[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47155-47176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19809]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XW30
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Pile-
Driving and Renovation Operations on the Trinidad Pier by the Cher-Ae
Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria in Trinidad, CA
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
regulation, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the Cher-Ae Heights Indian
Community of the Trinidad Rancheria (Trinidad Rancheria) to take small
numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to pile-
driving and renovation operations for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction
Project in Trinidad, California.
DATES: Effective August 1, 2011 through January 31, 2012.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA is available by writing to P. Michael
Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by telephoning the contacts listed
here.
[[Page 47156]]
A copy of the application containing a list of the references used
in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified
above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. The following
associated documents are also available at the same internet address:
``Biological Assessment, Trinidad Pier Replacement, Cher-Ae Heights
Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, May 2009'' and
``Environmental Assessment for Issuance of an Incidental Harassment
Authorization for Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad
Rancheria's Trinidad Reconstruction Project in Trinidad, California.''
Documents cited in this notice, may be viewed by appointment, during
regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361(a)(5)(D)) directs
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals for a period
of not more than one year 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, if the taking is
limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided
to the public for review.
Authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine
mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The authorization must
set forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting
the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat,
and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting
of such takings. 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.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit
for NMFS's review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice
and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental
harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the
close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the
authorization.
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].
16 U.S.C. 1362(18).
Summary of Request
On November 3, 2009, NMFS received a letter from the Trinidad
Rancheria, requesting an IHA. After addressing comments from NMFS, a
revised IHA application was submitted on July 23, 2010. On May 18,
2011, NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register (76 FR 28733)
disclosing the effects on marine mammals, making preliminary
determinations and including a proposed IHA. The notice initiated a 30
day public comment period.
The requested IHA would authorize the take, by Level B (behavioral)
harassment only, of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals (Phoca
vitulina richardsi), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), and
Eastern Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) incidental to pile-
driving and renovation operations on the Trinidad Pier. The Trinidad
Pier has served the Trinidad Community for decades and continues to be
one of the marine economic generators for the area. This project will
not only address the structural deficiencies of the aged pier, but will
completely remove the presence of creosote and other wood preservatives
from Trinidad Bay and eliminate non-point source run-off with the
construction of the new pier. The pile-driving and renovation
operations will take place during August, 2011 to January, 2012, in
Trinidad, California. Additional information on the Trinidad Pier
Reconstruction Project is contained in the application and Biological
Assessment (BA), which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Description of the Specified Activities
The Trinidad Pier, located on Trinidad Bay, is an antiquated
structure that requires reconstruction in order to maintain public
safety and to redress certain environmental deficiencies in the
existing structure. The 165 m (540 ft) long pier is located on
tidelands granted by the State of California to the City of Trinidad
and leased by the Trinidad Rancheria. The project area consists of the
pier (0.31 acres) and a nearby staging area (0.53 acres). The existing
pier was constructed in 1946 to serve commercial fishing and
recreational uses. Since that time, the creosote-treated wood piles
which support the pier, as well as the wood decking, have deteriorated
and are proposed to be replaced by cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) concrete
piles and pre-cast concrete decking, respectively. This will improve
the safety of the pier. Existing utilities that will require
replacement include electrical water, sewer, and phone. Additional dock
amenities that will be replaced including lighting, railing, four
hoists, three sheds, a saltwater intake pipe used by Humboldt State
University's (HSU) Telonicher Marine Laboratory, and a water quality
sonde utilized by the Center for Integrative Coastal Observation,
Research, and Education. The construction schedule is from August 1,
2011, to May 1, 2012, however the pile-driving and removal activities
potentially resulting in incidental take of marine mammals will occur
from August 1, 2011, through January 31, 2012.
Background
The Trinidad Pier is the northernmost oceanfront pier in California
and has been used for commercial and recreational purposes over the
last 50 years. Trinidad harbor and pier serve a fleet of commercial
winter crab fishermen and year-round water angling for salmon, and
nearshore/finfish species. Trinidad Pier was first built by Bob
Hallmark in 1946. Since that time only minor maintenance activities
have occurred on the pier. Today, Trinidad's economy is based on
fishing and tourism and the pier supports these activities. The pier
also provides educational opportunities by accommodating HSU's
Telonicher Marine Lab's saltwater intake pipe, and the California
Center of Integrated Technology's (CICORE) water quality sonde.
Currently, the Trinidad Rancheria plays an important role in the
economic development of the Trinidad area through three main business
enterprises,
[[Page 47157]]
one of which is the Seascape Restaurant and the pier. The Cher-Ae
Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria is a federally-
recognized tribe composed of descendants of the Yurok, Weott, and
Tolowa peoples. In 1906, the Trinidad Rancheria was established by a
U.S. congressional enactment, and a congressional action authorized the
purchase of small tracts of land for landless homeless California
Indians. In 1908, through this Federal authority, 60 acres of land was
purchased on Trinidad Bay to establish the Trinidad Rancheria. In 1917,
the Secretary of the Interior formally approved the Trinidad Rancheria
as a Federally Recognized Tribe.
The community began developing in the 1950's. In January, 2000, the
Trinidad Rancheria purchased the Trinidad Pier, harbor facilities, and
the Seascape Restaurant. The Trinidad Rancheria leases a total area of
14 acres in Trinidad Bay from the City of Trinidad. The Trinidad
Rancheria currently operates the pier, and upland improvements
including a boat launch ramp and the Seascape Restaurant. Funds for
permitting and designs of the pier were granted to the Trinidad
Rancheria by the California State Coastal Conservancy.
The purpose of the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project is to
correct the structural deficiencies of the pier and improve pier
utilities and safety for the benefit of the public, and indirectly
improve the water quality conditions and provide additional habitat for
the biological community in the area of special biological significance
(ASBS). Currently, it is difficult to ensure the continued safety of
the pier due to excessive deterioration of the creosote-treated Douglas
fir piles and the pressure treated decking.
Pier Construction Overview
Summary plans for the pier and staging area are presented in
Appendix A of the IHA application. Pier improvements will replace at a
one-to-one ratio, approximately 1,254 m\2\ (13,500 ft\2\) of the pre-
cast concrete decking. In addition, the project includes installation
of 115 concrete piles (and removal of 205 piles) including batter and
moorage piles (45.7 cm or 18 inches [in] in diameter), four hoists,
standard lights, guardrail, and dock utility pipes including water,
power, and telephone. A new stormwater collection system will also be
incorporated into the reconstructed pier design. The new CISS concrete
piles will be separated at 1.5 m (5 ft) intervals along 7.6 m (25 ft)
long concrete bents. A total of 22 bents separated 7.6 m (25 ft) apart
shall be used. The decking of the new pier will be constructed of pre-
cast 6.1 m (20 ft) long concrete sections. The new pier will be 164.6 m
(540 ft) long and 7.3 to 7.9 m (24 to 26 ft) wide, corresponding to the
existing footprint.
A pile bent will be installed at the existing elevation of the
lower deck to provide access to the existing floating dock. The
existing stairs to the lower deck will be replaced with a ramp that is
ADA compliant. The decking of the pier will be constructed at an
elevation of 6.4 m (21 ft) above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The top
of the decking will be concrete poured to create a slope for drainage
and to incorporate a pattern and a color into the concrete surface in
order to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. An open
guardrail, 1.1 m (3.5 ft) in height shall be constructed of tubular
galvanized steel rail bars (approximately 1.9 cm [\3/4\ in] diameter)
uniform in shape throughout the length of the pier. Lighting will be
installed in the decking (and railing in the landing area) along the
length of the pier and will be focused and directed to minimize
lighting of any surfaces other than the pier deck.
Currently there are four hoists on the pier. Three of the hoists
are used to load and unload crab pots from the pier and the fourth
hoist located at the end of the pier is suited to load and unload
skiffs. The hoists are approximately 30 years old and may have had the
Yale motors replaced since the time they were installed. The hoists
shall be re-installed at points corresponding to their current location
and their current duties. All design specifications shall conform to
the Uniform Building Code.
Pier Demolition Methods
Removal of the existing pier and construction of the new pier shall
occur simultaneously. Construction shall begin from the north (shore)
end of the pier. All pier utilities and structures shall first be
removed. Utilities to be removed include water, electrical, power and
phone lines, temporary bathroom, ladders, and pier railing. Structures
to be removed include four hoists, two wood sheds, HSU's 20 horse-power
(hp) (14.9 kiloWatt [kW]) pump and saltwater intake pipes, CICORE's
water quality sonde, and a concrete bench. Then the existing pressure
treated decking, joists, and bent beams shall be removed and
transported by truck to the upland staging area for temporary storage.
All existing piles located in the section of pier being worked on
(active construction area) will then be removed by vibratory
extraction, unless some are broken in the process. Vibratory extraction
is a common method for removing both steel and timber piling. The
vibratory hammer is a large mechanical device mostly constructed of
steel that is suspended from a crane by a cable. The vibratory hammer
is deployed from the derrick and positioned on the top of the pile. The
pile will be unseated from the sediment by engaging the hammer and
slowly lifting up on the hammer with the aid of the crane. Once
unseated, the crane will continue to raise the hammer and pull the pile
from the sediment. When the bottom of the pile reaches the mudline, the
vibratory hammer will be disengaged. A choker cable connected to the
crane will be attached to the pile, and the pile will be lifted from
the water and placed upland. This process will be repeated for the
remaining piling. Extracted piling will be stored upland, at the
staging area, until the piles are transferred for upland disposal. Each
such extraction will require approximately 40 minutes (min) of
vibratory hammer operation, with up to five piles extracted per day (a
total of 3.3 hours per day). Operation of the vibratory hammer is the
primary activity within the pier demolition group of activities that is
likely to affect marine mammals by potentially exposing them to both
in-air (i.e., airborne or sub-aerial) and underwater noise.
Douglas fir pilings are prone to breaking at the mudline. In some
cases, removal with a vibratory hammer is not possible because the pile
will break apart due to the vibration. Broken or damaged piling can be
removed by wrapping the individual pile with a cable and pulling it
directly from the sediment with a crane. If the pile breaks between the
waterline and the mudline it will be removed by water jetting. Water
jetting would potentially be performed by divers working around the
base of the piles and is not expected to have the potential to result
in incidental take of marine mammals.
A floating oil containment boom surrounding the work area will be
deployed during creosote-treated timber pile removal. The boom will
also collect any floating debris. Oil-absorbent materials will be
deployed if a visible sheen is observed. The boom will remain in place
until all oily material and floating debris has been collected. Used
oil-absorbent materials will be disposed of at an approved upland
disposal site. The contractor shall also follow Best Management
Practices (BMPs): NS-14--Material Over Water, NS-15--Demolition
Adjacent to Water, and WM-4--Spill Prevention and Control listed in the
California
[[Page 47158]]
Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Handbook.
The existing Douglas-fir piles are creosote treated. The depth of
creosote penetration into the piles varies from 0.6 to 5.1 cm (0.25 to
2 in). Creosote is composed of a mixture of chemicals that are
potentially toxic to fish, other marine organisms, and humans.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), phenols and cresols are the
major chemicals in creosote that can cause harmful health effects to
marine biota. The replacement of the creosote treated piles with CISS
concrete piles is expected to eliminate potential contamination of the
water column by PAH, phenols and cresols from the existing treated wood
piles.
All removed piles shall be temporarily stored at the upland staging
areas until all demolition activities are complete (approximately 6
months). Following the cessation of demolition activities, the creosote
treated piles will be transported by the Contractor to Anderson
Landfill in Shasta County. This landfill is approved to accept
construction demolition, wood wastes, and non-hazardous/non-designated
sediment.
The pressure treated 2x4 in Douglas-fir decking will also be stored
at the staging area until demolition is complete. The partially
pressure treated decking and railing may be reused and will be kept by
the Trinidad Rancheria for potential future use.
Pile Installation
Design--Two 45.7 cm (18 in) diameter battered piles, which are
designed to resist lateral load, will be located on each side of the
pier at 12:1 slopes. Three vertical piles, which are designed to
support 50 tons of vertical loads, will be located between the battered
piles separated 1.5 m (5 ft) apart.
Overview--New piles will be installed initially from shore and
then, as construction proceeds, from the reconstructed dock. Following
removal of each existing pile, steel casings will be vibrated (using a
vibratory hammer) to a depth of approximately 0.8 m (2.5 ft) above the
top elevation of the proposed pile (7.6 to 10.7 m [25 to 35 ft] below
the mudline). The steel shell of 1.9 cm (\3/4\ in) thickness shall
extend from above the water surface to below the upper layer of
sediment, which consists of sand, into the harder sediment, which
consists mostly of weathered shale and sandstone. The steel shell will
be coated with polymer to protect the casings from corrosion. The steel
shell will be coated with polymer to protect the casings from
corrosion. The steel shell shall be used to auger the holes and will
then be cleaned and concrete poured using a tremie to seal the area
below the shell. The shell will then be dewatered and a steel rebar
cage installed prior to pouring concrete to fill the shell. These steps
are described in further detail below.
Pile Excavation--Following installation of the steel casing, each
hole will be augered to the required pile depth of 7.6 to 10.7 m (25 to
35 ft) below the mudline. An auger drill shall be used to excavate the
sediment and rock from the steel shell. Geotechnical studies (Taber,
2007) indicate that the material encountered in the test borings can be
excavated using typical heavy duty foundation drilling equipment.
Driving the new piles and augering the holes are the primary activities
within the pile installation group of activities most likely to result
in incidental harassment of marine mammals by potentially exposing them
to underwater and in-air noise.
Steel casing member of 1.9 cm (\3/4\ in) thickness shall be used to
form the CISS concrete foundation columns in underwater locations. In
this technique, inner and outer casings are partially imbedded in the
ground submerged in the water and in concentric relationship with one
another. The annulus formed between the inner and outer casings is
filled with water and cuttings, while the inner casing is drilled to
the required depth, and the sediment is removed from the core of inner
steel casing. Following removal of the core, the outer casing is left
in place as the new pile shell.
The sediment and cuttings excavated shall be temporarily stockpiled
in 50 gallon drums (or another authorized sealed waterproof container)
at the staging area until all excavations are complete and then
transferred for upland disposal at the Anderson Landfill or another
approved upland sediment disposal site.
