the East Whidbey region, 

which is adjunct to the Mukilteo Ferry 

Terminal construction, is 497, and 

harbor porpoise abundance in the entire 

surrounding area of North Puget Sound 

is 1,798. 

For Southern Resident killer whales, 

potential takes based on density 

calculation showed that 4 animals could 

be exposed to noise levels for Level B 

harassment. However, mitigation 

measures prescribed below are expected 

to prevent such takes. 

A summary of estimated marine 

mammal takes is listed in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO RECEIVED NOISE LEVELS THAT CAUSE

LEVEL A OR LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Species Estimated 

Level A take 

Estimated 

Level B take 

Estimated 

total take Abundance Percentage 

Pacific harbor seal ............................................................... 63 1,162 1,225 11,036 11.1 

California sea lion ................................................................ 0 1,225 1,225 296,750 0.41 

Northern elephant seal ........................................................ 0 20 20 179,000 0.01 

Steller sea lion ..................................................................... 0 320 320 71,562 0.32 

Killer whale, transient ........................................................... 0 21 21 243 8.64 

Killer whale, Southern Resident .......................................... 0 0 0 78 0 

Gray whale ........................................................................... 0 44 44 20,990 0.21 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 0 6 6 1,918 0.31 

Harbor porpoise ................................................................... 61 6,650 6,711 11,233 60.2 

Dall’s porpoise ..................................................................... 4 414 418 25,750 1.63 

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. 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. 

In addition, all in-water construction 

will be limited to the period between 

August 1, 2017, and February 15, 2018. 

2. Use of Noise Attenuation Devices 

To reduce impact on marine 

mammals, WSDOT shall use a marine 

pile driving energy attenuator (i.e., air 

bubble curtain system), or other equally 

effective sound attenuation method 

(e.g., dewatered cofferdam) for all 

impact pile driving. 

3. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, 

Level B Harassment Zones, and 

Exclusion Zones 

Before the commencement of in-water 

construction activities, which include 

impact pile driving and vibratory pile 

driving and pile removal, WSDOT shall 

establish Level A harassment zones 

where received underwater SPLs or 

SELcum could cause PTS (see above). 

WSDOT shall also establish Level B 

harassment zones where received 

underwater SPLs are higher than 160 

dBrms and 120 dBrms re 1 mPa for impulse 

noise sources (impact pile driving) and 

non-impulses noise sources (vibratory 

pile driving and pile removal), 

respectively. 

WSDOT shall establish a maximum 

160-m Level A exclusion zone for all 

marine mammals except low-frequency 

baleen whales. For Level A harassment 

zones that are smaller than 160 m from 

the source, WSDOT shall establish 

exclusion zones that correspond to the 

estimated Level A harassment distances, 

but shall not be less than 10 m. For lowfrequency baleen whales, WSDOT shall 

establish exclusion zones that 

correspond to the actual Level A 

harassment distances, but shall not be 

less than 10 m. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 44173 

A summary of exclusion zones is 

provided in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—EXCLUSION ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES AND MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

Pile type, size and pile driving method 

Exclusion zone 

(m) 

LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid 

Vibratory removal, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/day ................... 10 10 55 10 10 

Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 2 piles/day ................... 55 10 160 25 10 

Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 7 piles/day ................... 125 35 160 55 10 

Vibratory driving, 24-, 30- & 36-in steel pile, 3 piles/day .... 175 45 160 85 10 

Vibratory driving, 78-, 120-in steel shaft, 1 pile/day ............ 126 11 160 77 10 

Vibratory driving, steel 12-in H-pile, 10 piles/day ................ 4 1 6 2 1 

Vibratory driving, steel sheet, 3 piles/day ............................ 14 1 21 9 1 

Vibratory removal, steel sheet, 6 piles/day ......................... 23 2 33 14 1 

Impact proofing, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/day ....................... 135 10 75 35 10 

Impact driving, 30-in steel pile, 3 piles/day ......................... 1,065 10 160 160 10 

Impact proofing, 30-in steel pile, 5 piles/day ....................... 355 10 160 75 10 

NMFS-approved protected species 

observers (PSO) shall conduct an initial 

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 

30 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, 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. 

4. 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. 

5. 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 6. 

WSDOT shall also implement 

shutdown measures if southern resident 

killer whales are sighted within the 

vicinity of the project area and are 

approaching the Level B harassment 

zone (or Zone of Influence, 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 Southern 

Resident killer whale or a transient 

killer whale, it shall be assumed to be 

a Southern Resident killer whale and 

WSDOT shall implement the shutdown 

measure. 

If a Southern Resident killer whale or 

an unidentified killer whale enters the 

ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or 

pile removal shall be suspended until 

the whale exits the ZOI to avoid further 

level B harassment. 

Further, WSDOT shall implement 

shutdown measures if the number of 

authorized takes for any particular 

species reaches the limit under the IHA 

(if issued) and if such marine mammals 

are sighted within the vicinity of the 

project area and are approaching the 

Level B harassment zone during inwater construction activities. 

6. Coordination With Local Marine 

Mammal Research Network 

Prior to the start of pile driving for the 

day, the Orca Network and/or Center for 

Whale Research will be contacted by 

WSDOT to find out the location of the 

nearest marine mammal sightings. The 

Orca Sightings Network consists of a list 

of over 600 (and growing) residents, 

scientists, and government agency 

personnel in the U.S. and Canada. 

Sightings are called or emailed into the 

Orca Network and immediately 

distributed to other sighting networks 

including: The NMFS Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, the Center for 

Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the 

Whale Museum Hotline and the British 

Columbia Sightings Network. 

Sightings information collected by the 

Orca Network includes detection by 

hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote 

Sensing Network is a system of 

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. 

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, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44174 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 

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 shall employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine 

mammal monitoring for its Mukilteo 

Multimodal Project. The PSOs will 

observe and collect data on marine 

mammals in and around the project area 

for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 

minutes after all pile removal and pile 

installation work. NMFS-approved 

PSOs shall meet the following 

requirements: 

1. Independent observers (i.e., not 

construction personnel) are required; 

2. At least one observer must have 

prior experience working as an observer; 

3. Other observers may substitute 

education (undergraduate degree in 

biological science or related field) or 

training for experience; 

4. Where a team of three or more 

observers are required, one observer 

should be designated as lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator. The lead 

observer must have prior experience 

working as an observer; and 

5. NMFS will require submission and 

approval of observer CVs; 

Monitoring of marine mammals 

around the construction site shall be 

conducted using high-quality binoculars 

(e.g., Zeiss, 10 × 42 power). Due to the 

different sizes of ZOIs from different 

pile sizes, several different ZOIs and 

different monitoring protocols 

corresponding to a specific pile size will 

be established. 

• For Level A zones less than 160 m 

and Level B zones less than 1,000 m 

(i.e., vibratory 12-in H pile driving, 10 

piles/day; impact proofing of 24-in steel 

piles, 3 piles/day), two land-based PSOs 

will monitor the exclusion zones and 

Level B harassment zone. 

• For Level A zones between 160 and 

500 m, and Level B zones between 1,000 

and 10,000 m (i.e, vibratory pile driving 

and removal of 24-in steel piles, 3 piles/ 

day; vibratory driving and removal of 

steel sheet; and impact proofing of 30- 

in steel piles, 5 piles/day), 5 land-based 

PSOs and 1 vessel-based PSO on a ferry 

will monitor the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. 

• For the rest of the pile driving and 

pile removal scenario, 5 land-based 

PSOs and 2 vessel-based PSOs on ferries 

will monitor 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 www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/construction.htm. 

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. 

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. 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). 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 44175 

To avoid repetition, this introductory 

discussion of our analyses applies to all 

the species listed in Table 6, given that 

the anticipated effects of WSDOT’s 

Mukilteo Multimodal Project activities 

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. 

Although a few marine mammal 

species (63 harbor seals, 61 harbor 

porpoises, and 4 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 because most 

animals will avoid the area, and thus 

avoid injury. 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. 

For the rest of the three marine 

mammal species, takes that are 

anticipated and authorized are expected 

to be limited to short-term Level B 

harassment. 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. These behavioral 

distances are not expected to affect 

marine mammals’ growth, survival, and 

reproduction due to the limited 

geographic area that would be affected 

in comparison to the much larger 

habitat for marine mammals in the 

Puget Sound. 

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. 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 

Mukilteo Ferry Terminal 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; 

• Level A harassment is expected in 

the form of elevated hearing threshold 

of a few dBs within limited frequency 

range, and is limited to a few individual 

animals of three species; and 

• The majority of harassment is Level 

B harassment in the form of short-term 

behavioral modification. 

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 12 

percent of the population for all marine 

mammals except harbor porpoise (Table 

6). For harbor porpoise, the estimate of 

6,759 incidences of takes would be 60.2 

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 East Whidbey region, which is 

adjunct to the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal 

construction, is 497, and harbor 

porpoise abundance in the entire 

surrounding area of North Puget Sound 

is 1,798. Therefore, if the estimated 

incidents of take accrued to all the 

animals expected to occur in the entire 

North Puget Sound area (1,798 animals), 

it would be 16.01 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 

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. 