The existing piles extend to approximately 6.1 m (20 ft) below the
mudline. Each one of the existing 0.3 m (1 ft) diameter pile has
displaced 0.4 m\3\ (15.7 ft\3\) of sediment. There are approximately
205 wood piles to be removed. The total amount of sediment displaced by
the existing piles is approximately 91.7 m\3\ (3,238.4 ft\3\). Each of
the proposed CISS piles requires the displacement of approximately 1.5
m\3\ (53 ft\3\) of sediment. There are 115 CISS piles to install. A
total of approximately 172 m\3\ (6,074 ft\3\) of sediment would have to
be removed in order to auger 115 holes to a depth of 9.1 m (30 ft)
below the mudline. It is estimated that 7.6 to 76.5 m\3\ (268.4 to
2,701.5 ft\3\) would have to be removed during pile installation. Many
new holes will be augered in the location of existing piles where they
overlap. As a result, less sediment will be required to be removed than
would be required for the construction of a new pier, however, the
exact location and penetration of the old piles is not recorded and
will be determined during reconstruction activities. Therefore, a range
of quantity of material to be removed is specified. Existing holes
created by old wood piles removed and that do not overlap with the
location of holes augered for the new piles will collapse and naturally
fill with adjacent sediment.
Most of the sediment excavated is expected to be in the form of
cuttings if the hole is augered and/or drilled at a location of exiting
piles. Sediment removed from the inner core during augering shall be
mostly dry due to the compression created in the core during augering.
Approximately fifty 50-gallon drums will be used to store the cuttings
and sediment prior to disposal upland. The contractor shall implement
BMPs WM-3--Stockpile Management, WM-4--Spill Prevention and Control,
and WM-10--Liquid Waste Management listed in the CASQA Handbook (see
the handbook for details at: http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Development.asp).
Concrete Seal Installation--A tremie (i.e., a steel pipe) will be
used to seal the bottom 0.9 m (3 ft) of the hole below the bottom of
the steel shell and above the ground. Before the tremie seal is poured,
the inside walls of the pile will be cleaned by brushing or using a
similar method of removing any adhering soil or debris in order to
improve the effectiveness of the seal. A ``cleaning bucket'' or similar
apparatus will be used to clean the bottom of the excavation of loose
or disrupted material.
The tremie is a steel pipe long enough to pass through the water to
the required depth of placement. The pipe is initially plugged until
placed at the bottom of the holes in order to exclude water and to
retain the concrete, which will be poured. The plug is then forced out
and concrete flows out of the pipe to its place in the form without
passing through the water column. Concrete is supplied at the top of
the pipe at a rate sufficient to keep the pipe continually filled. The
flow of concrete in the pipe is controlled by adjusting the depth of
embedment of the lower end of the pipe in the deposited concrete. The
upper end may have a funnel shape or a hopper, which facilitates
feeding concrete to the tremie. Each concrete
[[Page 47159]]
seal is expected to cure within 24 to 48 hours.
Dewatering Methodology--After the tremie seal has been poured, the
water will be pumped out of the steel shells, which will act as a
cofferdam. Pumping within the excavation at the various footings may be
required to maintain a dewatered work area.
The contractor shall test the pH of the water in each casing one
day following pouring of the tremie seal to insure that the pH of the
water did not change from the ambient pH. The water shall then be
pumped into 50-gallon drums and transported to the staging area for
discharge through percolation to eliminate solids. Should the pH of the
water change from ambient pH, then the contractor shall haul the water
to the Eureka Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment prior to
discharge. The contractor is expected to dewater a volume of
approximately 450 gallons (1,720 L) each day during pile installation.
For the installation of 115 piles, approximately 49,500 gallons
(197,800 L) will be dewatered and discharged at the appropriate
location at the staging area. Percolation rates will be verified prior
to discharge of the ocean water at the designated location at the
staging area, but are not expected to be prohibitive due to the sandy
texture of the soil. The Contractor shall implement BMP WM-10 Liquid
Waste Management as listed in the CASQA Handbook. Liquid waste
management procedures and practices are used to prevent discharge of
pollutants to the storm drain system or to watercourses as a result of
the creation, collection, and disposal of non-hazardous liquid wastes.
WM-10 provides procedures for containing liquid waste, capturing liquid
waste, disposing liquid waste, and inspection and maintenance.
Completion--Following dewatering of the steel shells, steel rebar
cages shall be inserted into each shell. Ready-mix concrete placed into
the drilled piers shall be conveyed in a manner to prevent separation
or loss of materials. The cement-mixer truck containing the concrete
shall be located on land adjacent to the north end of the pier. The
concrete shall be pumped to the borings through a pipe (at least 0.9 cm
[\3/4\ in] thick) that will span the length of the pier. When pouring
concrete into the hole, in no case shall the concrete be allowed to
freefall more than 1.5 m (5 ft). Poured concrete will be dry within at
least 24 hours and completely cured within 30 days.
A concrete washout station shall be located in the staging area at
the designated location. The contractor shall implement BMP, WM-8--
Concrete Waste Management, as listed in the CASQA Handbook to prevent
discharge of liquid or solid waste.
Pier Deck Construction
Following the installation of the concrete piles, pre-cast concrete
bent caps measuring 7.6m (25 ft)-long shall be installed on top of each
row of pilings. The concrete bents act to distribute the load between
the piles and support the pier.
Pre-cast 6.1m (20 ft)-long concrete sections shall be used for the
decking. An additional layer of concrete shall be poured following
installation of the precast sections. The layer of concrete will allow
the decking of the pier to be sloped to the west for drainage purposes
and to create an aesthetically pleasing decking. The surface of the
decking will be colored and contain an earth tone pattern to match the
surrounding environment.
Utilities
Utilities located on the pier will require location during
construction and replacement following construction of the pier
footings and decking. Utilities include:
Power: A 2 in PG&E power line that is currently attached to the
west side of the pier and PG&E electrical boxes located along the west
side of the pier.
Sewer: Currently there are no sewer pipes on the pier. Visitors to
the pier are served by a temporary restroom located on the south side
of the pier. No direct sewer discharge is allowed in the ASBS.
New utilities installed include water, phone, and electrical. New
pier utilities will be constructed along the east and west side of the
pier and will be enclosed within concrete utility trenches. Water pipes
shall be routed along both sides of the pier to several locations along
the pier. Phone lines shall be routed along the west side of the pier.
All electrical switches will be located in one central box towards the
west end of the pier by the loading and unloading landings location.
Lighting installed along the pier shall be designed to improve
visibility and safety. The lighting will be embedded in the decking and
railing of the pier to minimize light pollution from the pier. Lighting
shall be designed to minimize light pollution by preventing the light
from going beyond the horizontal plane at which the fixture is
directed. Currently, there are lighting poles on the pier. The proposed
lighting on the pier will be embedded on the west and east side of the
decking separated approximately 7.6 m (25 ft) throughout the length of
the pier. The lighting fixtures will have cages for protection matching
the color of the railing. In addition, on the south side of the pier,
lighting will be installed in the railing to provide lighting for the
working area on the deck of the pier.
Fish cleaning does not occur at the pier. This activity was
formerly pursued by recreational users and was discontinued in 2006 due
to water quality concerns.
Drainage
There is currently no runoff collection system on the pier. Runoff
drains from the existing pier directly into the ASBS. A storm water
outfall for the City of Trinidad is located near the base of the pier.
The pier decking shall be sloped to the west in order to direct
runoff from the pier to the stormwater collection pipe. The runoff
shall be routed along the west side of the pier and conveyed by gravity
to a new upland manhole and storm chamber containing treatment media.
All stormwater will be infiltrated within the storm chamber; there will
be no discharge from the system. See Appendix C, drawings C-5 to C-8 of
the IHA application, for details of the conveyance and treatment
system. The pier-deck construction, utility replacement, and drainage
improvements are anticipated to result in discountable effects to
marine mammals.
BMPs
Pier Demolition Methods:
Waters shall be protected from incidental discharge of
debris by providing a protective cover directly under the pier and
above the water to capture any incidental loss of demolition or
construction debris.
A floating oil containment boom surrounding the work area
will be used during the creosote-treated timber pile removal. The boom
will also collect any floating debris. Oil-absorbent materials will be
employed if a visible sheen is observed. The boom will remain in place
until all oily material and floating debris has been collected and
sheens have dissipated. Used oil-absorbent materials will be disposed
of at an approved upland disposal site.
All removed piles shall be temporarily stored at the
upland staging areas until all demolition activities are complete
(approximately 6 months).
Following the cessation of demolition activities, the
creosote treated piles will be transported by the Contractor to an
upland landfill approved to accept such materials.
The pressure treated 2 x 4 in Douglas fir decking will
also be stored in the staging area until demolition is
[[Page 47160]]
complete. The partially pressure treated decking and railing may be
reused and will be kept by the Trinidad Rancheria for further use.
The contractor shall also follow BMPs: NS-14--Material
Over Water, NS-15--Demolition adjacent to Water, and WM-4--Spill
Prevention and Control listed in the CASQA Handbook.
Pile Installation:
The sediment and cuttings excavated shall be temporarily
stockpiled in 50 gallon (189 L) drums (or another authorized sealed
waterproof container) at the staging area until all excavations are
complete and then transferred for upland disposal at the Anderson
Landfill or another approved upland sediment disposal site.
The contractor shall implement BMPs WM-3--Stockpile
Management, WM-4--Spill Prevention and Control, and WM-10--Liquid Waste
Management listed in the CASQA Handbook.
The contractor shall test the pH of the water in each
casing one day following pouring of the tremie seal to insure that the
pH of the water did not change by more than 0.2 units from the ambient
pH. The water shall then be pumped into 50-gallon drums and transported
to the staging areas for discharge through percolation to eliminate
solids. Should the pH of the water change from ambient pH, then the
contractor shall haul the water to the Eureka Wastewater Treatment
Plant for treatment prior to discharge.
The contractor shall implement BMP WM-10 Liquid Waste
Management as listed in the CASQA Handbook. Liquid waste management
procedures and practices are used to prevent discharge of pollutants to
the storm drain system or to watercourses as a result of the creation,
collection, and disposal of non-hazardous liquid wastes. WM-10 provides
procedures for containing liquid waste, capturing liquid waste,
disposing liquid waste, and inspection and maintenance.
A concrete washout station shall be located in the staging
area at the designated location. The contractor shall implement BMP,
WM-8--Concrete Waste Management, as listed in the CASQA Handbook to
prevent discharge of liquid or solid waste.
Pier Construction:
No concrete washing or water from concrete will be allowed
to flow into the ASBS and no concrete will be poured within flowing
water.
Waters shall be protected from incidental discharge of
debris by providing a protective cover directly under the pier and
above the water to capture any incidental loss of demolition or
construction debris.
Utilities:
Lighting will be embedded in the decking and railing of
the pier to minimize light pollution from the pier. Lighting shall be
designed to minimize light pollution by preventing the light from going
beyond the horizontal plain at which the fixture is directed so the
light is directed upwards.
Drainage:
The pier decking shall be sloped to the west in order to
direct runoff from the pier to the stormwater collection pipe. The
runoff shall be routed along the west side of the pier and conveyed by
gravity to a new upland manhole and storm chamber containing treatment
media. Drainage from the storm chamber shall not be conveyed to
Trinidad Bay, but will entirely be infiltrated within the storm
chamber. See Appendix A, drawings C-5 to C-8, for details.
Construction Timing and Sequencing:
Noise-generating construction activities, including
augering, pile removal, pile placement, and concrete pumping, will only
be allowed from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. These hours shall be further
restricted as necessary in order for Protected Species Observers (PSOs)
to perform required observations.
Project Benefits:
The existing pier has pole lighting that illuminates the water
surface; the proposed pier has lighting designed to avoid such
illumination. The existing pier has dark wood and over 200 piles. The
proposed pier, with 205 piles to be removed and 115 piles to be
installed and a white concrete construction, will result in less
shading of nearshore habitat. The project may have benefits to
environmental resources other than marine mammals. This notice
describes in detail BMPs that will be implemented for the project. The
BMPs are focused almost exclusively on protecting water quality, and
while they may have ancillary benefits to some marine resources such as
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), they are not intended to serve as
monitoring and mitigation measures for adverse effects to marine
mammals. The only exception might be the ability to further modify
noise timing restrictions to allow PSOs to perform their duties.
Additional details regarding the pile-driving and renovation
operations for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project can be found in
the Trinidad Rancheria's IHA application and BA, as well as the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and NMFS EA. The IHA application, BA,
and ACOE and NMFS EA can also be found online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
Dates, Duration, and Specific Geographic Area
The Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project is located in the city of
Trinidad, California, Humboldt County, at Township 8N, Range 1W,
Section 26 (41.05597[deg] North, 124.14741[deg] West) (see Figure 2-1
of the BA). The construction schedule is from August 1, 2011 to May 1,
2012, with noise and activity effects requiring an IHA, occurring from
August 1, 2011 through January 31, 2012.
Trinidad Bay is a commercial port located between Humboldt Bay and
Crescent City. The bay contains numerous vessel moorings which include
permanent commercial vessel anchors as well as 100 moorings that are
placed for recreational vessel owners (Donahue, 2007). The uplands have
residential, commercial and recreational land use classifications. The
Trinidad Pier parcel was owned by the State of California, but was
granted to the City of Trinidad which leases the tidelands to the Cher-
Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria. The parcels to
be used for the staging area are owned by Trinidad Rancheria, the City
of Trinidad, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Trinidad Bay is a shallow, open bay about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) deep (in
the southwest-northeast direction) and 1.6 km (1 mi) wide (in the
northwest-southeast direction). Figure 1 of the IHA application shows
the whole bay. Generally the bay shelves at a moderate slope to about
9.1 m (30 ft) depth and then flattens out, with most of the outer bay
between 9.1 to 15.2 m (30 to 50 ft) deep. Substrates in the bay include
rock, cobble, gravel and sand. The floor of the bay is irregular with
some areas of submerged rock. The project area comprises the 0.31 acre
pier over marine habitats and a staging area (the gravel parking lot
located west of the pier) covering 0.53 acres of upland area.
Construction Timing and Sequencing
The project is expected to be completed within nine months
(approximately six months of loud noise-producing activities).
Reconstruction of the pier is planned to commence on August 1, 2011 and
terminate on May 1, 2012. Excluding weekends and holidays, a total of
217 working days will be available for work during this period. During
the winter months (November to March) severe weather conditions are
expected to occur periodically at the project site. The contractor may
have to halt the
[[Page 47161]]
work during pile installation due to strong winds, large swells, and/or
heavy precipitation. Construction during the remainder of the year
should not be impeded by large swells, but may be halted due to strong
winds or precipitation; however, Trinidad Harbor is a sheltered area
and does not often experience severe weather that would preclude the
work. The contractor will work five days per week from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Should severe weather conditions cause delays in the construction
schedule, the contractor will work up to seven days per week as needed
to ensure completion by May 1, 2012.
Removal of all existing piles and decking and construction of the
new pier will occur simultaneously. The existing decking and piles will
be removed and new piles installed from the reconstructed pier. Pile
bents will be separated 7.6 m (25 ft) apart. Following the installation
of two successive pile bents, a new precast concrete deck section shall
be installed. The contractor shall continue in this manner from the
north end (shore) to south end (water terminus) of the existing pier.
The contractor is expected to spend approximately six months
(August through January) on pile removal and installation and the
remaining three months (February through April) on deck and utilities
reconstruction. It is estimated that each boring can be lined with a
pile and excavated within 6 to 8 hours. Pouring of the concrete seals
is expected to take approximately two hours for each pile. The
contractor is expected to remove an existing pile and install one new
steel shell and pour a concrete seal each day, with a total of six to
eight hours required for the process (i.e., 115 piles to be placed [one
per day] during 115 days of work or 23 weeks of 5 days each). The final
pour of the concrete piles is expected to take approximately two hours
to fill the steel shells and is expected to cure within one week.
It is expected that reconstruction of one row of piles and bents
will take one week. Pile and bents will be installed over a
discontinuous period of approximately 23 weeks. A new pre-cast concrete
section of decking will be installed following the installation of two
successive rows of piles and associated bents. The last 3 months will
be used for pouring of the top layer of the decking and utilities
construction.
Action Area
The action area is defined as all areas directly or indirectly
affected by the proposed action. Direct effects of the action are
potentially detectable in all lands and aquatic areas within the
project area, including the staging area. The project would also
directly affect 7.9 m (26 ft) of the Trinidad Bay shoreline.
In-air (i.e., sub-aerial) and underwater sound effects would be the
most laterally extensive effects of the action and thus demarcate the
limits of the action area. Assuming that underwater sound attenuates at
a rate of -4.5 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) for each doubling of distance,
underwater sound from pile-driving (detailed in Section 6 of the BA)
would elevate noise above 120 dB (rms) up to 800 m (2,625 ft) (the Port
of Anchorage measured 168 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] at a distance of 20 m
from a pile, application of the practical spreading model with 4.5 dB
attenuation for doubling of distance yields 120 dB [rms] at 800 m)
seaward in all areas on a line-of-sight to the pier (Illingworth &
Rodkin, 2008). The rationale for use of 120 dB (rms) as a metric is
detailed in Section 6.6.1 of the BA, but also has a practical value
because 120 dB (rms) is the lowest threshold currently used to detect
underwater sound effects to any of the animals discussed in this
analysis. Actual ambient underwater sound levels are probably quite
variable in response to sound sources such as wave action and fishing
vessel traffic. The assumptions regarding in-air and underwater noise
in the IHA application, BA, and in this notice are generally regarded
as extremely conservative.
In-air (or sub-aerial) sound would be generated by equipment used
during construction; the loudest source of such sound would be
vibratory pile-driving, which generates a sound intensity of
approximately 104 dB at 15.2 m (50 ft) (FHWA, 2006). Assuming an
ambient background noise level of 59 dB, typical of residential
neighborhoods, and a sound attenuation rate of 7.5 dB (rms) for each
doubling of distance, the action area for aerial sound would extend
975.4 m (3,200 ft) in an unobstructed landward direction from the dock.
The action area would extend farther in a seaward direction, because
aerial sound attenuates with distance more slowly over water and also
because ambient noise levels are potentially quieter in that direction.
Assuming an attenuation rate of 6 dB (rms) for each doubling of
distance and an ambient marine noise background of 50 dB, the action
area for above-water effects would extend 7.7 km (4.8 mi) seaward from
the pier.
The seaward attenuation rate assumes no environmental damping or
attenuation and thus is produced by a simple inversion square law. The
landward attenuation rate assumes a low level of environmental damping
due to non-forest vegetation, structures, topography, etc. and
corresponds to the rate recommended by WSDOT (2006) for terrestrial in-
air in non-forest environments. The 59 dB and 50 dB estimates are based
on EPA (1971), a standard source of data on typical background sound
levels (in dBA) for various environments. These typical levels were
revised upwards by approximately 3 dB because the dBA curve down-
weights sound intensity at the lower frequencies typical of vibratory
pile-driving noise, which is the principal source of noise considered
in demarcation of an action area for the action. Thus the 59 dB and 50
dB values represent unweighted estimates of background sound levels.
The IHA application and BA provide a detailed explanation of the
Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project location as well as project
implementation.
NMFS outlined the project in a previous notice for the proposed IHA
(76 FR 28733, May 18, 2011). The activities to be conducted have not
changed between the proposed IHA notice and this final notice
announcing the issuance of the IHA. For a more detailed description of
the authorized action, including reconstruction operations and acoustic
source specifications, the reader should refer to the proposed IHA
notice (76 FR 28733, May 18, 2011), the IHA application and associated
documents referenced above this section.
Comments and Responses
A notice of proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on
May 18, 2011 (76 FR 28733). During the 30-day public comment period,
NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission)
only. The Commission's comments are online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Following are the
Commission's comments and NMFS's responses:
Comment 1: The Commission recommends that the NMFS defer issuance
of the IHA until it has required the applicant to develop a more
realistic estimate of the number of harbor seal takes that:
(1) Accounts for all harbor seal haul-out sites in the area;
(2) Corrects seal abundance estimates to account for seals in the
water during the counts;
(3) Incorporates a more realistic assessment of the portion of
seals that will enter the water in the Level B harassment zone during
the proposed construction operations;
[[Page 47162]]
(4) Includes a reasoned basis for estimating takes that occur from
in-air construction sound; and
(5) Is based on a realistic estimate of the time required to remove
205 wood piles.
Response: (1) NMFS and Trinidad Rancheria believe that the action
described does account for all harbor seal haul-out sites in the action
area. The Commission indicates that they believe that harbor seals
hauling out within 50 km (31.1 mi) of the site are likely to be present
in the action area. Goley et al. (2007) state, in literature review,
that the seals are year-round residents; that they are non-migratory,
dispersing from a centralized location to forage; and that they exhibit
high site fidelity, utilizing one to two haul-out sites within their
range and rarely traveling more than 25 to 50 km (15.5 to 31.1 mi) from
these haul-outs. If it is not shown that these seals use any other
haul-outs, then there is no other logical conclusion that that these
seals must be Trinidad Bay residents. The Commission's proposition that
seals from elsewhere would enter Trinidad Bay, which already has a
large resident seal population, to forage, is interesting but not
corroborated by any data. Moreover, even if true, it is not apparent
that it affects the analyses in this document, since there is no basis
for inference about the frequency or duration of such activity.
Also, the assessment is based upon a personal communication with
Dawn Goley and Trinidad Rancheria representatives, specifically, a
telephone conversation on March 23, 2009, when she observed that the
Humboldt Bay seals show high site fidelity for sandy beach haul-outs,
whereas the Trinidad Bay and Patrick's Point seals have corresponding
fidelity for rocky haul-outs. Data supporting this inference was not
discussed.
Dawn Goley has stated that it is unknown whether there is
interchange between the Patrick's Point and Trinidad Bay seals. Data
that would allow a conclusive determination on this point, such as
genetic or radio/acoustic tracking studies, have not been gathered.
However, Goley et al. (2007) do state (page 10) that ``harbor seals
exhibit high site fidelity, utilizing one to two haul-out sites within
their range (Sullivan 1980, Pitcher et al., 1981; Stewart et al.,
1994), rarely traveling more than 25 to 50 km from these haul-outs
(Brown and Mate, 1983; Suryan and Harvey, 1998). Movements between and
the use of alternate haul-out sites has been attributed to the use of
alternative foraging areas near their new haul-out site (Thompson et
al., 1996b; Lowry et al., 2001) and the seasonal use of certain haul-
out sites for pupping and molting (Herder, 1986; Thompson et al.,
1989). Based on the fact that the Palmer's Point and Trinidad Bay haul-
outs are close to each other (9 km or 5.6 mi) compared to the foraging
areas used by harbor seals, and that the Patrick's Point area is home
to approximately 1,000 harbor seals (Dawn Goley, pers. comm., March 23,
2009), a far larger grouping than the one found at Trinidad Bay, and
given that observations of harbor seals at Trinidad Bay go through
strong seasonal fluctuations, it is not appropriate to dismiss a
hypothesis that there is interchange between the two areas. If the
seals do seasonally vacate Trinidad Bay for alternative foraging
grounds, then Patrick's Point is their most likely alternative haul-
out.
It does not follow that the Patrick's Point seals vacate that area
to forage in Trinidad Bay, as shown by the fact that seal numbers in
Trinidad Bay decline during the winter; if the area were increasingly
used by Patrick's Point seals during the winter months, then counts of
seals at Trinidad Bay would increase. They likely do not. Goley et al.
(2007) state that harbor seals ``are typically less abundant during the
winter months as seals tend to spend more time foraging at sea during
this time.'' In this context ``at sea'' and ``offshore'' are
interpreted as equivalent and neither term is numerical. The seals are
not in Trinidad Bay and are therefore offshore.
(2) The Commission cites a correction factor of 1.54 for harbor
seals at sea, and contends that this requires a 50% increase in the
estimate of incident take. NMFS and the Trinidad Rancheria addressed
the use of this correction factor in the notice of proposed IHA in
response to previous Commission comments.
Note that the notice of proposed IHA does not state that harbor
seals spend 10% of their time in the water, but states that they spend
10% of their time within the radius of effect. The radius of effect is
only a small fraction of Trinidad Bay, and only a fraction of the rocks
that comprise the Indian Beach haul-out of Goley et al. (2007) are
within that radius of effect.
Lowry et al. (2008) present a discussion of correction factors.
They used a correction factor of 1.65, indicating that about 40% of
seals were hauled-out. They also note that their study was performed at
a time when the largest possible fraction of seals would likely be
hauled-out--during the molt, and at local low tides. The proposed work,
however, would be performed after the molt had concluded. The
correction factor suggested by the Commission of 1.54 is not
significantly different from that determined by Lowry et al. (2008) and
may also be used; this correction factor is therefore used in the
estimate of potential harbor seal take presented below in this
document.
(3) The Commission states that Trinidad Rancheria's action will
incidentally take marine mammals many kilometers out to sea, where the
underwater sound generated by the renovation operations would only
slightly exceed ambient (background) noise levels and would be far less
audible than other episodic anthropogenic sound sources such as the
passage of deep-draft vessels. NMFS and the Trinidad Rancheria regard
the potential for take of animals outside of Trinidad Bay as unlikely
due to sound attenuation, other background sound sources (e.g., waves,
wind, rain, etc.), and resident harbor seal habituation to the existing
marine acoustic environment.
Analysis regarding the effects of underwater sound was presented in
the revised IHA application dated July 23, 2010, and presents figures
indicating the area of potential effect for Level B harassment (see
Table 4 ``Noise generating activities'' and ``Potential for Biological
Effects'' section below [Table 4 of the IHA application]). Based on
this analysis and the foregoing discussion of seal use of Trinidad Bay,
it is anticipated that behavioral effects could result to all seals
that were in the water within Trinidad Bay during the portion of the
day when in-water noise was being generated by pile-removal, augering,
or pile-driving. As noted earlier, the average number of seals observed
at the Trinidad Bay haul-out during the time when in-water noise would
be produced is 36.5 seals, which with a correction factor of 1.54
indicates a Trinidad seal population at that time of 56.2 or
approximately 57 individuals, with these seals spending approximately
35% (1-[36.5/56.2]) of their time in the water.
As noted above, Goley et al. (2007) state that harbor seals ``are
typically less abundant during the winter months as seals tend to spend
more time foraging at sea during this time,'' therefore, only a
fraction of the seals would actually be present in Trinidad Bay at the
time of noise produced by the Trinidad Pier Renovation Project. No
direct measurements are available that would allow estimation of that
fraction, although it is known that harbor seal abundance in Trinidad
Bay declines from a summer peak of 67 harbor seals in July to a winter
minimum of 25 in November (Goley et al., 2007). As
[[Page 47163]]
further noted above, harbor seals exhibit high site fidelity, utilizing
one to two haul-out sites within their range (Sullivan, 1980; Pitcher
et al., 1981; Stewart et al., 1994), rarely traveling more than 25 to
50 km from these haul-outs (Brown and Mate, 1983; Suryan and Harvey,
1998). If it is assumed that winter foraging Trinidad Bay harbor seals
travel up to 25 km from their haul-out, then their foraging area covers
approximately 982 km\2\ (379.2 mi\2\) (a half-circle with a 25 km
radius), whereas the area of Trinidad Bay is approximately 5 km\2\ (1.9
mi\2\). This would suggest that fewer than 1% of the seals in the water
at any given time would be found in Trinidad Bay. This is likely an
underestimate, as seals bound to and from the haul-out would
necessarily have to spend some time in passage through the waters of
Trinidad Bay. However, it does suggest that no more than a very few
seals are likely to be in the waters of Trinidad Bay at any time when
underwater noise is being produced from renovation activities. It is
conservatively estimated that one seal may be exposed during the course
of any individual pile-removal, augering, or pile-driving event. During
the total of 164 days when underwater noise would be produced from any
one of these three activities, there would be 435 noise-producing
events, or an average of 435/164 = 2.65 events per day, resulting in
potential exposure of 435 harbor seals over the duration of the planned
activities.
(4) The estimation of incidental takes that would occur as a result
of in-air sound has been analyzed in detail in the IHA application and
correspondence with the Trinidad Rancheria. Based on in-air noise
measurements taken during vibratory pile-driving as reported by
Laughlin (2010), in-air noise production during pile driving at the
Trinidad Pier will likely be between 87.5 and 96.5 dB re 20 [micro]Pa
(unweighted). For purposes of the analysis presented below, it is
assumed that in-air noise from vibratory pile-driving would produce 96
dB (rms) (unweighted). This noise would be produced during both pile-
removal and pile-placement activities. The augering equipment produces
slightly less noise at a level of 92 dB (rms) (unweighted). Assuming an
attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance, this indicates that
sound from in-air pile-removal or pile-placement would attenuate to the
Level B threshold for harbor seals (90 dB) at a distance of 30.5 m (100
ft). Sound from augering would attenuate to the Level B harassment
threshold at a distance of approximately 18.3 m (60 ft). There are no
haul-outs located this close to the pier, but there are anecdotal
reports of harbor seals surfacing near boats alongside the pier, and it
is thus possible that occasional exposure could occur. Such an event is
unlikely because anecdotal reports of harbor seals at the pier are
associated with seals seeking food from recreational and commercial
fishing boats, which would no longer use the pier during reconstruction
activities; thus the pier would no longer function as a foraging
resource (during construction, fishing boats could unload at the boat
ramp, which is located several hundred feet from the pier and is
blocked from the construction area by an intervening headland). It is
conservatively estimated that seal exposure to in-air sound in excess
of the Level B harassment threshold could occur during up to 20% of the
in-air noise producing events, or a total of 87 events during the
period of construction. Based on this information, NMFS has determined
that 174 harbor seals may be taken by Level B harassment from exposure
to in-air sounds produced during the renovation operations. This number
would be verified by the monitoring data.
(5) The Trinidad Rancheria states (via the construction contractor)
that 58 construction days would be adequate to remove 205 wood piles, a
removal rate of approximately 3.5 piles per day, as stated in
correspondence and the Trinidad Rancheria's IHA application. There is
no reason to believe that this is not feasible.
Comment 2: The Commission recommends that the NMFS defer issuance
of the IHA until it has reviewed estimates of numbers of takes for
California sea lions and gray whales during the proposed activities.
Response: NMFS and Trinidad Rancheria revised and addressed the
Commission's concerns regarding estimates of numbers of takes for
harbor seals, California sea lions, and gray whales incidental to the
specified activities during review by the Commission prior to the
notice of proposed IHA being published in the Federal Register. NMFS
and Trinidad Rancheria believe that the take estimation analysis in the
IHA is accurate and likely overestimates the potential for take in some
cases as necessary to account for uncertainty. Accordingly, further
review of the take estimation is unnecessary.
Comment 3: The Commission recommends that the NMFS defer issuance
of the IHA until it has re-estimated the distances to various in-water
and in-air Level A and B harassment thresholds for all three types of
proposed sound-producing activities and then re-evaluated the proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures to ensure that the appropriate areas
are adequately monitored.
Response: NMFS and Trinidad Rancheria revised and addressed the
Commission's concerns regarding estimates of distances to various in-
water and in-air Level A and Level B harassment thresholds for all
three types of sound-producing activities planned as part of the
Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project during draft review by the
Commission prior to the notice of proposed IHA being published in the
Federal Register. NMFS and Trinidad Rancheria revised the analysis for
the potential of incidental take in accordance with the Commission's
recommendations for a harbor seal correction factor, which is discussed
in Comment 2. The changes are numerically minor, and NMFS and Trinidad
Rancheria do not find evidence that significant changes are necessary
to the planned monitoring and reporting plan.
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that the NMFS defer issuance
of the IHA until it has required the applicant to verify the associated
Level A and B harassment zones through calibrated in-situ sound
measurements and to adjust those zones as appropriate.
Response: Trinidad Rancheria's current monitoring study
incorporates this recommendation with regard to underwater sound. The
expected threshold for Level A harassment and associated exclusion
zones (EZs) for pinnipeds (i.e., 190 dB) are 0.9 m (3 ft), 0 m (0 ft),
and 0 m (0 ft) for pile-driving, augering, and pile-removal,
respectively. The expected threshold for Level A harassment and
associated EZs for cetaceans (i.e., 180 dB) are 4.9 m (16 ft), 0.3 m (1
ft), and 21.6 m (71 ft) for pile-driving, augering, and pile-removal,
respectively. NMFS has not determined Level A harassment thresholds for
marine mammals for in-air noise; however, Southall et al. (2007)
recommends 149 dB re 20 [micro]Pa (peak) (flat) as the potential
threshold for injury from in-air noise for all pinnipeds. Operation of
a vibratory pile-driver would produce in-air sound intensity of 96 dBA
at 50 ft. This is the in-air sound level for both pile-removal and
pile-installation. Operation of the auger would produce in-air sound of
92 dBA at 15.2 m (50 ft). Using the attenuation rate of 6 dB for each
doubling of distance, the loudest noise from reconstruction operations
(i.e., pile-driving) would be 136 dBA at a distance of 0.3 m (10
inches), so it is not physically possible for a pinniped to be
[[Page 47164]]
exposed to a level of sound that could be potentially injurious,
especially since a shut-down would occur if any pinniped approaches or
enters the in-water EZ for Level A harassment. Also, the applicant has
agreed to perform in-air monitoring to verify the Level B harassment
zone for in-air sound and is required by NMFS in the IHA.
Comment 5: The Commission recommends that the NMFS defer issuance
of the IHA until it has required that shut-down procedures be
established for both species of pinnipeds.
Response: Trinidad Rancheria will implement shut-down procedures
for underwater noise to avoid the potential for Level A harassment
(injury) for all species of marine mammals during the Trinidad Pier
Reconstruction Project. NMFS has included a requirement to this effect
in the IHA. Because in-air sound levels would not reach the injury
threshold noted by Southall et al. (2007), there would be no need to
have a requirement for shut-down when pinnipeds are hauled-out.
Comment 6: The Commission recommends that the NMFS defer issuance
of the IHA until it has provided further analysis and justification
regarding the efficacy of visual monitoring for the proposed activities
and the manner in which the number of takes can be determined
accurately.
Response: NMFS believes that the planned visual monitoring program
will be sufficient to detect, with reasonable certainty, the majority
of marine mammals within or entering identified EZs. This monitoring,
along with the required mitigation measures, will result in the least
practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and will result in
a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine
mammals. Also, NMFS expects some animals to avoid areas around the
reconstruction operations ensonified at the level of the EZ.
The effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures is
science-based and is based on the requirement that monitoring and
mitigation measures be ``practicable.'' NMFS believes that the
framework for visual monitoring will be effective at spotting the
species for which take is requested within the immediate action area
where Level A harassment has the most potential to occur.
Comment 7: The Commission recommends that the NMFS defer issuance
of the IHA until it has required the applicant to use 30 min as the
appropriate clearance time for gray whales before ramp-up activities
may commence and to use hydrophones for acoustic detection of gray
whales.
Response: While passive acoustic monitoring is continuously
evolving, the technology for underwater detection of marine mammals
using hydrophones is largely experimental and is prohibitively
expensive in the context of the capital investment and funding
mechanisms available for this project. The Trinidad Rancheria is
however able to commit to a 30 minute clearance time for gray whales,
and NMFS has made this a requirement in the IHA.
Comment 8: The Commission recommends that the NMFS defer issuance
of the IHA until it has addressed the deficiencies identified by the
Commission and publish a new proposed IHA in the Federal Register with
the corrected information and provide for an additional 30 day comment
period.
Response: NMFS and the Trinidad Rancheria have addressed all issues
identified and recommended by the Commission. NMFS believes that
publishing a new proposed IHA in the Federal Register with the
corrected information and providing an additional 30 day public comment
period is unnecessary, as it would delay scheduled pile-driving and
renovation operations associated with the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction
Project. It is essential for the Trinidad Rancheria that construction
on the pier begins this August, as failure to meet this deadline would
result in loss of the Federal grants supporting this essential tribe
infrastructure project and would further endanger public safety and
welfare by requiring continuing use of the existing aged pier structure
for an indefinite period of time.
Description of Marine Mammals and Habitat Affected in the Activity Area
One cetacean species and two species of pinnipeds are known to or
could occur in the Trinidad Bay action area and off the Pacific
coastline (see Table 1 below). Eastern Pacific gray whales, California
sea lions, and Pacific harbor seals are likely to be found within the
activity area. Steller sea lions and transient killer whales could
potentially be found in small numbers within the activity area, but
authorization for ``take'' by incidental harassment is not requested
for Steller sea lions and transient killer whales due to their rarity
and the feasibility of avoiding impacts to these species by pausing
work in the event that they are detected, as detailed in the Marine
Mammal Monitoring Plan. NMFS, based on the best available science,
agrees that transient killer whales and Steller sea lions are not
likely to be present in the action area during implementation of the
specified activities and are thus unlikely to be exposed to the effects
of the specified activities. NMFS does not expect incidental take of
these marine mammal species and therefore has not authorized take of
these two species in the IHA. The potential presence of Steller sea
lions is detailed in Section 5.6 of the Trinidad Rancheria's BA. The
potential presence of gray whales, killer whales, harbor seals, and
California sea lions is detailed in Appendix C of the IHA application
(see ADDRESSES).
A variety of other marine mammals have on occasion been reported
from the coastal waters of northern California. These include
bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoises, northern elephant seals,
northern fur seals, and sea otters. However, none of these species have
been reported to occur in the action area, and in particular none were
mentioned by the regional NMFS specialist in the identification of
species to be addressed in the IHA application. The sea otter is
managed under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and is not considered further in this analysis. The USFWS has
informed the ACOE that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not
necessary for any of their jurisdictional species, including sea
otters. Table 1 presents information on the cetacean and pinnipeds
species, their habitat, and conservation status in the general region
of the project area. The notice of proposed IHA (76 FR 28733, May 18,
2011) contained a complete description on the status, abundance,
distribution, and seasonal distribution of Pacific harbor seals,
California sea lions, Eastern Pacific gray whales, Steller sea lions,
and killer whales. That information has not changed and is therefore
not repeated here.
[[Page 47165]]
Table 1--The Habitat and Conservation Status of Marine Mammals Inhabiting the General Region of the Action Area
in the Pacific Ocean Off the U.S. West Coast
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Habitat ESA \1\ MMPA \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticetes:
Gray whale (Eschrichtius Coastal and shelf.... DL--Eastern Pacific stock NC--Eastern Pacific stock
robustus). (or population). (or population).
..................... EN--Western Pacific stock D--Western Pacific stock
(or population). (or population).
Odontocetes:
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)... Widely distributed... NL........................ D--Southern Resident and
AT1 Transient
populations.
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops Offshore, inshore, NL........................ NC
truncatus). coastal, estuaries.
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena Coastal and inland NL........................ NC
phocoena). waters.
Pinnipeds:
Pacific harbor seal (Phoca Coastal.............. NL........................ NC
vitulina richardsi).
Northern elephant seal Coastal, pelagic when NL........................ NC
(Mirounga angustirostris). migrating.
California sea lion (Zalophus Coastal, shelf....... NL........................ NC
californianus).
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias Coastal, shelf....... T......................... D
jubatus).
Northen fur seal (Callorhinus Pelagic, offshore.... NL........................ D--Pribilof Island/
ursinus). Eastern Pacific
population.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = Not listed, DL = Delisted.
\2\ U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: D = Depleted, NC = Not classified.
Further information on the biology and local distribution of these
marine mammal species and others in the region can be found in the
Trinidad Rancheria's application and BA, which is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES), and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment
Reports, which are available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.
Potential Effects of Activities on Marine Mammals
The Trinidad Rancheria requests authorization for Level B
harassment of three species of marine mammals (i.e., Pacific harbor
seals, Eastern Pacific gray whales, and California sea lions)
incidental to the use of heavy equipment and its propagation of
underwater and in-air noise from various acoustic mechanisms associated
with the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project and the specified
activities discussed above. Marine mammals potentially occurring in
Trinidad Harbor include Pacific harbor seals, Eastern Pacific gray
whales, California sea lions, Steller sea lions, and killer whales
(transient). Killer whale and Steller sea lion observations in the
specific geographic area, as noted, are very rare (less than one per
year) and thus not likely to be affected by the proposed action. But
the gray whale and California sea lion are observed occasionally, and
harbor seals are seldom absent from the harbor, and thus considered
likely to be exposed to sound associated with the Trinidad Pier
Reconstruction Project.
Current NMFS practice, regarding exposure of marine mammals to
high-level underwater sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to
impulsive sounds of at or above 180 and 190 dB (rms) or above,
respectively, have the potential to be injured (i.e., Level A
harassment). NMFS considers the potential for behavioral (Level B)
harassment to occur when marine mammals are exposed to sounds below
injury thresholds but at or above the 160 dB (rms) threshold for
impulse sounds (e.g., impact pile-driving) and the 120 dB (rms)
threshold for continuous noise (e.g., vibratory pile-driving). No
impact pile-driving is planned for the activity in Trinidad Bay.
Current NMFS practice, regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-
level in-air sounds, as a threshold for potential Level B harassment,
is at or above 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa for harbor seals and at or above 100
dB re 20 [mu]Pa for all other pinniped species (Lawson et al., 2002;
Southall et al., 2007). NMFS has not established a threshold for Level
A harassment for marine mammals exposed to in-air noise; however,
Southall et al. (2007) recommends 149 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (peak) (flat) as
the potential threshold for injury from in-air noise for all pinnipeds.
The acoustic mechanisms involved entail in-air and underwater non-
impulsive noise caused by the activities of vibratory pile removal,
auger operation, and vibratory pile placement. Anticipated peak
underwater noise levels may exceed the 120 dB (rms) threshold for Level
B harassment for continuous noise sources, but are not anticipated to
exceed the 180 and 190 dB (rms) Level A harassment thresholds for
cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. Expected in-air noise levels are
anticipated to result in elevated sound intensities within 152.4 m (500
ft) of the construction activities involving vibratory pile-driving and
augering and do not exceed the injury threshold put forth by Southall
et al. 2007 for in-air sound exposure. No other mechanisms are expected
to affect marine mammal use of the area. The debris containment boom,
for instance, would not affect any haul-out and would not entail noise,
and activity in the water is not materially different from normal
vessel operations at the pier, to which the animals are already
habituated.
The notice of the proposed IHA (76 FR 28733, May 18, 2011) also
included a discussion of the potential effects of underwater and in-air
noise on marine mammals. NMFS refers the reader to Trinidad Rancheria's
application, and the BA for additional information on the behavioral
reactions (or lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to the pier
renovation operations.
Underwater Noise
Background--When a pile is vibrated, the vibration propagates
through the pile and radiates sound into the water
[[Page 47166]]
and the substrate as well as the air. Sound pressure pulse as a
function of time is referred to as the waveform. The peak pressure is
the highest absolute value of the measured waveform, and can be
negative or positive pressure peak (see Table 1 of the IHA application
for definitions of terms used in this analysis). The rms level is
determined by analyzing the waveform and computing the average of the
squared pressures over the time that comprise that portion of the
waveform containing 90 percent of the sound energy (Richardson et al.,
1995; Illingworth and Rodkin, 2008). This rms term is described as rms
90 percent in this document. In this analysis, underwater peak
pressures and rms sound pressure levels are expressed in decibels (dB)
re 1 [mu]Pa. The total sound energy in an impulse accumulates over the
duration of that impulse.
Baseline Underwater Noise Level--Currently, no data are available
describing baseline levels of underwater sound in Trinidad Bay. Sound
dissipates more rapidly in shallow waters and over soft bottoms (i.e.,
sand). Much of Trinidad Bay is characterized by its shallow depth (30
to 50 ft), flat bottom, and floor substrate of rock, cobble, gravel,
sand, and irregularly submerged rock in some areas, thereby making it a
poor acoustic environment. Currents, tides, waves, winds, commercial
and recreational vessels, and in-air noise may further increase
background sound levels near the action area. Relevant index
information can be derived from underwater sound baselines in other
areas. The quietest waters in the oceans of the world are at Sea State
Zero, 90 dB (rms) at 100 Hz (National Research Council, 2003; Guedel,
1992). Underwater sound levels in Elliott Bay near Seattle, Washington,
representative of an area receiving moderately heavy vessel traffic,
are about 130 dB (rms) (WSDOT, 2006). In Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, an
area which, like Trinidad Bay, receives moderate to heavy traffic from
smaller vessels, underwater sound levels of 140 dB (rms) are reached on
summer weekends, dropping to 120 dB (rms) during quiet mid-week periods
(Cummings, 1987). Since Trinidad Bay receives daily, year-round use by
a variety of recreational and fishing vessels, a background underwater
sound estimate of 120 dB (rms) is a conservative estimate for daytime
underwater noise levels, and was used to calculate the action area for
the activity. The rationale for using the background estimate of 120 dB
(rms) is based upon comparison with inland or protected marine waters
(Puget Sound in Washington, and Lake Coeur d'Alene in Idaho) that are
not subject to the severity of wave and storm activity that can occur
in the Trinidad Bay area. It is likely that intermittent directional
sound sources of higher intensity constitute a part of the normal
acoustic background, to which seals in the area are habituated.
Assuming that such intermittent background sound sources may be twice
as loud as the regionally averaged rms background sound level of 120
dB, then seals are unlikely to show a behavioral response to any sounds
quieter than 126 dB (rms). A sound that is as loud as or below ambient/
background levels is likely not discernable to marine mammals and
therefore is not likely to have the potential to harass a marine
mammal.
Noise Thresholds--There has been extensive effort directed towards
the establishment of underwater sound thresholds for marine life.
Various criteria for marine mammals have been established through
precedent. Current NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine mammals
to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to
impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB (rms) or above, respectively, have
the potential to be injured (i.e., Level A harassment). NMFS considers
the potential for Level B harassment (behavioral) to occur when marine
mammals are exposed to sounds below injury thresholds, but at or above
160 dB (rms) for impulse sounds at/or above 120 dB (rms) for continuous
noise (e.g., vibratory pile-driving). As noted above, current NMFS
practice, regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level in-air
sounds, as a potential threshold for Level B harassment, is at or above
90 dB re 20 [micro]Pa for harbor seals and at or above 100 dB re 20
[micro]Pa for all other pinniped species. Since, as noted above,
background sound levels in Trinidad Bay are anticipated to frequently
exceed the 120 dB (rms) threshold, this analysis evaluates potential
effects relative to a background level of 126 dB (rms).
Anticipated Extent of Underwater Project Noise
Pile-Driving--There are several sources of measurement data for
piles that have been driven with a vibratory hammer. Illingworth and
Rodkin (2008) collected data at several different projects with pile
sizes ranging from 33 to 183 cm (13 to 72 in). The most representative
data from these measurements would be from the Ten Mile River Bridge
Replacement Project and the Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal
Redevelopment Project. At Ten Mile, 96 cm (30 in) CISS piles were
measured in cofferdams filled with water in the Ten Mile River at 33 ft
(m) and 330 ft (m) from the piles. The sound level in the water channel
ranged from less than 150 to 166 dB (rms). Levels generally increase
gradually with increasing pile size. These sound levels are therefore
considered a conservative (credible worst case) estimate of the
expected levels given that the size of the piles proposed for this
project are smaller in diameter (45.7 cm or 18 in) than the piles
measured at Ten Mile.
Illingworth and Rodkin (2008) gathered data at the Port of
Anchorage (POA) during the vibratory driving of steel H piles. These
data, and data gathered by others, were used as the basis for the
Environmental Assessment that was prepared by NMFS for the issuance of
an IHA at the POA. These data were summarized in the POA IHA. The POA
IHA concluded that average sound levels of vibratory pile-driving
sounds would be approximately 162 dB re 1 [micro]Pa at a distance of 20
m (65.6 ft). Furthermore, for vibratory pile-driving, the 120 dB level
would be exceeded out to about 800.1 m (2,625 ft) from the vibratory
hammer.
A selection of additional projects using vibratory hammers was made
from the ``Compendium of Pile-Driving Sound Data'' (Illingworth and
Rodkin, 2007). This includes all projects in the compendium that used a
vibratory hammer to drive steel pipe piles or H-piles. Data from these
projects, and the two projects named above are summarized in Table 2 of
the IHA application and this document.
Table 2--Sound Level Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance (m and dB re 1 [mu]Pa
Project ft) Pile type Water depth (rms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Mile......................... 10 m (33 ft)...... 76.2 cm (30 in) Not stated........ 166.
steel pipe.
10 Mile......................... 100.6 m (330 ft).. 76.2 cm (30 in) Not stated........ Less than 150.
steel pipe.
Port of Anchorage............... 20.1 m (66 ft).... H-pile............ Not stated........ 162.
[[Page 47167]]
San Rafael Canal................ 10 m (33 ft)...... 25.4 cm (10 in) H- 2.1 m (7 ft)...... 147.
pile.
San Rafael Canal................ 20.1 m (66 ft).... 25.4 cm (10 in) H- 2.1 m (7 ft)...... 137.
pile.
Mad River Slough................ 10 m (33 ft)...... 33 cm (13 in) 4.9 m (16 ft)..... 154 to 156.
steel pipe.
Richmond Inner Harbor........... 10 m (33 ft)...... 1.8 m (6 ft) steel Not stated........ 167 to 180.
pipe.
Richmond Inner Harbor........... 29.9 m (98 ft).... 1.8 m (6 ft) steel Not stated........ 160.
pipe.
Stockton Wastewater Crossing.... 10 m (33 ft)...... 0.9 m (3 ft) steel Not stated........ 168 to 175.
pipe.
Stockton Wastewater Crossing.... 20.1 (66 ft)...... 0.9 m (3 ft) steel Not stated........ 166.
pipe.
San Rafael Sea Wall............. 10 m (33 ft)...... 25.4 cm (10 in) H- 2.1 m (7 ft)...... 147.
pile.
San Rafael Sea Wall............. 20.1 m (66 ft).... 25.4 cm (10 in) H- 2.1 m (7 ft)...... 137.
pile.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Illingworth and Rodkin (2007, 2008).
Based on these data, the results for 76.2 cm to 0.9 m (30 in to 3
ft) steel pipe driven in water would appear to constitute a
conservative representation of the potential effects of driving 45.7 cm
(18 in) steel pipe at the Trinidad Pier. Those indicate an rms level of
166 to 175 dB at 10 m (33 ft) from the pile. Calculations in this
analysis assume the high end of this range. For this analysis, close to
the pile, it is assumed that there would be a 4.5 dB (rms) decrease for
every doubling of the distance (practical spreading loss model).
Isopleth distances based on this inference are presented in Table 3 of
Trinidad Rancheria's IHA application and this document. Figure 1 of the
IHA application shows both the area of effect and the relative exposure
risk based on the presence of shielding features (headlands and sea
stacks). Under no circumstances would the Level A harassment (injury)
threshold for cetaceans or pinnipeds be exceeded, but the specified
activities would likely exceed the Level B harassment threshold, which
also corresponds to background sound level in the area, throughout
Trinidad Harbor. Shielding by headlands flanking the harbor would,
however, prevent acoustic impacts to waters outside the harbor that are
not on a line-of-sight to the sound source. This effect is shown in
Figure 1 of the IHA application.
Noise Levels from Augering--An auger is a device used for moving
material or liquid by means of a rotating helical shaft into the earth.
An attempt was made to measure the noise from augering out the 76.2 cm
(30 in) piles at the Ten Mile Bridge Replacement Project. The levels
were below the peak director of the equipment, 160 dB peak, and so
measurements were stopped. Augering is expected to generate noise
levels at or below the lower end of this range (Illingworth and Rodkin,
2008). Using the uniform ``practical spreading model'' transmission
loss rate of 4.5 dB (rms) per doubling of distance, background sound
levels would exceed the Level B harassment threshold at distances of
less than 2.4 km (1.5 mi) (see Table 4 and Table 3 of the IHA
application).
Table 3--Predicted Distances to Underwater and In-Air Acoustic Threshold Levels for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance from activity to isopleths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 dB in-
Construction activity 90 dB in-air for air for
190 dB (rms) 180 dB (rms) 160 dB (rms) 126 dB (rms) harbor seals all other
pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45.7 cm (18 in) Pile 0.9 m (3 ft)......... 4.9 m (16 ft)........ 101.5 m (333 ft).... 23.3 km (14.5 mi)... 26.5 m (87 ft)...... 10.5 m
Vibratory Installation. (34.5
ft).
Augering..................... 0 m (0 ft)........... 0.3 m (1 ft)......... 10.1 m (33 ft)...... 2.4 km (1.5 mi)..... 18.3 m (60 ft)...... 7.3 m (24
ft).
Wood Pile Removal............ 0 m (0 ft)........... 0.9 m (3 ft)......... 21.6 m (71 ft)...... 5 km (3.1 mi)....... 26.5 m (87 ft)...... 10.5 m
(34.5
ft).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise Levels from Removal of Wood Piles--Removal of the existing
wood piles would be accomplished with the use of a vibratory hammer.
Typically the noise levels for installing and removing a pile are
approximately the same when a vibratory hammer is used. The noise
generated by installing wood piles is generally lower than steel shell
piles. Illingworth and Rodkin (2007, 2008) have had only one
opportunity to measure the installation of woodpiles, and this was with
a 1,360.8 kg (3,000 lb) impact hammer. The levels measured at a
distance of 10 m (32.8 ft) were as follows: 172 to 182 dB peak, 163 to
168 dB (rms). For a comparable CISS pile, using a 1,360.8 kg (3,000 lb)
drop hammer, the levels measured were 188 to 192 dB peak, 172 to 177 dB
(rms). The noise generated during the installation of the wood pile was
approximately 10 dB lower than the CISS piles. Following this logic,
the sound produced when removing the wood piles would be about 10 dB
lower than when installing the CISS piles.
Levels of 180 dB (rms) and 190 dB (rms) are expected to occur in
the water at very small distances as a result of pile removal (see
Table 3 in this document). Peak sound pressures would not be expected
to exceed 190 dB in water. The average sound level of vibratory
woodpile removal would be approximately 152 dB (rms) at a distance of
20.1 m (66 ft). Using the uniform practical spreading loss model
transmission loss rate of 4.5 dB (rms) per doubling of distance, the
Level B harassment threshold distance would be
[[Page 47168]]
5 km (3.1 miles) (see Table 3 in the IHA application).
Potential for Biological Effects--Based on the foregoing analysis,
the action could result in underwater acoustic effects to marine
mammals. The injury thresholds for pinnipeds and cetaceans would not be
attained, but the acoustic background level in the area, 126 dB (rms)
would be attained during use of the vibratory pile driver (for wood
piling removal and for CISS pile placement), and during augering of the
CISS pile placements. Effects distances for these activities are shown
in Table 3 of the IHA application, and range up to 23.3 km (14.5 mi).
The duration of exposure varies between activities.
Table 4--Noise Generating Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Number of Time per Duration of days when 126 dB (rms) isopleth
Construction activity piles pile activity activity distance
occurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45.7 cm (18 in) pile vibratory 115 0:15 28:45 58 23.3 km (14.5 mi).
installation.
Augering......................... 115 1:00 115:00 58 2.4 km (1.5 mi).
Wood pile removal................ 205 0:40 136:40 58 5 km (3.1 mi).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile installation would occur for approximately 30 min (up to two
piles would be driven each day at up to 15 min drive time per pile) on
each of 58 days (see Table 4 in the IHA application and this document),
resulting in sound levels exceeding the behavioral effect threshold
within 23.3 km (14.5 mi) of the activity.
Pile removal is a quieter activity performed for a longer time:
Approximately 136:40 hours distributed evenly over 58 days, or about
2.5 hours on each day when the activity occurs. Sound levels would
exceed the behavioral effect threshold within 5 km (3.1 mi) of the
activity.
Augering, the least-noisy activity, is estimated to require 1 hour
for each of 115 piles with activity occurring on each of 58 days evenly
distributed during a 180-day period, or about 2 hours on each day when
the activity occurs. Sound levels would exceed the behavioral effect
threshold within 2.4 km (1.5 mi) of the activity.
These activities could be performed on the same day, but are
expected to normally occur on consecutive days, with a cycle of pile
removal-pile installation-augering-grouting occurring as each of 25
successive bents is placed.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the IHA application, Trinidad Bay is
protected from waves coming from the north and west, but open to
coastline on the south. The coast extending to the south, and the rocky
headland to the west of the pier, would shield waters from the acoustic
effects described above except within the bay itself. These topographic
considerations result in a situation such that underwater noise-
generating activities would produce elevated underwater sound within
most of the bay itself, but would have a minor effect on underwater
sound levels outside the bay.
Seals outside of Trinidad Harbor and more than 1.6 to 3.2 km (1 to
2 mi) offshore are likely already exposed to and habituated to loud
machinery noise in the form of deep-draft vessel traffic along the
coast; such vessels may produce noise levels on the order of 170 to 180
dB (rms) at 10 m and thus have areas of effect comparable to the 23.3
km (14.5 mi) radius of effect calculated for vibratory pile-driving
noise. In this context, the 23.3 km (14.5 mi) radius of effect is
likely unrealistic, just as it is likely unrealistic to think that
these seals alter their behavior in response to the passage of a large
vessel 23.3 km (14.5 mi) away. Behavioral considerations suggest that
the seals would be able to determine that a noise source does not
constitute a threat if it is more than a couple of miles away, and the
sound levels involved are not high enough to result in injury (Level A
harassment). Nonetheless, these data suggest that pile-driving may
affect seal behavior throughout Trinidad harbor, i.e., within
approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) of the activity. The nature of that effect
is unpredictable, but logical responses on the part of the seals
include tolerance (noise levels would not be loud enough to induce
temporary threshold shift in harbor seals), or avoidance by using haul-
outs or by foraging outside the harbor.
With regard to noises other than pile-driving (i.e., pile removal,
augering, and construction noise), estimation of biological effects
depends on the characteristics of the noise and the behavior of the
seals. The noise is qualitatively similar to that produced by the
engines of fishing vessels or the operations of winches, noises to
which the seals are habituated and which they in fact regard as an
acoustic indicator signaling good foraging opportunities near the pier.
There are no data about the magnitude of this acoustic indicator, but
the noise produced by the fishing vessel engines entering or leaving
the harbor is likely not less than 150 dB (rms) at 10 m, though it will
be quieter as vessels ``throttle back'' near the pier. This level (150
dB [rms]) is the same as the estimated noise level from augering, and
15 dB less than the estimated noise level from pile removal. In this
context, behavioral responses due to augering are not likely, except
that initially seals might approach the work area in anticipation of
foraging opportunities. Such behavior would likely cease once the seals
learned the difference between the sound auger and that of a fishing
vessel. Behavioral responses in the form of avoidance due to pile
removal might occur within a distance of about 50 m (164 ft) from the
activity, but the area so affected constitutes a small fraction of
Trinidad Harbor and has no haul-outs; thus very few seals would be
expected to be affected.
In-Air Noise--The principal source of in-air noise would be the
vibratory pile driver used to extract old wood piles and to place the
new CISS piles. Laughlin (2010) has recently reported unweighted sound
measurements from vibratory pile drivers used to place steel piles at
two projects involving dock renovation for the Washington State
Ferries. In both projects, noise levels were measured in terms of the 5
min average continuous sound level (Leq). Frequency-domain spectra for
the maximum sound level (Lmax) were also measured. The Leq measurements
in this case were equivalent to the unweighted rms sound level,
measured over a 5 min period.
At the Wahkiakum County Ferry Terminal, one measurement station was
used to take measurements of the vibratory placement (APE hammer) of
one 45.7 cm (18 in) steel in-water pile, the same size that would be
placed during the Trinidad Pier renovation. At the Keystone Ferry Dock
renovation, four measurement stations were used to take measurements of
the vibratory
[[Page 47169]]
placement (APE hammer) of one 76.2 cm (30 in) steel in-water pile. At
both sites, piles were placed in alluvial sediments, whereas the
Trinidad Pier piles would be placed in pre-bored holes in sandstone.
Results from the Wahkiakum and Keystone piles (Laughlin, 2010) are
shown in Table 5 of the IHA application.
Based on these data (Laughlin, 2010), in-air noise production
during pile-driving at the Trinidad Pier will likely be between 87.5
and 96.5 dB re 20 [mu]Pa unweighted at 50 ft. For the purpose of the
analysis presented below, it is assumed that in-air noise from
vibratory pile-driving would produce 96 dB (rms) unweighted. This noise
would be produced during both pile removal and pile placement
activities. The augering equipment produces slightly less noise, 92 dB
(rms) unweighted (WSDOT, 2006). All other power equipment that would be
used as part of the action (e.g., trucks, pumps, compressors) produces
at least 10 dB less noise and thus has much less potential to affect
wildlife in the area.
In contrast, background noise levels near the Trinidad Pier are
already elevated due to normal pier activities. Marine mammals at
Trinidad Bay haul-outs are presumably habituated to the daily coming
and going of fishing and recreational vessels, and to existing
activities at the pier such as operation of the hoists and the loading
and unloading of commercial crab boats. These activities may occur at
any time of the day and may produce noise levels up to approximately 82
to 86 dB (unweighted) at 15.2 m (50 ft) for periods of up to several
hours at a time. Accordingly 82 dB (unweighted) is chosen as the
background level for noise near the pier.
Effects on Pacific Harbor Seals--In-air sound attenuates at the
rate of approximately 5 dB/km for a frequency of 1 kHz, air temperature
of 10[deg] C (50[deg] F), and relative humidity of 80 percent (Kaye and
Laby, 2010). These conditions approximate winter weather in Trinidad.
Under these conditions, the noise of the vibratory pile-driver would
attenuate to approximately 82 dB at approximately 2.8 km (1.7 mi) from
the pier. Attenuation, which is proportional to frequency, would be
reduced at lower frequencies, and would be much greater at higher
frequencies. Attenuation would also be greater at locations where
headlands or sea stacks interfere with sound transmission, as shown in
Figure 1 of the IHA application. Accordingly, the sounds produced by
pile extraction, augering, and pile replacement would exceed background
levels within almost all of Trinidad Harbor.
Driving of CISS piles would occur for a total of approximately 0.5
hours per day on each of 58 days within a 180 day period (August 1
through January 31, 2010) (see Table 4 of the IHA application). Pile-
driving would occur during daylight hours, at which time harbor seals
would be periodically coming to or leaving from haul-outs, and possibly
foraging within the radius of effect around the pile-driving activity.
Harbor seals haul-out on rocks and at small beaches at many locations
that are widely dispersed within Trinidad Bay; the closest such haul-
out is 70 m (229.7 ft) from the pier, while the most distant is over 1
km (0.6 mi) away near the south end of Trinidad Bay.
Behavioral effects could result to all seals that were in the water
within the area of effect during the portion of the day when piles were
being driven (typically two piles per day). For instance, if seals
spent 10 percent of the day in the water within the radius of effect,
and assuming that the number of seals present that day was
approximately 37 (as discussed above in the context of data presented
by Goley et al. [2007]), then about 3.66 seals would be affected by
each of two pile drives. Because the drives occurred during different
parts of the day, different seals would likely be affected, resulting
in a total impact on that day to seven or eight seals.
The 10 percent estimate given above for the time seals spend within
the radius of effect is a representative figure for the purposes of
illustration. There are no data available on relative seal use of the
haul-outs in Trinidad Bay, versus their use of waters in Trinidad Bay,
versus their use of waters or haul-outs elsewhere. The radius of effect
is only a small fraction of Trinidad Bay, and only a fraction of the
rocks that comprise the Indian Beach haul-out described in Goley et al.
(2007) are within that radius of effect. However, it is known that
during winter months (when the construction is scheduled to occur),
seal use of the haul-outs in Trinidad Bay likely declines because the
seals spend a larger fraction of their time at sea, foraging in
offshore waters (Goley, 2007). Figure 1 of the IHA application shows
that topographic shielding by headlands blocks a large area of offshore
habitat from potential underwater construction noise effects.
Impacts attributable to pile removal would be similar to those of
pile-driving, but pile removal would occur for a total of approximately
2.5 hours per day on each of 58 days (see Table 4 of the IHA
application). Subject to the same assumptions as described above, but
this time with the activity being performed on an average of 3.5 piles
per day, about 3.66 seals would be affected by each of 3.5 pile removal
events for a total daily impact to 13 seals.
Impacts attributable to augering would also be similar, but
augering would occur for a total of approximately 2 hours per day on
each of 58 days. Subject to the same assumptions as described above,
but this time with the activity being performed on an average of two
piles per day, about seven or eight seals would be affected by each of
two augering events for a total daily impact to seven or eight seals.
These numbers would vary if more or fewer seals were present in the
area of effect, and if seals spent more or less of their time in the
water rather than on the haul-out.
Although harbor seals could also be affected by in-air noise and
activity associated with construction at the pier, seals at Trinidad
Bay haul-outs are presumably habituated to human activity to some
extent due to the daily coming and going of fishing and recreational
vessels, and to existing activities at the pier such as operation of
the hoists and the loading and unloading of commercial crab boats.
These activities may occur at any time of the day and may produce noise
levels up to approximately 82 dB at 15.2 m (50 ft) for periods of up to
several hours at a time. The operation of loud equipment, including the
vibratory pile-driving rig and the auger, are above and outside of the
range of normal activity at the pier and have the potential to could
cause seals to leave a haul-out in Trinidad Bay. This would constitute
Level B harassment (behavioral). To date, such behavior by harbor seals
has not been documented in Trinidad Bay in response to current levels
of in-air noise and activity in the harbor, but does have the potential
to occur. On the contrary, seals have been documented often approaching
the pier during normal fishing boat activities in anticipation of
feeding opportunities associated with the unloading of fish and
shellfish. This circumstance suggests seal habituation to existing
noise levels encountered near the pier.
Based on these examples it appears likely that few harbor seals at
haul-outs would show a behavioral response to noise at the pier,
particularly in view of their existing habituation to noise activities
at the pier. The great majority of haul-out locations in Trinidad Bay
are at least 304.8 m (1,000 ft) from the pier, but one minor haul-out
is 70.1 m (230 ft) from the pier (Goley, pers. comm.). In view of the
relatively large area that would be affected by elevated in-air noise,
it appears probable that
[[Page 47170]]
some seals could show a behavioral response, despite their habituation
to current levels of human-generated noise; incidental take by this
mechanism may amount to an average of one seal harassed per day, when
the activities of pile removal, augering, or pile placement are
occurring (in addition to the seals harassed by underwater noise).
Harbor seal presence in the activity area is perennial, with daily
presence of an average of approximately 37 seals at a nearby haul-out
during the months when the activity would occur. The fraction of these
seals that would be in the activity area is difficult to estimate.
Traditionally the seals have regarded the pier as a prime foraging area
due to the recreational fishing activity and the unloading of fishing
boats that occur there. During the construction period, however, these
activities would cease, and it is plausible that the seals would modify
their foraging behavior accordingly. Based on the analysis in the IHA
application and here in this notice, seals would be affected once per
day on each of 116 days when pile-driving or augering occurred, 13
seals would be affected per day on each of 58 days when pile removal
occurred, and one seal would be affected by in-air sound on each of 164
days when pile removal, installation, or augering occurred. The
potentially affected seals include adults of both sexes. Goley et al.
(2007) states that the seals are year-round residents; that they are
non-migratory, dispersing from a centralized location to forage; and
that they exhibit high site fidelity, utilizing one to two haul-out
sites within their range and rarely traveling more than 25 to 50 km
(15.5 to 31.1mi) from these haul-outs. The winter population of seals
in Trinidad Bay seems to consist mostly of resident seals (Goley et
al., 2007), so it is likely that most seals in the population would be
affected more than once over the course of the construction period. It
is therefore possible that some measure of adaptation or habituation
would occur on the part of the seals, whereby they would tolerate
elevated noise levels and/or utilize haul-outs relatively distant from
construction activities. There are a large but inventoried number of
haul-outs within Trinidad Bay, so such a strategy is possible, but it
is difficult to predict whether the seals would show such a response.
Project scheduling avoids sensitive life history phases of harbor
seals. Project activities producing underwater noise would commence in
August. This is after the end of the annual molt, which normally occurs
in June and July. Project activities producing underwater noise are
scheduled to terminate at the end of January, which is a full month
before female seals begin to seek sites suitable for pupping.
Effects on California Sea Lions--California sea lions, although
abundant in northern California waters, have seldom been recorded in
Trinidad Bay (i.e, there is little published information or data with
which to determine how they use Trinidad Bay). The low abundance in the
area may be due to the presence of a large and active harbor seal
population there, which likely competes with the sea lions for foraging
resources. Any sea lions that did visit the action area during
construction activities would be subject to the same type of impacts
described above for harbor seals. Observed use of the area by
California sea lions amounts to less than one percent of the number of
harbor seals (Goley, pers. comm.); assuming a one percent utilization
rate, total impacts to California sea lions amount to one percent of
the effects of harbor seals, described above.
There is a possibility of behavioral effects related to project
acoustic impacts, in the event of California sea lion presence in the
activity area. Based on an interview with Dr. Dawn Goley (pers. comm.),
California sea lions have been seen in the activity area, albeit
infrequently, and there are no quantitative estimates of the frequency
of their occurrence. Assuming that they are present with one percent of
the frequency of harbor seals, it is possible California sea lions
might be subject to behavioral harassment up to one percent of the
levels described for harbor seals. The potentially affected sea lions
include adults of both sexes.
Effects on Eastern Pacific Gray Whales--Goley et al. (2007) list
the sighting rates for gray whales during eight years of monthly
observations at Trinidad Bay. Sighting rates varied from 0 to 1.38
whales per hour of observation time. The average detection rate during
the period when pile removal and placement would occur, in the months
from August through January, was 0.21 whales per hour of observation
time. In contrast, the average detection rate in the months of February
through July was 0.48 whales per hour. The majority of these detections
were within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the shoreline (Goley et al., 2007). These
data suggest that the effect rate for gray whales would be
approximately 0.21 whales per hour. Since vibratory pile-driving of
CISS piles would occur for a total of approximately 28.75 hours (115
piles at 15 min drive time apiece; see Table 4 of the IHA application),
vibratory pile-driving activities would be expected to affect 0.21 x
28.75 = 6.04 or approximately six gray whales.
Acoustic effects would be expected to result from pile removal,
which is a quieter activity performed for a longer time. Approximately
205 piles will be removed, with 40 min of vibratory pile driver noise
for each pile, resulting in a total exposure of 136.67 hours (see Table
4 of the IHA application). Thus this activity would be expected to
affect 6.04 x 136.7/28.75 = 28.7 or approximately 29 gray whales.
Acoustic effects would also be expected to result from pile
augering, which is an even quieter activity. There will be 115 holes
augered, with one hour of noise for each hole, resulting in a total
exposure of 115 hours (see Table 4 of the IHA application). Thus this
activity would be expected to affect 6.04 x 115/28.75 = 24.2 or
approximately 24 gray whales. No mechanism other than underwater sound
generation is expected to affect gray whales in the action area.
The most likely number of gray whales that would be taken is 59.
Based on the low detection rate of 0.21 whales per hour (Goley et al.,
2007), most of these take events would likely be independent, whales
and would likely occur with adults of both sexes.
The potential effects to marine mammals described in this section
of the document do not take into consideration the required monitoring
and mitigation measures described later in this document (see the
``Mitigation'' and ``Monitoring and Reporting'' sections) which, as
noted are designed to effect the least practicable impact on affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Possible Effects of Activities on Marine Mammal Habitat
The anticipated adverse impacts upon habitat consist of temporary
changes to water quality and the acoustic environment, as detailed in
the IHA application and Appendix B of the BA. These changes are minor,
temporary, and limited in duration to the period of construction. No
restoration is needed because, as detailed in Section 6.1.6 of the BA,
the project would have a net beneficial effect on habitat in the
activity area by removing an existing source of stormwater discharge
and creosote-treated wood. No aspect of the project is anticipated to
have any permanent effect on the location of seal and sea lion haul-
outs in the area, and no permanent change in seal or sea lion use of
haul-outs and related habitat features is anticipated to occur as a
result of the project.
[[Page 47171]]
The temporary impacts on water quality and acoustic environment and
the beneficial long-term effects are not expected to have any permanent
effects on the populations of marine mammals occurring in Trinidad Bay.
The area of habitat affected is small and the effects are temporary,
thus there is no reason to expect any significant reduction in habitat
available for foraging and other habitat uses for marine mammals.
Although artificial, the pier functions as a habitat feature. There
would probably be a temporary cessation of seal activity in the
immediate vicinity of the pier. It is not clear at this time how this
would affect seal behavior. The fishing vessels that normally use the
pier during the months when construction would occur have two options;
they can either transfer their cargoes to smaller vessels capable of
landing at the existing boat ramp (which is on the east side of the
rocky headland just east of the pier, a few hundred feet away), or they
can make temporary use of pier facilities approximately 32.2 km (20 mi)
to the south, in Eureka. Vessels opting to travel to Eureka would
likely represent a lost foraging opportunity for seals using Trinidad
Bay.
NMFS anticipates that the action will result in no impacts to
marine mammal habitat beyond rendering the areas immediately around the
Trinidad Pier less desirable during pile-driving and pier renovation
operations as the impacts will be localized. Impacts to marine mammal,
invertebrate, and fish species are not expected to be detrimental.
Mitigation
In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization 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.
The activity planned by the applicant includes a variety of
measures calculated to minimize potential impacts on marine mammals,
including:
Timing the activity to occur during seasonal lows in
marine mammal use of the activity area;
Limiting activity to the hours of daylight (approximately
7 a.m. to 7 p.m., with noise generating activities only authorized from
one-half hour after sunrise until one-half hour before sunset);
Use of a vibratory hammer to minimalize the noise of
piling and removal and installation; and
Use of trained PSOs to detect, document, and minimize
impacts (i.e., start-up procedures [short periods of driver use with
intervening pauses of comparable duration, performed two or three
times, before beginning continuous driver use], possible shut-down of
noise-generating operations [turning off the vibratory driver or auger
so that in-air and/or underwater sounds associated with construction no
longer exceed levels that have the potential to injure marine mammals])
to marine mammals, as detailed in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan
(see Appendix C of the IHA application) and in paragraphs (1)-(8) of
the monitoring and reporting provisions found in the ``Monitoring and
Reporting'' section later in this document.
Timing Constraints for Underwater Noise
To minimize noise impacts on marine mammals and fish, underwater
construction activities shall be limited to the period when the species
of concern will be least likely to be in the project area. The
construction window for underwater construction activities shall be
August 1, 2011 to May 1, 2012. Avoiding periods when marine mammals are
in the action area is another mitigation measure to protect marine
mammals from pile-driving and renovation operations.
Implementation Assurance: Provide NMFS advance notification of the
start dates and end dates of underwater construction activities.
More information regarding the Trinidad Rancheria's monitoring and
mitigation measures, as well as research conducted, (i.e., noise study
for potential impacts to marine mammals and fish; potential impacts to
historical, archeological and human remains; potential impacts to water
quality during reconstruction activities; potential impacts to
substrate and water quality during tremie concrete seal pouring; and
potential temporary impacts to public access to the pier during
construction operations) for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project
can be found in Appendix B of the IHA application.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures
and has considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring
that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their
habitat. NMFS's evaluation of potential measures included consideration
of the following factors in relation in one another:
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
The practicality of the measure for applicant
implementation.
Based on NMFS's evaluation of the applicant's measures, as well as
other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, NMFS
has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal 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 ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs
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 action area.
Consistent with NMFS procedures, the following marine mammal
monitoring and reporting shall be performed for the action:
(1) A NMFS-approved or -qualified Protected Species Observer (PSO)
shall attend the project site one hour prior until one hour after
construction activities cease each day throughout the construction
window.
(2) The PSO shall be approved by NMFS prior to reconstruction
operations.
(3) The PSO shall search for marine mammals within behavioral
harassment threshold areas as identified within the acoustic effect
thresholds in Section 6 of Trinidad Rancheria's IHA application. The
area observed shall depend upon the type of underwater sound being
produced (e.g., pile extraction, augering, or pile installation). No
practicable technology exists to allow for monitoring beyond the visual
range at which seals and sea lions can be detected using binoculars
(approximately 0.8 km [0.5 mi]), depending on visibility and sea state.
[[Page 47172]]
The estimated maximum distance at which PSOs will be able to visually
detect gray whales is about 1.6 km (1 mi).
(4) The PSO shall be present on the pier during pile-extraction,
pile-driving and augering to observe for the presence of marine mammals
in the vicinity of the specified activity. All such activity will occur
during daylight hours (i.e., 30 min after sunrise and 30 min before
sunset). If inclement weather limits visibility within the area of
effect, the PSO will perform visual scans to the extent conditions
allow, but activity will be stopped at any time that the observer
cannot clearly see the water surface out to a distance of at least 30.5
m (100 ft) from the activity. In conditions of good visibility, PSOs
will likely be able to detect pinnipeds out to a range of approximately
0.8 km (0.5 mi) from the pier, and to detect whales out to a range of
approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) from the pier. Animals at greater
distances likely would not be detected.
(5) Visibility is a limiting factor during much of the winter in
Trinidad Bay. As discussed in the BA, shut-downs during times of fog
could well result in prolonging the construction period into the
beginning of the pupping season for harbor seals. The estimated
distances for Level A harassment do not exceed 4.9 m (16 ft) from the
activity. The activities will shut-down if visibility is so poor that
seals cannot be detected when they are at risk of injury (i.e., if
visibility precludes observation of the area within 30.5 m [100 ft] of
the pier). During the 30 min prior to the start of noise-generating
activities and the quiet periods between individual noise-generating
activities, auditory monitoring may be highly effective for detecting
gray whales, but probably less effective for harbor seals and
California sea lions.
(6) The PSO will also perform auditory monitoring, and will report
any auditory evidence of marine mammal activity. Auditory detection
will be based only on the use of the human ear (without technological
assistance). Auditory monitoring is effective for detecting the
presence of gray whales in close proximity to the action area (e.g.,
blows, splashes, etc.). Close proximity varied depending on how loud
the sound produced by the gray whale is, and on the in-air transmission
loss rate. Auditory monitoring prior to the start of the noise-
generating activity occurs in the absence of masking noise and thus
helps to ensure that the auditory monitoring is effective. Auditory
monitoring is only likely more effective than visual monitoring under
conditions of low visibility (i.e., fog) since work would only occur
during daylight hours, at which times the transmission loss rate is
very low. Note that there will also be many quiet periods between
individual noisy activities, during which whales can be detected. Most
of the work day is spent in preparing for a few noisy intervals.
Auditory monitoring is less effective for detecting the presence of
pinnipeds.
(7) The PSO will scan the area of effect for at least 30 min
continuously prior to any episode of pile-driving to determine whether
marine mammals are present, and will continue to scan the area during
the period of pile-driving. The scan will continue for at least 30 min
after each in-water work episode has ceased. The scan will involve two
visual ``sweeps'' of the area using the naked eye and binoculars.
Typically, the sweep would be conducted slowly as follows: one sweep
going from left to right and the other returning from right to left.
The length of time it takes to do the sweep will depend on the amount
of area that needs to be covered, weather conditions, and the time it
takes the monitor to thoroughly survey the area.
(8) Pile removal, augering, and pile placement activities will be
shut-down if any cetacean or pinniped is about to enter or within the
EZ determined by the estimated Level A harassment thresholds (see Table
3 for estimated distances [above]). Since the activities would produce
sound levels that have the unlikely potential to result in Level A
harassment (due to the very small radii of effect), a measure such as a
shut-down may be unnecessary, but it would be appropriate for the
Trinidad Rancheria to shut-down and consult with NMFS if measurements
indicate that any activities attain sound levels that reach the Level A
harassment threshold. If any other marine mammals are observed within
the area of effect, pile-driving will not commence. If a marine mammal
swims into the area of effect during pile-driving, the PSO will
identify the animal and, if it is not a harbor seal, will notify the
Project Engineer who will notify the Contractor, and pile-driving will
stop (i.e., shut-down). If the animal has been observed to leave the
area of effect, or 15 min for pinnipeds and 30 min for cetaceans have
passed since the last observation of the animal, pile-driving will
proceed. Visual observation of the area of effect is limited to the
area that can be practicably observable for animals to be detected,
which is approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) for pinnipeds and 1.6 km (1 mi)
for gray whales.
(9) Whenever a construction halt is called due to marine mammals
presence in the area, the Project Engineer (or their representative)
shall immediately notify the designated NMFS representative.
(10) If marine mammals are sighted by the PSO within the Level A
and/or Level B harassment acoustic thresholds areas, the PSO shall
record the number of marine mammals within the area of effect and the
duration of their presence while the noise-generating activity is
occurring. The PSO will also note whether the marine mammals appeared
to respond to the noise and if so, the nature of that response. The PSO
shall record the following information: date and time of initial
sighting, tidal stage, weather, conditions, Beaufort sea state,
species, behavior (activity, group cohesiveness, direction and speed of
travel, etc.), number, group composition, distance to sound source,
number of animals impacted, construction activities occurring at time
of sighting, and monitoring and mitigation measures implemented (or not
implemented). The observations will be reported to NMFS in a letter
report to be submitted on each Monday, describing the previous week's
observations.
(11) A final report will be submitted summarizing all in-water
construction activities and marine mammal monitoring during the time of
the authorization, and any long term impacts from the project.
A written log of dates and times of monitoring activity will be
kept. The log shall report the following information:
Time of observer arrival on site;
Time of the commencement of underwater noise generating
activities, and description of the activities (e.g., pile removal,
augering, or pile installation);
Distances to all marine mammals relative to the sound
source;
For harbor seal observations, notes on seal behavior
during noise-generating activity, as described above, and on the number
and distribution of seals observed in the project vicinity;
For observations of all marine mammals other than harbor
seals, the time and duration of each animal's presence in the project
vicinity; the number of animals observed; the behavior of each animal,
including any response to noise-generating activities; whether
activities were halted in response to the animal's presence; and
whether, and if so, the time of NMFS notification;
Time of the cessation of underwater noise generating
activities; and
Time of observer departure from site. All monitoring data
collected during construction will be included in the biological
monitoring notes to be
[[Page 47173]]
submitted weekly be electronic mail. Monthly summary reports will be
submitted to NMFS. A report summarizing the construction monitoring and
any general trends observed will also be submitted to NMFS within 90
days after monitoring has ended during the period of pier construction.
Underwater Noise Monitoring
Underwater noise monitoring and reporting shall be performed
consistent with conditions of Coastal Development Permit 1-07-046.
Those conditions are here summarized:
Prior to commencement of demolition and construction authorized by
coastal development permit No. 1-07-046, the applicant shall submit a
Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan, containing all supporting information
and analysis deemed necessary by the Executive Director for the
Executive Director's review and approval. Prior to submitting the plan,
to the Executive Director, the applicant shall also submit copies of
the Plan to the reviewing marine biologists of the California
Department of Fish & Game and the NMFS for their review and
consideration.
At a minimum, the Plan shall:
(1) Establish the field locations of hydroacoustic monitoring
stations that will be used to document the extent of the hydroacoustic
hazard footprint during vibratory extrication or placement of piles or
rotary augering activities, and provisions to adjust the location of
the acoustic monitoring stations based on data acquired during
monitoring, to ensure that the sound pressure field is adequately
characterized;
(2) Describe the method of hydroacoustic monitoring necessary to
assess the actual conformance of the vibratory extrication or placement
of piles or rotary augering with the dual metric exposure criteria in
the vicinity of the vibratory extrication or placement of piles or
rotary augering locations on a real-time basis, including relevant
details such as the number, location, distances, and depths of
hydrophones and associated monitoring equipment.
(3) Include provisions to continuously record noise generated by
the vibratory extrication or placement of piles or rotary augering in a
manner that enables continuous and peak sound pressure and other
measures of sound energy per strike, or other information required by
the Executive Director in the consultation with marine biologists of
the California Department of Fish & Game and NMFS, as well as
provisions to supply all monitoring data that is recorded, regardless
of whether the data is deemed ``representative'' or ``valid'' by the
monitor (accompanying estimates of data significance, confounding
factors, etc. may be supplied by the acoustician where deemed
applicable). The permit also specifies reporting protocols, to be
developed in cooperation with and approved by representatives of the
California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Fish &
Game, and NMFS.
The Trinidad Rancheria would notify NMFS Headquarters and the NMFS
Southwest Regional Office prior to initiation of the pier
reconstruction activities. A draft final report must be submitted to
NMFS within 90 days after the conclusion of the Trinidad Pier
Reconstruction Project. The report would include a summary of the
information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth
in the IHA, including dates and times of operations, and all marine
mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, species, behavioral
observations [activity, group cohesiveness, direction and speed of
travel, etc.], tidal stage, weather conditions, sea state, activities,
associated pier reconstruction activities). A final report must be
submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days after receiving
comments from NMFS on the draft final report. If no comments are
received from NMFS, the draft final report would be considered to be
the final report.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this
Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury
or mortality, Trinidad Rancheria shall immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by e-mail to
[email protected] and [email protected] and the Southwest
Regional Stranding Coordinators ([email protected] and
[email protected]). The report must include the following
information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
The type of activity involved;
Description of the circumstances during and leading up to
the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident; water depth; environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed
and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident; species identification or description of the
animal(s) involved;
The fate of the animal(s); and photographs or video
footage of the animal (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Trinidad
Rancheria to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Trinidad Rancheria
may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, e-
mail, or telephone.
In the event that Trinidad Rancheria discovers an injured or dead
marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less
than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next
paragraph), Trinidad Rancheria will immediately report the incident to
the Chief of the Permits Conservation, and Education Division, Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by e-mail to
[email protected] and [email protected], and the NMFS
Southwest Regional Office (562-980-4017) and/or by e-mail to the
Southwest Regional Stranding Coordinators ([email protected] and
[email protected]). The report must include the same information
identified above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Trinidad Rancheria
to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.
In the event that Trinidad Rancheria discovers an injured or dead
marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the activities authorized (e.g.,
previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Trinidad Rancheria shall report
the incident to the Chief of the Permits, Conservation, and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or
by e-mail to [email protected] and [email protected], and
the NMFS Southwest Regional Office (562-980-4017) and/or by e-mail to
the Southwest Regional Stranding Coordinators ([email protected] and
[email protected]), within 24 hours of the discovery. Trinidad
Rancheria shall provide photographs or video footage (if available) or
other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the
Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
[[Page 47174]]
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
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].
Based on NMFS's assessment of the potential effects of the
specified activities on marine mammals likely to occur within the
action area, NMFS has determined that incidental harassment of Pacific
harbor seals, California sea lions, and Eastern Pacific gray whales is
anticipated for the following reasons:
(1) Surveys have demonstrated that harbor seals are almost always
present within the area that would be affected by underwater sound.
Thus, it is not possible to avoid affecting harbor seals at an exposure
level below the Level B harassment threshold. Potential effects to
harbor seals have been minimized by constructing during a period when
sensitive life history stages (pupping and molting) do not occur, and
by using construction methods that generate the lowest practicable
levels of underwater sound.
(2) California sea lions are found among the harbor seals, at about
one percent of the harbor seal abundance; thus there is a risk of
incidentally affecting California sea lions at the same times and by
the same mechanisms at an exposure level above the Level B harassment
threshold that harbor seals are affected.
(3) Gray whales have a high likelihood of occurring in Trinidad Bay
during the construction period. They may not be detected by PSOs if
they occur near the outer limits of the area of the Level B harassment
impact zone.
(4) The area has a high incidence of harbor fog, which complicates
successful detection of animals when they enter waters where they may
be exposed to sound levels in excess of the Level B harassment
threshold. Dense fog is a common occurrence in this area in all seasons
of the year. In 2008, for instance, the NOAA weather station in nearby
Eureka reported 63 days of fog with visibility less than 0.4 km (0.25
mi), and 176 cloudy days. Local anecdotal reports indicate that the
incidence of fog is much higher on the harbor waters than on the
adjacent uplands. Attempting to only perform underwater sound
generating activities during periods of high visibility is therefore
impracticable, as it would greatly prolong the time required for
construction. For this reason it is possible that marine mammals may
enter waters where they may be exposed to sound levels in excess of the
Level B harassment threshold without being detected by PSOs. This is
why the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (see Appendix C of the IHA
application) provides for work stoppage when visibility is less than
30.5 m (100 ft), and provides for auditory detection (for both cetacean
and pinniped monitoring) in conditions of reduced visibility and
assumes that any auditory direction represents an animal that is within
the area with sound levels in excess of the Level B harassment
threshold.
Incidental take estimates are based on estimates of use of Trinidad
Bay by various species as reported by Goley (2007 and pers. comm.). All
reconstruction activities generating underwater sound during the
project are expected to exceed background sound levels through Trinidad
Bay. Table 5 in this document outlines the number of marine mammals
that might be taken by Level B harassment from the various activities
(both in-air and underwater estimates are provided for pinnipeds).
Table 5--Summary of the Noise Production and Anticipated Incidental Take by Level B Harassment for the Trinidad Rancheria's Action Generating In-Air and
Underwater Noise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood pile removal Augering Vibratory pile installation
Variable -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater noise In-air noise Underwater noise In-air noise Underwater noise In-air noise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound Amplitude................. 156.5 dB (rms) at 104 dB at 50 ft... 150 dB (rms) at 94 dB at 50 ft.... 175 dB (rms) at 104 dB at 50 ft.
10.1 m (33 ft). 15.2 m (50 ft). 10.1 m (33 ft).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound Duration Per Day (hours).. 2.5
2
0.5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Frequency Per Day...... 2
3.5
2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Days *................ 58
58
58.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hours of Exposure......... 145
116
29.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Take of Harbor Seals 13................ 1................. 7 or 8............ 1................. 7 or 8............ 1.
Per Day.
Incidental Take of Harbor Seals 754............... 58................ 435............... 58................ 435............... 58.
Total.
Incidental Take of California 7.5............... 0.6............... 4.4............... 0.6............... 4.4............... 0.6.
Sea Lions Total.
Incidental Take of Gray Whales.. 28.7.............. 0................. 28.7.............. 0................. 6.04.............. 0.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * No two activities would be performed on any given day.
[[Page 47175]]
Encouraging and Coordinating Research
Existing knowledge gaps regarding the Trinidad Bay harbor seals
were identified in discussions with Dr. Dawn Goley, professor, HSU. Dr.
Goley noted that the timing and movements of the Trinidad Bay harbor
seals are not well understood, and could be better understood by radio
tracking studies of a representative group of seals. Dr. Goley also
noted the uncertain relationship between Trinidad Bay and Patrick's
Point seals, and noted that the radio tracking study might help to
elucidate that relationship.
Negligible Impact and Small Numbers Analysis and Determination
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.'' In making a negligible impact determination,
NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to:
(1) The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or
mortalities;
(2) The number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B
harassment (all relatively limited);
(3) The context in which the takes occur (i.e., impacts to areas of
significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when
taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to
baseline data);
(4) The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e.,
depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, and impact
relative to the size of the population);
(5) Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment or survival;
and
(6) The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures (i.e.,
the manner and degree in which the measure is likely to reduce adverse
impacts to marine mammals, the likely effectiveness of the measures,
and the practicability of implementation).
For reasons stated previously in this document, and in the proposed
notice of the IHA (76 FR 28733, May 18, 2011), the specified activities
associated with the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project are not likely
to cause PTS, or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death
because of:
(1) The likelihood that marine mammals are expected to move away
from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially
injurious;
(2) The potential for permanent hearing impairment is relatively
low and would likely be avoided through the incorporation of the
required monitoring and mitigation measures (described above);
(3) The fact that cetaceans would have to be closer than 0.9 m (3
ft), 0.3 m (1 ft), and 4.9 m (16 ft) and pinnipeds would have to be
closer than 0 m (0 ft), 0 m (0ft), and 0.9 m (3 ft), during pile-
removal, augering, and vibratory pile-driving activities, respectively,
to be exposed to levels of sound believed to have even a minimal chance
of causing a permanent thresholds shift (PTS; i.e., Level A
harassment); and
(4) The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained
PSOs is high at close proximity to the pier.
No injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities or alteration of
reproductive behaviors are anticipated to occur as a result of Trinidad
Rancheria's planned renovation operations, and none are authorized by
NMFS. Only short-term, minor, behavioral disturbance is anticipated to
occur due to the brief and sporadic duration of the renovation
activities. Table 5 (above) in this document outlines the number of
Level B harassment takes that are anticipated as a result of the
activities. Project scheduling avoids sensitive life history phases for
harbor seals. Project activities producing underwater noise would
commence in August. This is after the end of the annual molt, which
normally occurs in June and July. Project activities producing
underwater noise are scheduled to terminate at the end of January,
which is a full month before female seals commence to seek sites
suitable for pupping. It is possible that severe winter storms or other
unforeseen events could delay the conclusion of activities producing
underwater noise, but the scheduled one month buffer between underwater
construction and the start of pupping-related activity provides
assurance that a reasonable level of project delays could occur without
adverse consequences for the harbor seals. Due to the nature, degree,
and context of Level B (behavioral) harassment anticipated and
described (see Potential Effects on Marine Mammals section above) in
this notice, the activity is not expected to impact rates of
recruitment or survival for any affected species or stock.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hr cycle).
Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical
life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are
more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or
recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). While Trinidad Pier
operations are anticipated to occur on consecutive days, the entire
duration of the project resulting in incidental take of marine mammals
is not expected to last more than six months. Of the three marine
mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that are known to or likely to
occur in the study area, none are listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA or depleted under the MMPA. To protect these animals (and
other marine mammals in the project area), Trinidad Rancheria must
cease operations if animals enter designated zones. No injury, serious
injury, or mortality is expected to occur and due to the nature,
degree, and context of the Level B harassment anticipated, the
specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or
survival.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that three species of
marine mammals under its jurisdiction could be potentially affected by
Level B harassment over the course of the IHA. For each species, these
numbers are estimated to be small (i.e., 1,798 harbor seals [5.7
percent], 21 California sea lions [0.02 percent], and 65 gray whales
[0.4 percent]), less than a few percent of any of the estimated
populations sizes based on data in this notice, and has been mitigated
to the lowest level practicable through the incorporation of the
monitoring and mitigation measures mentioned previously in this
document.
NMFS's practice has been to apply 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms)
received level threshold for underwater non-impulse sound levels to
determine whether take by Level B harassment occurs. Southall et al.
(2007) provide a severity scale for ranking observed behavioral
responses of both free-ranging marine mammals and laboratory subjects
to various types of anthropogenic sound (see Table 4 in Southall et al.
[2007]). Current NMFS practice, regarding exposure of marine mammals to
high-level in-air sounds, as a threshold for potential Level B
harassment, is at or above 90 dB re 20 [micro]Pa for harbor seals and
at or above 100 dB re 20 [micro]Pa for all other pinniped species
(Lawson et al., 2002; Southall et al., 2007). NMFS has not determined
Level A harassment thresholds for marine mammals for in-air noise.
NMFS has determined, provided that the aforementioned mitigation
and monitoring measures are implemented, that the impact of conducting
the renovation operations on the Trinidad Pier in Trinidad Bay, August,
2011 through January, 2012, may result, at
[[Page 47176]]
worst, in a temporary modification in behavior and/or low level
physiological effects (Level B harassment) of small numbers of certain
species of marine mammals. See Table 5 (above) for the authorized take
numbers of cetaceans and pinnipeds.
While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the
area during the renovation operations, may be made by these species to
avoid the resultant in-air and/or underwater acoustic disturbance, the
availability of alternate areas within these areas and the short and
sporadic duration of the research activities, have led NMFS to
determine that this action will have a negligible impact on the
specified geographic region.
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 mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS finds that Trinidad Rancheria's planned renovation
activities of the Trinidad Pier, will result in the incidental take of
small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that
the total taking from the construction project will have a negligible
impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals; and the
impacts to affected species or stocks of marine mammals have been
mitigated to the lowest level practicable.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the
authorization will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the
availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals in the study
area that implicate MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D).
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
On July 13, 2009, NMFS Southwest Regional Office (SWRO) received
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) July, 9, 2009, letter and
Biological Assessment (BA), requesting initiation of informal
consultation on the issuance of a Clean Water Act section 404 permit to
the Trinidad Rancheria to allow in-water work associated with the
proposed action. The BA and informal consultation request were
submitted for compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (50 CFR
402). On October 27, 2009, NMFS SWRO issued a Letter of Concurrence,
concurring with the ACOE's determination that the proposed action is
not likely to adversely affect federally threatened Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch),
California Coastal (CC) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and
Northern California (NC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
On November 30, 2009, the NMFS SWRO issued a separate letter
assessing project effects relative to marine mammals protected under
the Federal ESA. NMFS's letter concurred with the ACOE's determination
that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the Federally threatened Steller sea lion. The USFWS has
informed the ACOE that a formal ESA section 7 consultation is not
necessary for any of their jurisdictional species (i.e., no listed
species are likely to be adversely affected).
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The ACOE, San Francisco District, has prepared a permit evaluation
and decision document that constitutes an Environmental Assessment
(EA), Statement of Findings, and review and compliance determination
for the proposed action, which analyzed the project's purpose and need,
alternatives, affected environment, and environmental effects for the
action. NMFS has reviewed the ACOE EA for consistency with the
regulations published by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, and conducted a
separate NEPA analysis and prepared an ``Environmental Assessment for
Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization for Cher-Ae Heights
Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria's Trinidad Pier
Reconstruction Project in Trinidad, California,'' which analyzes the
project's purpose and need, alternatives, affected environment, and
environmental effects for the action prior to making a determination on
the issuance of the IHA. Based on the analysis in the EA and the
underlying information in the record, including the application,
proposed IHA, public comments and informal ESA section 7 consultation,
NMFS has prepared and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
determining that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is
not required.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
The ACOE requested consultation on EFH, pursuant to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-267, 16 U.S.C 1801 et
seq.) and its implementing regulations 50 CFR 600.920(a). The ACOE
determined that the proposed action would adversely affect EFH for
species managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast
Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagics Fishery Management Plans. NMFS SWRO
determined that the proposed action would adversely affect EFH for
species managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast
Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagics Fishery Management Plans. Habitat will
be lost during removal of wooden pilings; however, NMFS expected
recolonization of the new pilings within a year. NMFS believes the
proposed action has been designed to minimize and reduce the magnitude
of potential effects during implementation of the proposed action.
Therefore, NMFS provides no additional conservation recommendations. In
addition, NMFS expects EFH will improve in the vicinity of the pier due
to the following:
(1) Removal and replacement of creosote-treated wooden piles with
CISS concrete pilings;
(2) A stormwater collection and treatment system where all
stormwater will be collected and routed by gravity feed to an upland
treatment cell that will provide detention, settling, and active
filtering prior to complete infiltration;
(3) Reduced artificial lighting effects; and
(4) The HSU marine lab water intake associated with the pier will
be fitted with NMFS-approved screens, minimizing the risk of
entrainment of small prey fish species.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to the Trinidad Rancheria for the take, by
Level B harassment, of small numbers of three species marine mammals
incidental to specified activities related to renovation of the
Trinidad Pier, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: July 29, 2011.
Helen M. Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-19809 Filed 8-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P