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 West Coast Regional Office 

Protected Resources Division Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44176 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 

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. 

In July 2017, NMFS finished 

conducting its section 7 consultation 

and issued a Biological Opinion 

concluding that the issuance of the IHA 

associated with WSDOT’s Mukilteo 

Multimodal 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 Mukilteo 

Multimodal Construction Project in 

Washington State, provided the 

previously described mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: September 18, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20144 Filed 9–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–R10–OW–2017–0369; FRL9968–06– 

Region 10] 

Public Hearings: Proposal To 

Withdraw Proposed Determination To 

Restrict the Use of an Area as a 

Disposal Site; Pebble Deposit Area, 

Southwest Alaska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Announcement of public 

hearing dates. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) will hold two public 

hearings to obtain public testimony and 

comment on its proposal to withdraw 

the EPA Region 10 July 2014 Proposed 

Determination that was issued pursuant 

to the Clean Water Act. The public 

hearings will be held on October 11, 

2017, from 6:00–9:00 p.m. Alaska 

Daylight Time (AKDT) in Dillingham, 

Alaska, and October 12, 2017, from 

1:00–4:00 p.m. AKDT in Iliamna, 

Alaska. The EPA will continue to accept 

written public comments through the 

close of the public comment period on 

October 17, 2017. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 17, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OW–2017–0369, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit 

www.epa.gov/bristolbay or contact a 

Bristol Bay-specific phone line, (206) 

553–0040, or email address, 

r10bristolbay@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Public Hearings 

The EPA will hold two public 

hearings on its proposal to withdraw the 

EPA Region 10 July 2014 Proposed 

Determination. The hearing dates and 

locations are as follows: 

October 11, 2017—6:00–9:00 p.m. 

AKDT, Dillingham Middle School 

Gym, Dillingham, Alaska 

October 12, 2017—1:00–4:00 p.m. 

AKDT, Iliamna Community Center, 

Iliamna, Alaska 

Additional hearing details and any 

changes to the schedule are available at 

www.epa.gov/bristolbay. The purpose of 

the public hearings is to obtain public 

testimony and comment on the proposal 

to withdraw the EPA Region 10 July 

2014 Proposed Determination that was 

issued pursuant to Section 404(c) of the 

Clean Water Act. Senior leadership from 

EPA Headquarters and Region 10 will be 

in attendance, along with staff from both 

EPA Headquarters and Region 10. Any 

person may attend the hearings and 

submit oral and/or written statements or 

data and may be represented by counsel 

or other authorized representatives. If 

you would like to submit written 

comments, you may do so at the public 

hearings or by one of the methods 

described in the section of this public 

notice entitled: How to Submit 

Comments to the Docket at 

www.regulations.gov. 

The EPA will not respond to 

questions/comments during the hearing. 

The EPA will consider the oral and 

written statements received at the 

public hearings and other written 

comments submitted pursuant to the 

instructions set forth in the section of 

this public notice entitled: How to 

Submit Comments to the Docket at 

www.regulations.gov. 

B. Background 

On July 19, 2017, EPA published a 

public notice and request for comment 

in the Federal Register, entitled 

‘‘Proposal to Withdraw Proposed 

Determination to Restrict the Use of an 

Area as a Disposal Site; Pebble Deposit 

Area, Southwest Alaska’’ (82 FR 33123). 

The EPA Administrator and Region 10 

Acting Regional Administrator are 

requesting public comment on this 

proposal to withdraw the EPA Region 

10 July 2014 Proposed Determination 

that was issued pursuant to Section 

404(c) of the Clean Water Act, to restrict 

the use of certain waters in the South 

Fork Koktuli River, North Fork Koktuli 

River, and Upper Talarik Creek 

watersheds in southwest Alaska as 

disposal sites for dredged or fill material 

associated with mining the Pebble 

deposit, a copper-, gold-, and 

molybdenum-bearing ore body. The 

EPA agreed to initiate this proposed 

withdrawal process pursuant to policy 

direction from EPA’s Administrator and 

as part of a May 11, 2017 settlement 

agreement with the Pebble Limited 

Partnership (PLP), whose subsidiaries 

own the mineral claims to the Pebble 

deposit. The Agency is accepting public 

comment through the aforementioned 

notice to afford the public an 

opportunity to comment on: 

• Whether to withdraw the July 2014 

Proposed Determination at this time for 

the reasons stated in the aforementioned 

notice; and 

• if a final withdrawal decision is 

made following this comment period, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES