[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43720-43739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18020]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD977
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities:
Mukilteo Multimodal Project Tank Farm Pier Removal
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments and information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to issue an authorization to WSF to
incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of marine mammals for a
period of 1 year.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than August
24, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Robert
Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox
address for providing email comments is [email protected]. NMFS is
not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one
provided here. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information
(for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
A copy of the application may be obtained by writing to the address
specified above or visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. Documents cited in this notice
may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at
the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 43721]]
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for a one-year authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment,
provided that there is no potential for serious injury or mortality to
result from the activity. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day
time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day
public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the
incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of
the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
Summary of Request
On November 6, 2014, Washington State Department of Transportation
Ferries System (WSF) submitted a request to NOAA requesting an IHA for
the possible harassment of small numbers of eight marine mammal species
incidental to construction work associated with the Mukilteo Ferry
Terminal replacement project in Mukilteo, Snohomish County, Washington.
The new terminal will be located to the east of the existing location
at the site of the former U.S. Department of Defense Fuel Supply Point
facility, known as the Tank Farm property, which includes a large pier
extending into Possession Sound (Figure 1-2 and 1-3 of the WSF IHA
application which may be found at URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm). Completion of the entire project
will occur over 4 consecutive years. WSF plans to submit an IHA request
for each consecutive year of construction. WSF previously received an
IHA on July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43424) which was active from September 1,
2014 through August 31, 2015. However, the project was delayed for one
year. The IHA application currently under review would cover work from
September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016. All existing pile work will
be done under these two successive permits. Due to NMFS, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) in-water work timing restrictions to protect salmonids
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), planned WSF in-water
construction is limited each year to August 1 through February 15. For
removal of the Tank Farm Pier, in-water construction is planned to take
place between August 1, 2015 and February 15, 2016; and continue in
August 1, 2016 to February 15, 2017 if pier removal and dredging is not
completed during the 2015/16 work window. A new MMPA IHA application
will be submitted for subsequent construction years for this project.
The action discussed in this document is based on WSF's November 6,
2014 IHA application. NMFS is proposing to authorize the Level B
harassment of the following marine mammal species: Pacific harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina richardsi), California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), killer whale
(Orcinus orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae)
Specific Geographic Region
The Mukilteo Tank Farm is located within the city limits of
Mukilteo and Everett, Snohomish County, Washington. The property is
located on the shore of Possession Sound, an embayment of the inland
marine waters of Puget Sound (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in the
Application).
Description of the Specified Activity
The Mukilteo Tank Farm Pier, which has not been used for fuel
transfers since the late 1970s, covers approximately 138,080 ft\2\
(3.17 acres) over-water and contains approximately 3,900 12-inch
diameter creosote-treated piles. Demolition of the pier will remove
approximately 7,300 tons of creosote-treated timber from the aquatic
environment. Demolition will take approximately ten months over two in-
water work windows. Removal of the pier will occur from land and from a
barge containing a derrick, crane and other necessary equipment.
Piles will be removed with a vibratory hammer or by direct pull
using a chain wrapped around the pile. The crane operator will take
measures to reduce turbidity, such as vibrating the pile slightly to
break the bond between the pile and surrounding soil, and removing the
pile slowly; or if using direct pull, keep the rate at which piles are
removed low enough to meet regulatory turbidity limit requirements. If
piles are so deteriorated they cannot be removed using either the
vibratory or direct pull method, the operator will use a clamshell to
pull the piles from below the mudline, or cut at or just below the
mudline (up to one foot) using a hydraulic saw.
Pile removal and demolition of creosote-treated timber elements of
the Tank Farm Pier will take place between August 1 and February 15.
All work will occur in water depths between 0 and -30 feet mean lower-
low water.
The first year of construction activities for the Mukilteo
Multimodal Project is limited to removing the Tank Farm Pier. The noise
produced by the proposed vibratory pile extraction may impact marine
mammals. Direct pull and clamshell removal are not expected to exceed
noise levels that would injure or harass marine mammals. These
extraction methods are described below.
Vibratory Hammer Removal
Vibratory hammer extraction is a common method for removing timber
piling. A vibratory hammer is suspended by cable from a crane and
derrick, and positioned on the top of a pile. The pile is then unseated
from the sediments by engaging the hammer, creating a vibration that
loosens the sediments binding the pile, and then slowly lifting up on
the hammer with the aid of the crane. Once unseated, the crane
continues to raise the hammer and pulls the pile from the sediment.
When the pile is released from the sediment, the vibratory hammer
is disengaged and the pile is pulled from the water and placed on a
barge for transfer upland. Vibratory removal will take approximately 10
to 15 minutes per pile, depending on sediment conditions.
[[Page 43722]]
Direct Pull and Clamshell Removal
Older timber pilings are particularly prone to breaking at the
mudline because of damage from marine borers and vessel impacts. In
some cases, removal with a vibratory hammer is not possible if the pile
is too fragile to withstand the hammer force. Broken or damaged piles
may be removed by wrapping the piles with a cable and pulling them
directly from the sediment with a crane. If the piles break below the
waterline, the pile stubs will be removed with a clamshell bucket, a
hinged steel apparatus that operates like a set of steel jaws. The
bucket will be lowered from a crane and the jaws will grasp the pile
stub as the crane pulled up. The broken piling and stubs will be loaded
onto the barge for off-site disposal. Clamshell removal will be used
only if necessary, as it will produce temporary, localized turbidity
impacts. Turbidity will be kept within required regulatory limits.
Direct pull and clamshell removal do not produce noise that could
impact marine mammals.
Dates and Duration
The subject IHA application addresses Year One and a first month of
Year Two. The first month of the project is covered by the existing IHA
permit (expiring in August 2015). The new IHA would be active from
September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016, which allows for one month
of pier removal if necessary in Year Two. If the rate of pier removal
in Year One is slow enough to suggest that pier removal will continue
beyond the first month (August) of Year Two, an additional IHA request
will be submitted to ensure that pier removal can be completed.
The daily construction window for pile removal will begin no sooner
than 30 minutes after sunrise to allow for initial marine mammal
monitoring, and will end at sunset (or soon after), when visibility
decreases to the point that effective marine mammal monitoring is not
possible.
Vibratory pile removal will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes per
pile. Assuming the worst case of 15 minutes per pile (with no direct
pull or clamshell removal), removal of 3,900 piles will take and
estimated 675-975 hours over 140-180 days of pile removal (Table 2-2 in
the Application). The estimate of 180 days provides for some shorter
pile pulling days during winter, transition time to dig out broken
piles, and removal of decking. The actual number of days may be closer
to 140 for pile work.
It is likely that the actual hours of vibratory pile removal will
be less, as the duration conservatively assumes that every pile will be
removed with a vibratory hammer. It is likely that many will be require
direct pull or clamshell removal if necessary, both of which are
quicker than vibratory extraction.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to
occur in the proposed construction area include Pacific harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina richardsi), California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (P. dalli), killer whale (Orcinus
orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae).
General information on the marine mammal species found in
California waters can be found in Carretta et al. (2013), which is
available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/pacific2013_final.pdf and in Table 1 below. Refer to that document for
information on these species. Specific information concerning these
species in the vicinity of the proposed action area is provided below.
Table 1--List of Marine Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction That Occur in the Vicinity of the Mukilteo Tank Farm
Pier Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timing of Frequency of
Species ESA Status MMPA Status occurrence occurrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal..................... Unlisted.......... Non-depleted...... Year-round........ Common.
California Sea Lion............. Unlisted.......... Non-depleted...... August-April...... Common.
Steller Sea Lion................ Delisted.......... Strategic/Depleted October-May....... Rare.
Harbor Porpoise................. Unlisted.......... Non-depleted...... Year-round........ Occasional.
Dall's Porpoise................. Unlisted.......... Non-depleted...... Year-round (more Occasional.
common in winter).
Killer Whale.................... Endangered........ Strategic/Depleted October-March..... Occasional.
(Southern Resident).............
Killer Whale.................... Unlisted.......... Strategic/Depleted March-May Occasional.
(Transient)..................... (intermittently
year-round).
Gray Whale...................... Delisted.......... Non-depleted...... January-May....... Occasional.
Humpback Whale.................. Endangered........ Strategic/Depleted April-June........ Occasional.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are members of the true seal family (Phocidae). For
management purposes, differences in mean pupping date (Temte 1986),
movement patterns (Brown 1988), pollutant loads (Calambokidis et al.
1985), and fishery interactions have led to the recognition of three
separate harbor seal stocks along the west coast of the continental
U.S. (Boveng 1988). The three distinct stocks are: (1) Inland waters of
Washington State (including Hood Canal, Puget Sound, Georgia Basin and
the Strait of Juan de Fuca out to Cape Flattery), (2) outer coast of
Oregon and Washington, and (3) California (Carretta et al. 2011).
The Washington Inland Waters stock (which includes Hood Canal,
Puget Sound, Georgia Basin and the Strait of Juan de Fuca out to Cape
Flattery) may be present near the project site. Pupping seasons vary by
geographic region. For the northern Puget Sound region, pups are born
from late June through August (WDFW 2012a). After October 1 all pups in
the inland waters of Washington are weaned. Of the three pinniped
species that commonly occur within the region of activity, harbor seals
are the most numerous and the only one that breeds in the inland marine
waters of Washington (Calambokidis and Baird, 1994).
In 1999, Jeffries et al. (2003) recorded a mean count of 9,550
harbor seals in Washington's inland marine waters, and estimated the
total population to be approximately 14,612 animals (including the
Strait of Juan de Fuca).
[[Page 43723]]
According to the 2014 Stock Assessment Report (SAR), the most recent
estimate for the Washington Northern Inland Waters Stock is 11,036
(Carretta et al. 2014). No minimum population estimate is available.
However, there are an estimated 32,000 harbor seals in Washington
today, and their population appears to have stabilized (Jeffries 2013),
so the estimate of 11,036 may be low.
Harbor seals are the most numerous marine mammal species in Puget
Sound. Harbor seals are non-migratory; their local movements are
associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food
availability and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952;
Bigg 1969, 1981). They are not known to make extensive pelagic
migrations, although some long-distance movements of tagged animals in
Alaska (174 km) and along the U.S. west coast (up to 550 km) have been
recorded (Pitcher and McAllister 1981; Brown and Mate 1983; Herder
1983).
Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs and beaches, and feed in
marine, estuarine and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals display
strong fidelity for haul-out sites (Pitcher and Calkins 1979; Pitcher
and McAllister 1981). The closest documented harbor seal haul-out sites
to the Tank Farm Pier are the Naval Station Everett floating security
fence, and the Port Gardner log booms, both approximately 4.5 miles
northeast of the project site. Harbor seals may also haul-out on
undocumented sites in the area, such as beaches.
Since June 2012, Naval Station Everett personnel have been
conducting counts of the number of harbor seals that use the in-water
security fence floats as haul-outs. As of April 18, 2013, the highest
count was 343 seals observed during one day in October 2012 (U.S. Navy
2013). The average number of seals hauled out for the 8 days of
monitoring falling within the Tank Farm Pier removal work window (July
15-February 15) was 117 (U.S. Navy 2013). However, given the distance
from the haul-out to the Tank Farm Pier, the number of affected seals
would be less.
Since 2007, the Everett Community College Ocean Research College
Academy (ORCA) has conducted quarterly cruises that include monitoring
stations within the ZOI. Marine mammal sightings data were collected
during these cruises. During 24 cruises within the ZOI falling within
the Tank Farm Pier removal window (July 15-February 15), the highest
count was 13 seals observed during one day in November of 2012. The
average number of seals observed during these cruises was 2.4 (ORCA
2013).
According to the NMFS National Stranding Database (2007-2013),
there were 7 confirmed harbor seal strandings within 0.5 miles of Tank
Farm Pier (NMFS 2013b).
California Sea Lion
Washington California sea lions are part of the U.S. stock, which
begins at the U.S./Mexico border and extends northward into Canada. The
U.S. stock was estimated at 296,750 in the 2012 Stock Assessment Report
(SAR) and may be at carrying capacity, although more data are needed to
verify that determination (Carretta et al. 2013). Some 3,000 to 5,000
animals are estimated to move into northwest waters (both Washington
and British Columbia) during the fall (September) and remain until the
late spring (May) when most return to breeding rookeries in California
and Mexico (Jeffries et al. 2000). Peak counts of over 1,000 animals
have been made in Puget Sound (Jeffries et al. 2000).
California sea lions breed on islands off Baja Mexico and southern
California with primarily males migrating to feed in the northern
waters (Everitt et al. 1980). Females remain in the waters near their
breeding rookeries off California and Mexico. All age classes of males
are seasonally present in Washington waters (WDFW 2000).
California sea lions do not avoid areas with heavy or frequent
human activity, but rather may approach certain areas to investigate.
This species typically does not flush from a buoy or haulout if
approached.
California sea lions were unknown in Puget Sound until
approximately 1979 (Steiger and Calambokidis 1986). Everitt et al.
(1980) reported the initial occurrence of large numbers at Port
Gardner, Everett (northern Puget Sound) in the spring of 1979. The
number of California sea lions using the Everett haul-out at that time
numbered around 1,000. Similar sightings and increases in numbers were
documented throughout the region after the initial sighting in 1979
(Steiger and Calambokidis 1986), including urbanized areas such as
Elliot Bay near Seattle and heavily used areas of central Puget Sound
(Gearin et al. 1986). In Washington, California sea lions use haul-out
sites within all inland water regions (WDFW 2000). The movement of
California sea lions into Puget Sound could be an expansion in range of
a growing population (Steiger and Calambokidis 1986).
The closest documented California sea lion haul-out sites to the
Tank Farm Pier are the Everett Harbor navigation buoys (3.0/3.5 miles
NE), and the Naval Station Everett floating security fence and Port
Gardner log booms (both 4.5 miles NE).
Since June 2012, Naval Station Everett personnel have been
conducting counts of the number of sea lions that use the in-water
security fence floats as haul-outs. As of April 18, 2013, the highest
count has been 123 California sea lions observed during one day in
November 2012. The average number of California sea lions hauled out
for the 8 days of monitoring falling within the Tank Farm Pier removal
work window (July 15-February 15) is 61 (U.S. Navy 2013). However,
given the distance from the haul-out to the Tank Farm Pier, it is not
expected that the same numbers would be present in the ZOI.
Since 2007, the Everett Community College ORCA has conducted
quarterly cruises that include monitoring stations within the ZOI.
Marine mammal sightings data were collected during these cruises.
During 10 cruises within the ZOI falling within the Tank Farm Pier
removal window (July 15-February 15), the highest count was 6
California sea lions observed during one day in October of 2008. The
average number of sea lions observed during these cruises was 2.8 (ORCA
2013).
According to the NMFS National Stranding Database (2007-2013),
there was one confirmed California sea lion stranding within 0.5 miles
of the Tank Farm Pier (NMFS 2013b).
Steller Sea Lion
The Eastern stock of Steller sea lion may be present near the
project site. The eastern stock of Steller sea lions is estimated at
63,160 with a Washington minimum population estimate of 1,749 (Carretta
et al., 2013). For Washington inland waters, Steller sea lion
abundances vary seasonally with a minimum estimate of 1,000 to 2000
individuals present or passing through the Strait of Juan de Fuca in
fall and winter months.
Steller sea lion numbers in Washington State decline during the
summer months, which correspond to the breeding season at Oregon and
British Columbia rookeries (approximately late May to early June) and
peak during the fall and winter months (WDFW 2000). A few Steller sea
lions can be observed year-round in Puget Sound although most of the
breeding age animals return to rookeries in the spring and summer.
The eastern stock of Steller sea lions are ``depleted/strategic''
under the MMPA and were ``delisted'' as a distinct population segment
under the ESA on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). On August 27, 1993,
NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat for
[[Page 43724]]
the Steller sea lion associated with breeding and haul-out areas in
Alaska, California, and Oregon (58 FR 45269). That critical habitat
remains in effect for the western DPS of Steller sea lions, which
remain listed under the ESA. No critical habitat has been designated in
Washington.
Breeding rookeries for the eastern stock are located along the
California, Oregon, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska coasts, but
not along the Washington coast or in inland Washington waters (Angliss
and Outlaw 2007). Adult Steller sea lions congregate at rookeries in
Oregon, California, and British Columbia for pupping and breeding from
late May to early June (Gisiner 1985).
Steller sea lions primarily use haul-out sites on the outer coast
of Washington and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca along Vancouver Island
in British Columbia. Only sub-adults or non-breeding adults may be
found in the inland waters of Washington (Pitcher et al. 2007).
However, the number of inland waters haul-out sites has increased in
recent years.
Since June 2012, Naval Station Everett personnel have been
conducting counts of the number of sea lions that use the in-water
security fence floats as haul-outs. No Steller sea lions have been
observed using the security barrier floats haul-out to date (U.S Navy.
2013).
Since 2007, the Everett Community College ORCA has conducted
quarterly cruises that include monitoring stations within the ZOI. No
Steller sea lions have been observed in the ZOI during these cruises
(ORCA 2013).
The closest documented Steller Sea lion haul-outs to the Tank Farm
Pier are the Orchard Rocks and Rich Passage buoys near S. Bainbridge
Island (19 miles SW), and Craven Rock near Marrowstone Island (23 miles
NW). Haul-outs are generally occupied from October through May, which
overlaps with the in-water work window. Any Steller sea lions near the
Tank Farm Pier would be transiting through the area.
There is no data available on the number of Steller sea lions that
use the Orchard Rocks. Up to 12 Steller sea lions have been observed
using the Craven Rock haul-out off of Marrowstone Island in northern
Puget Sound (WSF 2010). However, given the distance from this haul-out
to the Tank Farm Pier, it is not expected that the same numbers would
be present in the ZOI.
Harbor Porpoise
The Washington Inland Waters Stock of harbor porpoise may be found
near the project site. The Washington Inland Waters Stock occurs in
waters east of Cape Flattery (Strait of Juan de Fuca, San Juan Island
Region, and Puget Sound).
The Washington Inland Waters Stock mean abundance estimate based on
2002 and 2003 aerial surveys conducted in the Strait of Juan de Fuca,
San Juan Islands, Gulf Islands, and Strait of Georgia is 10,682 harbor
porpoises (Carretta et al. 2011). No minimum population estimate is
available.
No harbor porpoise were observed within Puget Sound proper during
comprehensive harbor porpoise surveys (Osmek et al. 1994) or Puget
Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) surveys conducted in the 1990s
(WDFW 2008). Declines were attributed to gill-net fishing, increased
vessel activity, contaminants, and competition with Dall's porpoise.
However, populations appear to be rebounding with increased
sightings in central Puget Sound (Carretta et al. 2007b) and southern
Puget Sound (D. Nysewander pers. comm. 2008; WDFW 2008). Recent
systematic boat surveys of the main basin indicate that at least
several hundred and possibly as many as low thousands of harbor
porpoise are now present. While the reasons for this recolonization are
unclear, it is possible that changing conditions outside of Puget
Sound, as evidenced by a tripling of the population in the adjacent
waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and San Juan Islands since the
early 1990s, and the recent higher number of harbor porpoise
mortalities in coastal waters of Oregon and Washington, may have played
a role in encouraging harbor porpoise to explore and shift into areas
like Puget Sound (Hanson, et. al. 2011).
The Washington Inland Waters Stock of harbor porpoise is ``non-
depleted'' under MMPA, and ``unlisted'' under the ESA.
Harbor porpoises are common in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and south
into Admiralty Inlet, especially during the winter, and are becoming
more common south of Admiralty Inlet. Little information exists on
harbor porpoise movements and stock structure near the Mukilteo area,
although it is suspected that in some areas harbor porpoises migrate
(based on seasonal shifts in distribution). For instance Hall (2004;
pers. comm. 2008) found harbor porpoises off Canada's southern
Vancouver Island to peak during late summer, while the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
Program (PSAMP) data show peaks in Washington waters to occur during
the winter.
Hall (2004) found that the frequency of sighting of harbor
porpoises decreased with increasing depth beyond 150 m with the highest
numbers observed at water depths ranging from 61 to 100 m. Although
harbor porpoises have been spotted in deep water, they tend to remain
in shallower shelf waters (<150 m) where they are most often observed
in small groups of one to eight animals (Baird 2003). Water depths
within the Tank Farm Pier ZOI range from 0 to 192 m.
Since 2007, the Everett Community College Ocean Research College
Academy (ORCA) has conducted quarterly cruises that include monitoring
stations within the ZOI. No harbor porpoise have been observed within
the ZOI during these cruises (ORCA 2013). According to the NMFS
National Stranding Database, there was one confirmed harbor porpoise
stranding within 0.5 miles of the Tank Farm Pier from 2007 to 2013
(NMFS 2013b).
Dall's Porpoise
The California, Oregon, and Washington Stock of Dall's porpoise may
be found near the project site. Dall's porpoise are high-frequency
hearing range cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007).
The most recent estimate of Dall's porpoise stock abundance is
42,000, based on 2005 and 2008 summer/autumn vessel-based line transect
surveys of California, Oregon, and Washington waters (Carretta et al.
2011). Within the inland waters of Washington and British Columbia,
this species is most abundant in the Strait of Juan de Fuca east to the
San Juan Islands. The most recent Washington's inland waters estimate
is 900 animals (Calambokidis et al. 1997). Prior to the 1940s, Dall's
porpoises were not reported in Puget Sound.
The California, Oregon, and Washington Stock of Dall's porpoise is
``non-depleted'' under the MMPA, and ``unlisted'' under the ESA. Dall's
porpoises are migratory and appear to have predictable seasonal
movements driven by changes in oceanographic conditions (Green et al.
1992, 1993), and are most abundant in Puget Sound during the winter
(Nysewander et al. 2005; WDFW 2008). Despite their migrations, Dall's
porpoises occur in all areas of inland Washington at all times of year
(Calambokidis pers. comm. 2006), but with different distributions
throughout Puget Sound from winter to summer. The average winter group
size is three animals (WDFW 2008).
Since 2007, the Everett Community College Ocean Research College
[[Page 43725]]
Academy (ORCA) has conducted quarterly cruises that include monitoring
stations within the ZOI. No Dall's porpoise have been observed within
the ZOI during these cruises (ORCA 2013). According to the NMFS
National Stranding Database (2007-2013), there were no Dall's porpoise
strandings in the area of the Tank Farm Pier (NMFS 2013b).
Killer Whale
The Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident and West Coast
Transient stocks of killer whale may be found near the project site.
A. Southern Resident Stock
The Southern Residents live in three family groups known as the J,
K and L pods. As of July 15, 2014, the stock collectively numbers 82
individuals (Carretta et al. 2014).
Southern Residents are documented in coastal waters ranging from
central California to the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia
(NMFS 2008). They occur in all inland marine waters. SR killer whales
generally spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter
water less than 15 feet deep (Baird 2000). Distribution is strongly
associated with areas of greatest salmon abundance, with heaviest
foraging activity occurring over deep open water and in areas
characterized by high-relief underwater topography, such as subsurface
canyons, seamounts, ridges, and steep slopes (Wiles 2004).
Sightings compiled by the Orca Network from 1990-2013 show that SR
killer whale occurs most frequently in the general area of the Tank
Farm Pier in the fall and winter, and are far less common from April
through September (Osborne 2008; Orca Network 2013). Since 2007, the
Everett Community College ORCA has conducted quarterly cruises that
include monitoring stations within the ZOI. No killer whales have been
observed within the ZOI during these cruises (ORCA 2013).
Records from 1976 through 2013 document Southern Residents in the
inland waters of Washington during the months of March through June and
October through December, with the primary area of occurrence in inland
waters north of Admiralty Inlet, located in north Puget Sound (Osborne
2008; Orca Network 2013).
Beginning in May or June and through the summer months, all three
pods (J, K, and L) of Southern Residents are most often located in the
protected inshore waters of Haro Strait (west of San Juan Island), in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Georgia Strait near the Fraser River.
Historically, the J pod also occurred intermittently during this
time in Puget Sound; however, records from 1997-2007 show that J pod
did not enter Puget Sound south of the Strait of Juan de Fuca from
approximately June through August (Osborne 2008).
In fall, all three pods occur in areas where migrating salmon are
concentrated such as the mouth of the Fraser River. They may also enter
areas in Puget Sound where migrating chum and Chinook salmon are
concentrated (Osborne 1999). In the winter months, the K and L pods
spend progressively less time in inland marine waters and depart for
coastal waters in January or February. The J pod is most likely to
appear year-round near the San Juan Islands, and in the fall/winter, in
the lower Puget Sound and in Georgia Strait at the mouth of the Fraser
River.
According to the NMFS National Stranding Database (2007-2013),
there were no killer whale strandings in the area of the Tank Farm Pier
(NMFS 2013b).
The SR killer whale stock was declared ``depleted/strategic'' under
the MMPA in May 2003 (68 FR 31980). On November 18, 2005, the SR stock
was listed as ``endangered'' under the ESA (70 FR 69903). On November
29, 2006, NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat for
the SR killer whale DPS. Both Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands are
designated as core areas of critical habitat under the ESA, excluding
areas less than 20 feet deep relative to extreme high water are not
designated as critical habitat (71 FR 69054). A final recovery plan for
Southern Residents was published in January of 2008 (NMFS 2008).
B. West Coast Transient Stock
Transient killer whales generally occur in smaller (1-5
individuals), less structured pods (Allen and Angliss. 2013). According
to the Center for Whale Research (CWR 2014), they tend to travel in
small groups of one to five individuals, staying close to shorelines,
often near seal rookeries when pups are being weaned.
The West Coast Transient stock, which includes individuals from
California to southeastern Alaska, is estimated to have a minimum
number of 243 (Allen and Angliss, 2013).
The West Coast Transient stock occurs in California, Oregon,
Washington, British Columbia, and southeastern Alaskan waters. Within
the inland waters, they may frequent areas near seal rookeries when
pups are weaned (Baird and Dill 1995).
Sightings compiled by the Orca Network from 1990-2013 show that
transient killer whale occurs most frequently in the general area of
the Mukilteo Tank Farm Pier in the spring and summer, and are far less
common from September through February (Orca Network 2013). However,
transient killer whale occurrence is less predictable than SR killer
whale occurrence, and they may be present at any time of the year.
Since 2007, the Everett Community College ORCA has conducted quarterly
cruises that include monitoring stations within the ZOI. No killer
whales have been observed within the ZOI during these cruises (ORCA
2013).
Gray Whale
Gray whales are recorded in Washington waters during feeding
migrations between late spring and autumn with occasional sightings
during winter months (Calambokidis et al. 1994, 2002; Orca Network
2013). The Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale may be found near
the project site. Gray whales are low-frequency hearing range cetaceans
(Southall et al. 2007).
The Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales is ``non-depleted''
under the MMPA, and was ``delisted'' under the ESA in 1994 after a 5-
year review by NOAA Fisheries. In 2001 NOAA Fisheries received a
petition to relist the stock under the ESA, but it was determined that
there was not sufficient information to warrant the petition (Angliss
and Outlaw 2007).
Although typically seen during their annual migrations on the outer
coast, a regular group of gray whales annually comes into the inland
waters at Saratoga Passage and Port Susan (7.5 miles north) from March
through May to feed on ghost shrimp (Weitkamp et al. 1992; Calambokidis
pers. comm. 2006). During this time frame they are also seen in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, the San Juan Islands, and areas of Puget Sound,
although the observations in Puget Sound are highly variable between
years (Calambokidis et al. 1994). The average tenure within Washington
inland waters is 47 days and the longest stay was 112 days (J.
Calambokidis pers. comm. 2007).
Sightings compiled by the Orca Network from 1990-2013 show that
gray whales are most frequently in the general area of the Mukilteo
Tank Farm Pier from January through May, and are far less common from
June through September (Orca Network 2013). Table 3-6 in the
Application presents total gray whale sightings (individual) per month
in the area between 1990 and 2013. Sightings in Puget Sound are usually
of a single individual, so Table
[[Page 43726]]
3-6 sightings are likely of the same individual or low number of
individuals over a number of days that month.
Since 2007, the Everett Community College Ocean Research College
Academy (ORCA) has conducted quarterly cruises that include monitoring
stations within the ZOI. No gray whales have been observed within the
ZOI during these cruises (ORCA 2013).
Humpback Whale
The California-Oregon-Washington (CA-OR-WA) stock of humpback whale
may be found near the project site. Humpback whales are low-frequency
hearing range cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007). The SAR abundance
estimate is 1,918 individuals. (Carretta et al. 2014).
The humpback whale was listed as ``endangered'' throughout its
range under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. This
protection was transferred to the ESA in 1973. A recovery plan was
adopted in 1991 (NMFS 1991). The humpback whale is also listed as
``depleted/strategic'' under the MMPA.
Historically, humpback whales were common in inland waters of Puget
Sound and the San Juan Islands (Calambokidis et al. 2004b). In the
early part of this century, there was a productive commercial hunt for
humpbacks in Georgia Strait that was probably responsible for their
long disappearance from local waters (Osborne et al. 1988). Commercial
hunts ended in the 1960's. Since the mid-1990s, sightings in Puget
Sound have increased.
This stock calves and mates in coastal Central America and Mexico
and migrates up the coast from California to southern British Columbia
in the summer and fall to feed (NMFS 1991; Marine Mammal Commission
2003; Carretta et al. 2007b). Few humpback whales are seen in Puget
Sound, but more frequent sightings occur in the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and near the San Juan Islands. Most sightings are in spring and summer.
Sightings compiled by the Orca Network from 1990-2013 show that
humpback whales are most frequently in the general area of the Tank
Farm Pier from April through June, and are far less common from July to
March (Orca Network 2013). Table 3-7 presents total humpback whale
sightings (individual) per month in the area between 1990 and 2013.
Sightings in Puget Sound are usually of a single individual.
Since 2007, the Everett Community College Ocean Research College
Academy (ORCA) has conducted quarterly cruises that include monitoring
stations within the ZOI. No humpback whales have been observed within
the ZOI during these cruises (ORCA 2013).
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
stressors, (e.g. vibratory hammer pile extraction) and potential
mitigation activities, associated with the Mukilteo Tank Farm Pier
Removal project may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this
document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of
individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The
``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how
this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the
content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on
the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. In the following
discussion, we provide general background information on sound and
marine mammal hearing before considering potential effects to marine
mammals from sound produced by vibratory pile driving.
Description of Sound Sources
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the
distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have
longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate
(decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically
measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a
measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a
constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a
logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude;
therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large
changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels
(SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the
context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa). One
pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted
over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the
sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1
[mu]Pa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's
position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are
referenced to a pressure of 1 [mu]Pa and all airborne sound levels in
this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 [mu]Pa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square
root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and
negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so
that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all
directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a
pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The
compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are
detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound
receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g.,
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic
sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of
sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following
(Richardson et al., 1995):
Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of
naturally occurring
[[Page 43727]]
ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995).
In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind
speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes important near shore, with
measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 km from shore showing an
increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band during heavy surf
conditions.
Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the
water surface can become an important component of total noise at
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times.
Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to
ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band
for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100
kHz.
Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human
activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft),
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise
typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20
and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are
below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they
attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable
anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a
passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound, as opposed to
ambient sound.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
Table 2--Representative Sound Levels of Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency range
Sound source (Hz) Underwater sound level References
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small vessels.......................... 250-1,000 151 dB rms at 1 m........ Richardson et al., 1995.
Tug docking gravel barge............... 200-1,000 149 dB rms at 100 m...... Blackwell and Greene,
2002.
Vibratory driving of 72-in steel pipe 10-1,500 180 dB rms at 10 m....... Reyff, 2007.
pile.
Impact driving of 36-in steel pipe pile 10-1,500 195 dB rms at 10 m....... Laughlin, 2007.
Impact driving of 66-in cast-in-steel- 10-1,500 195 dB at rms 10 m....... Reviewed in Hastings and
shell (CISS) pile. Popper, 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
consist mainly of vibratory pile extraction and direct pull of piles
using a chain wrapped around the pile. The latter activity is not
expected to produce sound that would approach Level B harassment. There
are two general categories of sound types: Impulse and non-pulse
(defined in the following). Vibratory pile driving is considered to be
continuous or non-pulsed while impact pile driving is considered to be
an impulse or pulsed sound type. The distinction between these two
sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause
physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (Southall et al.,
2007). Please see Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth discussion of
these concepts.
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) and
occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed
sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient
pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period
that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and
minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce
physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features. Note
that there is no impact driving planned as part of this project.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g.,
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving and removal, and active sonar systems
(such as those used by the U.S. Navy). The duration of such sounds, as
received at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
The likely or possible impacts of the proposed vibratory hammer
pile extraction at the MukilteoTank Farm Pier on marine mammals could
involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-
acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the
equipment and personnel. Any impacts to marine mammals, however, are
expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.
Marine Mammal Hearing
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data,
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
[[Page 43728]]
Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes):
Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and
30 kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and
bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises,
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species
of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz;
Phocid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated
to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz; and
Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is
estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, eight marine mammal
species (seven cetacean and two pinniped) may occur in the Icy Strait
project area. Of the five cetacean species likely to occur in the
proposed project area and for which take is requested, two are
classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., humpback and gray whales),
one is classified as a mid-frequency cetacean (i.e., killer whale), and
two are classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor and Dall's
porpoises) (Southall et al., 2007). Additionally, harbor seals are
classified as members of the phocid pinnipeds in water functional
hearing group while California and Stellar sea lions are grouped under
the Otariid pinnipeds in water functional hearing group. A species'
functional hearing group is a consideration when we analyze the effects
of exposure to sound on marine mammals.
Acoustic Impacts
Potential Effects of Pile Driving and Removal Sound--The effects of
sounds from pile driving might result in one or more of the following:
Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or
physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson
et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et
al., 2007). The effects of pile driving and removal on marine mammals
are dependent on several factors, including the size, type, and depth
of the animal; the depth, intensity, and duration of the pile driving
sound; the depth of the water column; the substrate of the habitat; the
standoff distance between the pile and the animal; and the sound
propagation properties of the environment. Impacts to marine mammals
from pile driving and removal activities are expected to result
primarily from acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of effect is
intrinsically related to the received level and duration of the sound
exposure, which are in turn influenced by the distance between the
animal and the source. The further away from the source, the less
intense the exposure should be. The substrate and depth of the habitat
affect the sound propagation properties of the environment. Shallow
environments are typically more structurally complex, which leads to
rapid sound attenuation. In addition, substrates that are soft (e.g.,
sand) would absorb or attenuate the sound more readily than hard
substrates (e.g., rock) which may reflect the acoustic wave. Soft
porous substrates would also likely require less time to drive the
pile, and possibly less forceful equipment, which would ultimately
decrease the intensity of the acoustic source.
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species would be
expected to result from physiological and behavioral responses to both
the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008).
The type and severity of behavioral impacts are more difficult to
define due to limited studies addressing the behavioral effects of
impulse sounds on marine mammals. Potential effects from impulse sound
sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral
disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury
of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
et al., 1973).
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--Marine mammals
exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt
et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be permanent (PTS),
in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not recoverable, or
temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Marine mammals depend on
acoustic cues for vital biological functions, (e.g., orientation,
communication, finding prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS may result
in reduced fitness in survival and reproduction. However, this depends
on the frequency and duration of TTS, as well as the biological context
in which it occurs. TTS of limited duration, occurring in a frequency
range that does not coincide with that used for recognition of
important acoustic cues, would have little to no effect on an animal's
fitness. Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. The
following subsections discuss in somewhat more detail the possibilities
of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical effects.
Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter,
1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound
must be stronger in order to be heard. In terrestrial mammals, TTS can
last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). For sound
exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity
in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure
to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to
elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the
published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of
sound. Available data on TTS in marine mammals are summarized in
Southall et al. (2007). TTS is not currently classified as an injury
(Southall et al., 2007).
Given the available data, the received level of a single pulse
(with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re
1 [mu]Pa \2\-s (i.e., 186 dB sound exposure level [SEL] or
approximately 221-226 dB p-p [peak]) in order to produce brief, mild
TTS. Exposure to several strong pulses that each have received levels
near 190 dB rms (175-180 dB SEL) might result in cumulative exposure of
approximately 186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in a small odontocete,
assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first approximation) a function of
the total received pulse energy.
The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies
on the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas). There is no published TTS information for
other species of cetaceans. However, preliminary evidence from a harbor
porpoise exposed to pulsed sound suggests that its TTS threshold may
have been lower (Lucke et al., 2009). As summarized above, data that
are now available imply that TTS is unlikely to occur unless
odontocetes are exposed to pile driving pulses stronger than 180 dB re
1 [mu]Pa rms.
Permanent Threshold Shift--When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage (injury) to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases,
there can be total or
[[Page 43729]]
partial deafness, while in other cases the animal has an impaired
ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of sound can
cause PTS in any marine mammal. However, given the possibility that
mammals close to a sound source can incur TTS, it is possible that some
individuals might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild
TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or
(in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing TTS
onset might elicit PTS.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and
other terrestrial mammals, based on anatomical similarities. PTS might
occur at a received sound level at least several decibels above that
inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses
with rapid rise time. Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a
precautionary assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds
(such as pile driving pulses as received close to the source) is at
least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and
probably greater than 6 dB (Southall et al., 2007). On an SEL basis,
Southall et al. (2007) estimated that received levels would need to
exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS.
Thus, for cetaceans, Southall et al. (2007) estimate that the PTS
threshold might be an M-weighted SEL (for the sequence of received
pulses) of approximately 198 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s (15 dB higher than the
TTS threshold for an impulse). Given the higher level of sound
necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less
likely that PTS could occur.
Measured source levels from impact pile driving can be as high as
214 dB rms. Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience
TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities,
captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in
behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds (Finneran et al., 2000,
2002, 2005). The animals tolerated high received levels of sound before
exhibiting aversive behaviors. Experiments on a beluga whale showed
that exposure to a single watergun impulse at a received level of 207
kPa (30 psi) p-p, which is equivalent to 228 dB p-p, resulted in a 7
and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively.
Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within
four minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). Although the
source level of pile driving from one hammer strike is expected to be
much lower than the single watergun impulse cited here, animals being
exposed for a prolonged period to repeated hammer strikes could receive
more sound exposure in terms of SEL than from the single watergun
impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa \2\-s) in the aforementioned
experiment (Finneran et al., 2002). However, in order for marine
mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the animals have to be close enough
to be exposed to high intensity sound levels for a prolonged period of
time. Based on the best scientific information available, these SPLs
are far below the thresholds that could cause TTS or the onset of PTS.
Non-auditory Physiological Effects--Non-auditory physiological
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals
exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological
effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ
or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). Studies
examining such effects are limited. In general, little is known about
the potential for pile driving to cause auditory impairment or other
physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such
effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short
distances from the sound source and to activities that extend over a
prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a
specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be
expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful quantitative
predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be
affected in those ways. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance
of pile driving, including some odontocetes and some pinnipeds, are
especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or non-auditory
physical effects.
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes
in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement.
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific
and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007).
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. Behavioral state may affect the type of response as well. For
example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in
response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly
motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995;
NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed
pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound
sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources
(typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices, but also
including pile driving) have been varied but often consist of avoidance
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and
Symonds, 2002; Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004;
Wartzok et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Responses to continuous
sound, such as vibratory pile installation and removal, have not been
documented as well as responses to pulsed sounds.
With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of
pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes in an
animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These
behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995): Changing
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g.,
pinnipeds flushing into water from haul-outs or rookeries). Pinnipeds
may increase their haul-out time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006).
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could include effects on growth, survival, or
reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could
potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction
include:
[[Page 43730]]
Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns;
Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic
environment; and
Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to
predict (Southall et al., 2007).
Auditory Masking--Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt
behavior by masking, or interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to
hear other sounds. Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is
interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and
at similar or higher levels. Chronic exposure to excessive, though not
high-intensity, sound could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions.
Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds
important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances,
marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being
severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction. If the coincident
(masking) sound were anthropogenic, it could be potentially harassing
if it disrupted hearing-related behavior. It is important to
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from
masking, which occurs only during the sound exposure. Because masking
(without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological
function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a
potential behavioral effect.
Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize so
the frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in
determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated
from in-water vibratory pile driving and removal is mostly concentrated
at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency
echolocation sounds made by porpoises. However, lower frequency man-
made sounds are more likely to affect detection of communication calls
and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey
sound. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near
the sound band and thus reduce the communication space of animals
(e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g.,
Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Masking has the potential to impact species at the population or
community levels as well as at individual levels. Masking affects both
senders and receivers of the signals and can potentially have long-term
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent
research suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have
increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL)
in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and that most of
these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All
anthropogenic sound sources, such as those from vessel traffic, pile
driving, and dredging activities, contribute to the elevated ambient
sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
Vibratory pile driving and removal is relatively short-term, with
rapid oscillations occurring for 10 to 30 minutes per installed or
removed pile. It is possible that vibratory driving and removal
resulting from this proposed action may mask acoustic signals important
to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species, but the short-
term duration and limited affected area would result in insignificant
impacts from masking. Any masking event that could possibly rise to
Level B harassment under the MMPA would occur concurrently within the
zones of behavioral harassment already estimated for vibratory pile
driving, and which have already been taken into account in the exposure
analysis.
Acoustic Effects, Airborne--Marine mammals that occur in the
project area could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile
removal that have the potential to cause harassment, depending on their
distance from pile driving activities. Airborne pile removal sound
would have less impact on cetaceans than pinnipeds because sound from
atmospheric sources does not transmit well underwater (Richardson et
al., 1995); thus, airborne sound would only be an issue for pinnipeds
either hauled-out or looking with heads above water in the project
area. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses
similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For
instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to
exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in
vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon their habitat and
move further from the source. Studies by Blackwell et al. (2004) and
Moulton et al. (2005) indicate a tolerance or lack of response to
unweighted airborne sounds as high as 112 dB peak and 96 dB rm.
Vessel Interaction
Besides being susceptible to vessel strikes, cetacean and pinniped
responses to vessels may result in behavioral changes, including
greater variability in the dive, surfacing, and respiration patterns;
changes in vocalizations; and changes in swimming speed or direction
(NRC 2003). There will be a temporary and localized increase in vessel
traffic during construction. At least one work barge will be present at
any time during the in-water and over water work.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile
removal. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat
from physical disturbance are also possible.
Potential Pile Driving and Removal Effects on Prey--With regard to
fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are known to
hear and react to sounds and to use sound to communicate (Tavolga et
al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson and Dill, 2002).
Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the strength and
direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors determining whether
a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially react to it, are the
frequency of the signal and the strength of the signal in relation to
the natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the
detection level of 120 dB; however, the response threshold can depend
on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition (Engas et
al., 1996). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of sound
rather than non-pulse signals (such as noise from vessels) (Blaxter et
al., 1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound
signal intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to
the same level.
Further, during the coastal construction only a small fraction of
the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time.
Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would return
to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity
ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any,
impact on the
[[Page 43731]]
abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where construction work
is planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid
the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.
Effects to Foraging Habitat--Short-term turbidity is a water
quality effect of most in-water work, including pile removal. WSF must
comply with state water quality standards during these operations by
limiting the extent of turbidity to the immediate project area. Roni
and Weitkamp (1996) monitored water quality parameters during a pier
replacement project in Manchester, Washington. The study measured water
quality before, during and after pile removal and driving. The study
found that construction activity at the site had ``little or no effect
on dissolved oxygen, water temperature and salinity'', and turbidity
(measured in nephelometric turbidity units [NTU]) at all depths nearest
the construction activity was typically less than 1 NTU higher than
stations farther from the project area throughout construction.
Similar results were recorded during pile removal operations at two
WSF ferry facilities. At the Friday Harbor terminal, localized
turbidity levels within the regulatory compliance radius of 150 feet
(from three timber pile removal events) were generally less than 0.5
NTU higher than background levels and never exceeded 1 NTU. At the
Eagle Harbor maintenance facility, within 150 feet, local turbidity
levels (from removal of timber and steel piles) did not exceed 0.2 NTU
above background levels (WSF 2012). In general, turbidity associated
with pile installation is localized to about a 25-foot radius around
the pile (Everitt et al., 1980).
Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the Tank Farm Pier
to experience turbidity, and any pinnipeds will be transiting the area
and could avoid localized turbidity. Therefore, the impact from
increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine
mammals.
Removal of the Tank Farm Pier will result in 3,900 creosote-treated
piles (~7,300 tons) removed from the marine environment. This will
result in temporary and localized sediment re-suspension of some of the
contaminants associated with creosote, such as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons.
However, the removal of the creosote-treated wood piles from the
marine environment will result in a long-term improvement in water and
sediment quality, meeting the goals of WSF's Creosote Removal
Initiative started in 2000. The net impact is a benefit to marine
organisms, especially toothed whales and pinnipeds that are high on the
food chain and bioaccumulate these toxins. This is especially a concern
for long-lived species that spend much of their life in Puget Sound,
such as Southern Resident killer whales (NMFS 2008).
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, ``and other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking'' for certain
subsistence uses. For the proposed project, WSF worked with NMFS and
proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential
impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes
of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the
activities, and to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of
influence corresponding to NMFS' current Level A and B harassment
thresholds which are depicted in Table 3 found later in the Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment section.
Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving
The following measures would apply to WSF's mitigation through
shutdown and disturbance zones:
Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities, WSF will establish
a shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are typically used to contain the area
in which SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB rms acoustic injury
criteria for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, with the purpose
being to define an area within which shutdown of activity would occur
upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area), thus preventing injury of marine mammals.
For vibratory driving, WSF's activities are not expected to produce
sound at or above the 180 dB rms injury criterion (see ``Estimated Take
by Incidental Harassment''). WSF would, however, implement a minimum
shutdown zone of 10 m radius for all marine mammals around all
vibratory extraction activity. This precautionary measure is intended
to further reduce the unlikely possibility of injury from direct
physical interaction with construction operations.
Disturbance Zone Monitoring--WSF will establish disturbance zones
corresponding to the areas in which SPLs equal or exceed 122 dB rms
(Level B harassment threshold for continuous sound) for pile driving
installation and removal. The disturbance zones will provide utility
for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone
monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to
the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones will enable
observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals
in the project area but outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for
potential shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of
disturbance zone monitoring will be to document incidents of Level B
harassment; disturbance zone monitoring is discussed in greater detail
later (see ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
Ramp Up (Soft Start)--Vibratory hammer use for pile removal and
pile driving shall be initiated at reduced power for 15 seconds with a
1 minute interval, and be repeated with this procedure for an
additional two times. This will allow marine mammals to move away from
the sound source.
Time Restrictions--Work would occur only during daylight hours,
when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. In addition,
all in-water construction will be limited to the period between August
1, 2015 and February 15, 2016; and continue in August 1, 2016 until IHA
expires on August 31, 2016.
Southern Resident Killer Whale--The following steps will be
implemented for southern resident killer whales to avoid or minimize
take (see Appendix B of the application--Monitoring Plan):
[ssquf] If Southern Residents approach the zone of influence (ZOI)
during vibratory pile removal, work will be paused until the Southern
Residents exit the ZOI. The ZOI is the area co-extensive with the Level
A and Level B harassment zones.
[ssquf] If killer whales approach the ZOI during vibratory pile
removal, and it is unknown whether they are Southern Resident killer
whales or transients, it shall be assumed they are Southern Residents
and work will be paused until the whales exit the ZOI.
[ssquf] If Southern Residents enter the ZOI before they are
detected, work will be paused until the Southern Residents exit the ZOI
to avoid further Level B harassment take.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation in
the context of ensuring that NMFS
[[Page 43732]]
prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our
evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the
following factors in relation to 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.
The practicability of the measure for applicant
implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received
levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed
to received levels of pile removal, or other activities expected to
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1,
above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number
or number at biologically important time or location) to received
levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance
of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Proposed 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 ITAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
The monitoring plan proposed by WSF can be found in its IHA
application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments
or new information received from the public during the public comment
period. A summary of the primary components of the plan follows.
(1) Marine Mammal Monitoring Coordination
WSF would conduct briefings between the construction supervisors
and the crew and protected species observers (PSOs) prior to the start
of pile-driving activity, marine mammal monitoring protocol and
operational procedures.
Prior to the start of pile driving, the Orca Network and/or Center
for Whale Research would be contacted to find out the location of the
nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings Network consists of
a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government
agency personnel in the U.S. and Canada. Sightings are called or
emailed into the Orca Network and immediately distributed to other
sighting networks including: The NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the Whale
Museum Hotline and the British Columbia Sightings Network.
Sighting information collected by the Orca Network includes
detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a
system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine
environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study
killer whale communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology and
local climatic conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine
Science Center measures average in-water sound levels and automatically
detects unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow
researchers to hear when different marine mammals come into the region.
This acoustic network, combined with the volunteer (incidental) visual
sighting network allows researchers to document presence and location
of various marine mammal species.
With this level of coordination in the region of activity, WSF will
be able to get real-time information on the presence or absence of
whales before starting any pile removal or driving.
(2) Protected Species Observers (PSOs)
WSF will employ qualified PSOs to monitor the 122 dBrms
re 1 [mu]Pa for marine mammals. Qualifications for marine mammal
observers include:
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of binoculars
will be necessary to correctly identify the target.
Advanced education in biological science, wildlife
management, mammalogy or related fields (Bachelor's degree or higher is
preferred), but not required.
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds).
Sufficient training, orientation or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations.
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience).
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations that would include such information as the number and type
of marine mammals observed; the behavior of marine mammals in the
project area during construction, dates and times when observations
were conducted; dates and times when in-
[[Page 43733]]
water construction activities were conducted; and dates and times when
marine mammals were present at or within the defined ZOI.
(3) Monitoring Protocols
PSOs would be present on site at all times during pile removal and
driving. Marine mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals
observed, frequency of observation, and the time corresponding to the
daily tidal cycle would be recorded.
WSF proposes the following methodology to estimate marine mammals
that were taken as a result of the proposed Mukilteo Multimodal Tank
Farm Pier removal project:
During vibratory pile removal, two land-based biologists
will monitor the area from the best observation points available. If
weather conditions prevent adequate land-based observations, boat-based
monitoring may be implemented.
To verify the required monitoring distance, the vibratory
Level B behavioral harassment ZOI will be determined by using a range
finder or hand-held global positioning system device.
The vibratory Level B acoustical harassment ZOI will be
monitored for the presence of marine mammals 30 minutes before, during,
and 30 minutes after any pile removal activity.
Monitoring will be continuous unless the contractor takes
a significant break, in which case, monitoring will be required 30
minutes prior to restarting pile removal.
If marine mammals are observed, their location within the
ZOI, and their reaction (if any) to pile-driving activities will be
documented.
NMFS has reviewed the WSF's proposed marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and has preliminarily determined the applicant's monitoring
program is adequate, particularly as it relates to assessing the level
of taking or impacts to affected species. The land-based PSO is
expected to be positioned in a location that will maximize his/her
ability to detect marine mammals and will also utilize binoculars to
improve detection rates. NMFS has reviewed the WSF's proposed marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and has determined the applicant's
monitoring program is adequate, particularly as it relates to assessing
the level of taking or impacts to affected species. The land-based PSO
is expected to be positioned in a location that will maximize his/her
ability to detect marine mammals and will also utilize binoculars to
improve detection rates.
Proposed Reporting Measures
WSF would provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90
days of the conclusion of the proposed construction work. This report
will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have
been harassed.
If comments are received from the NMFS Northwest Regional
Administrator or NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft
report, a final report will be submitted to NMFS within 30 days
thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report
will be considered to be the final report.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment];
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from
vibratory pile removal and are likely to involve temporary changes in
behavior. Injurious or lethal takes are not expected due to the
expected source levels and sound source characteristics associated with
the activity, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to further minimize the possibility of such take.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior
(e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed
or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute
taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or
the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged
period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially
be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given
the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts
of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many
animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a
given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound.
WSF has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small
numbers of humpback whale, Steller sea lion, California sea lion,
Dall's porpoise, gray whale, harbor porpoise and killer whale near the
Mukilteo Tank Farm Pier that may result from vibratory pile extraction
activities.
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur
incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent
of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then
consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or
abundance in the project area. We first provide information on
applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals
before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields,
the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the
method of estimating potential incidences of take.
Sound Thresholds
We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an
activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal
such that a take by harassment might occur. To date, no studies have
been conducted that explicitly examine impacts to marine mammals from
pile driving sounds or from which empirical sound thresholds have been
established. These thresholds (Table 3) are used to estimate when
harassment may occur (i.e., when an animal is exposed to levels equal
to or exceeding the relevant criterion) in specific contexts; however,
useful contextual information that may inform our assessment of
behavioral effects is typically lacking and we consider these
thresholds as step functions. NMFS is working to revise these acoustic
guidelines; for more information on that process, please visit
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
[[Page 43734]]
Table 3--Underwater Injury and Disturbance Threshold Decibel Levels for Marine Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion Criterion definition Threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment.................... PTS (injury) conservatively based on TTS 190 dB RMS for pinnipeds. 180
dB RMS for cetaceans.
Level B harassment.................... Behavioral disruption for impulse noise 160 dB RMS.
(e.g., impact pile driving).
Level B harassment.................... Behavioral disruption for non-pulse 120 dB RMS.
noise (e.g., vibratory pile driving,
drilling).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to Sound Thresholds
WSF and NMFS have determined that open-water vibratory pile
extraction during the Mukilteo Tank Farm Pier Removal project has the
potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammal species
and stocks in the vicinity of the proposed activity.
As Table 3 shows, under current NMFS guidelines, the received
exposure level for Level A harassment is defined at >=180 dB (rms) re 1
[mu]Pa for cetaceans and >=190 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa for pinnipeds. The
measured source levels from vibratory removal of 12-inch timber piles
are between 149 and 152 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa at 16 m from the hammer
(Laughlin 2011a). Therefore, the proposed Mukilteo Tank Farm Pier
Removal construction project is not expected to cause Level A
harassment or TTS to marine mammals.
Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and
therefore can have consequences at the population level. Recent science
suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as
much as 20 dB (more than 3 times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean
from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from
distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic noise sources,
such as those from vessel traffic, pile driving, dredging, and
dismantling existing bridge by mechanic means, contribute to the
elevated ambient noise levels, thus intensify masking.
Nevertheless, the levels of noise from the proposed WSF
construction activities are relatively low and are blocked by landmass
southward. Therefore, the noise generated is not expected to contribute
to increased ocean ambient noise in a manner that will notably increase
the ability of marine mammals in the vicinity to detect critical
acoustic cues. Due to shallow water depths near the ferry terminals,
underwater sound propagation for low-frequency sound (which is the
major noise source from pile driving) is expected to be poor.
Currently NMFS uses 120 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa received level
for non-impulse noises (such as vibratory pile driving, saw cutting,
drilling, and dredging) for the onset of marine mammal Level B
behavioral harassment. However, since the ambient noise level at the
vicinity of the proposed project area is between 122 to 124 dB re 1
[mu]Pa, depending on marine mammal functional hearing groups (Laughlin
2011b), the received level of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa would be below the
ambient level. Therefore, for this proposed project, 122 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
is used as the threshold for Level B behavioral harassment. The
distance to the 122 dB contour Level B acoustical harassment threshold
due to vibratory pile removal extends a maximum of 1.6 km as is shown
in Figure 1-5 in the Application.
As far as airborne noise is concerned, the estimated in-air source
level from vibratory pile driving a 30-in steel pile is estimated at
97.8 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 15 m (50 feet) from the pile (Laughlin 2010b).
Using the spreading loss of 6 dB per doubling of distance, it is
estimated that the distances to the 90 dB and 100 dB thresholds were
estimated at 37 m and 12 m, respectively.
The closest documented harbor seal haul-out is the Naval Station
Everett floating security fence, and the Port Gardner log booms, both
approximately 4.5 miles to the northeast of the project site). The
closest documented California sea lion haul out site are the Everett
Harbor navigation buoys, located approximately 3 miles to the northeast
of the project site (Figure 3-1). In-air disturbance will be limited to
those animals moving on the surface through the immediate pier area,
within approximately 37 meters (123 feet) for harbor seals and within
12 meters (39 feet) for other pinnipeds of vibratory pile removal
(Figure 1-6 in Application).
Incidental take is estimated for each species by estimating the
likelihood of a marine mammal being present within a ZOI during active
pile removal or driving. Expected marine mammal presence is determined
by past observations and general abundance near the Tank Farm Pier
during the construction window. Typically, potential take is estimated
by multiplying the area of the ZOI by the local animal density. This
provides an estimate of the number of animals that might occupy the ZOI
at any given moment. However, in some cases take requests were
estimated using local marine mammal data sets (e.g., Orca Network,
state and federal agencies), opinions from state and federal agencies,
and observations from Navy biologists.
Harbor Seal
Based on the ORCA monitoring, NMFS' analysis uses a conservative
estimate of 13 harbor seals per day potentially within the ZOI. For
Year One pile removal, the duration estimate is 975 hours over 140
days. For the exposure estimate, it will be conservatively assumed that
13 harbor seals may be present within the ZOI and be exposed multiple
times during the project. The calculation for marine mammal exposures
is estimated by:
Exposure estimate = N * 140 days of vibratory pile removal activity,
where:
N = # of animals (13)
Exposure estimate = 13 * 140 days = 1,820
NMFS is proposing the authorization for Level B acoustical
harassment of 1,820 harbor seals. However, many of these takes are
likely to be repeated exposures of individual animals.
California Sea Lion
Based on the ORCA monitoring this analysis uses a conservative
estimate of 6 California sea lions per day potentially within the ZOI.
Exposure estimate = 6 * 140 days = 840
NMFS is proposing the authorization for Level B acoustical
harassment take of 840 California sea lions. Many of these takes are
likely to be repeated exposures of individual animals.
Steller Sea Lion
Based on the observation data from Craven Rock, this analysis uses
a conservative estimate of 12 Steller sea lions per day potentially
near the ZOI. However, given the distance from this haul-out to the
Tank Farm Pier, it is not expected that the same numbers would be
present in the ZOI. For the exposure estimate, it will be
conservatively assumed that \1/6\th of the Steller sea lions observed
at Craven Rock (2
[[Page 43735]]
animals) may be present within the ZOI and be exposed multiple times
during the project for total of 2 animals
Exposure estimate = 2 * 140 days = 280
NMFS is proposing the authorization for Level B acoustical
harassment take of 280 Steller sea lions. It is likely that many of
these takes are likely to be repeated exposures of individual animals..
Harbor Porpoise
Based on the water depth within the ZOI and group size, this
analysis uses a conservative estimate of 8 harbor porpoises per day
potentially near the ZOI.
Exposure estimate = 8 * 140 days = 1,120
WSF is requesting authorization for Level B acoustical harassment
take of 1,120 Harbor porpoise. Note that many of these takes are likely
to be repeated exposures of individual animals.
Dall's Porpoise
Based on the average winter group size, as described in Section 3.0
of the Application, this analysis uses a conservative estimate of 3
Dall's porpoises per day potentially near the ZOI.
Exposure estimate = 3 * 140 days = 420
NMFS is proposing authorization for Level B acoustical harassment
take of 420 Dall's porpoise. A number of these anticipated takes are
likely to be repeated exposures of individual animals.
Killer Whale
Southern Resident Killer Whale--In order to estimate anticipated
take, NMFS used Southern Resident killer whale density data from the
Pacific Marine Species Density Database (US Navy 2014) that measured
density per km\2\ per season in the waters in the vicinity of the
Mukilteo Tank Farm Pier. Data was provided as a range by the Navy. NMFS
took the high end of the range for the summer, fall, and winter seasons
to estimate density and multiplied that figure by the ensonified area
(~5 km\2\.)
Exposure estimate = (0.00090 [summer] + 0.000482 [fall] + 0.000250
[winter]) * 5 km\2\ = 0.0258 Southern Resident killer whales.
Note that pod size of Southern Resident killer whales can range
from 3-50. NMFS will assume that one pod of 15 whales will be sighted
during this authorization period and proposes to authorize that amount.
However, it is possible that a larger group may be observed. In order
to limit the take of southern resident killer whales NMFS proposes to
require additional steps applicable to killer whales. These steps are
described below and in Appendix B of the Application.
Transient Killer Whale--NMFS estimated the take of transient killer
whales by applying the same methodology used to estimate Southern
Resident killer whale.
Exposure estimate = (0.001582 [summer] + 0.002373 [fall] + 0.002373
[winter]) * 5 km\2\ = 0.03163 transient killer whales.
Note that pod size of transients can range from 1-5. NMFS will
assume that two pods of 5 whales will be sighted during this
authorization period. Therefore, NMFS is proposing 10 takes of
transient killer whales.
Gray Whale
Based on the frequency of sightings during the in-water work
window, this analysis uses a conservative estimate of 3 gray whales per
day potentially near the ZOI.
It is assumed that Gray whales will not enter the ZOI each day of
the project, but may be present in the ZOI for 5 days per month as they
forage in the area, for a total of 30 days. For the exposure estimate,
it will be conservatively assumed that up to 3 animals may be present
within the ZOI and be exposed multiple times during the project.
Exposure estimate = 3 * 30 days = 90
NMFS is proposing authorization for Level B acoustical harassment
take of 90 Gray whales. It is assumed that this number will include
multiple harassments of a single individual animal.
Humpback Whale
Based on the frequency of sightings during the in-water work
window, this analysis uses a conservative estimate of 2 humpback whales
potentially near the ZOI.
It is assumed that humpback whales will not enter the ZOI each day
of the project, but may be present in the ZOI for 3 days per month as
they forage in the area, for a total of 18 days. For the exposure
estimate, it will be conservatively assumed that up to 2 animals may be
present within the ZOI and be exposed multiple times during the
project.
Exposure estimate = 2 * 18 days = 36
NMFS is proposing authorization for Level B acoustical harassment
take of 36 humpback whales. It is assumed that this number will include
multiple harassments of the same individuals.
Based on the estimates, approximately 1,820 Pacific harbor seals,
840 California sea lions, 280 Steller sea lions, 1,120 Harbor porpoise,
420 Dall's porpoise, 94 killer whales (10 transient, 15 Southern
Resident killer whales), 90 gray whales, and 36 humpback whales could
be exposed to received sound levels above 122 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) from
the proposed Mukilteo Tank Farm Pier Removal project. A summary of the
estimated takes is presented in Table 4.
Table 4--Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals That May Be Exposed to
Vibratory Hammer Sound Levels Above 122 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
[rms]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Estimated of
Species marine species
mammal or stock
takes * (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific harbor seal............................. 1,820 16.5
California sea lion............................. 840 0.3
Steller sea lion................................ 280 0.4
Harbor porpoise................................. 1,120 10.5
Dall's porpoise................................. 420 1.0
Killer whale, transient......................... 10 4.1
Killer whale, Southern Resident................. 15 18.2
Gray whale...................................... 90 0.5
Humpback whale.................................. 36 2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents maximum estimate of animals due to likelihood that some
individuals will be taken more than once
Analysis and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact Analysis
Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes,
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment,
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as
well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes,
the number of
[[Page 43736]]
estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status of the
species.
To avoid repetition, the following discussion applies to the
affected stocks of harbor seals, California sea lions, Steller sea
lions, harbor porpoises, Dall's porpoises, gray whales and humpback
whales, except where a separate discussion is provided for killer
whales, as the best available information indicates that effects of the
specified activity on individuals of those stocks will be similar, and
there is no information about the population size, status, structure,
or habitat use of the areas to warrant separate discussion.
Pile removal activities associated with the Mukilteo Tank Farm
removal project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb
or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral
disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile
extraction. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species
are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the
nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the
possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these
outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the
implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically,
vibratory hammers will be the primary method of extraction and no
impact driving will occurs. Vibratory driving and removal does not have
significant potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the
relatively low source levels produced (site-specific acoustic
monitoring data show no source level measurements above 180 dB rms) and
the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Given
sufficient ``notice'' through use of soft start, marine mammals are
expected to move away from a sound source. The likelihood that marine
mammal detection ability by trained observers is high under the
environmental conditions described for waters around the Mukilteo Tank
Farm further enables the implementation of shutdowns if animals come
within 10 meters of operational activity to avoid injury, serious
injury, or mortality.
WSF proposed activities are localized and of relatively short
duration. The entire project area is limited to water in close
proximity to the tank farm. The project will require the extraction of
3,900 piles and will require 675-975 hours over 140-180 days. These
localized and short-term noise exposures may cause brief startle
reactions or short-term behavioral modification by the animals. These
reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside quickly when
the exposures cease. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures are expected to reduce potential exposures and behavioral
modifications even further.
Southern Resident Killer Whale
Critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales has been
identified in the area and may be impacted. The proposed action will
have short-term adverse effects on Chinook salmon, the primary prey of
Southern Resident killer whales. However, the Puget Sound Chinook
salmon ESU comprises a small percentage of the Southern Resident killer
whale diet. Hanson et al. (2010) found only six to 14 percent of
Chinook salmon eaten in the summer were from Puget Sound. Therefore,
NMFS concludes that both the short-term adverse effects and the long-
term beneficial effects on Southern Resident killer whale prey quantity
and quality will be insignificant. Also, the sound from vibratory pile
driving and removal may interfere with whale passage. For example,
exposed killer whales are likely to redirect around the sound instead
of passing through the area. However, the effect of the additional
distance traveled is unlikely to cause a measureable increase in an
individual's energy budget, and the effects would therefore be
temporary and insignificant. Additionally, WSF will employ additional
mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to Southern Residents.
These measures were described previously in the section Monitoring and
Shutdown for Pile Driving.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in
the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section. The
project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The
activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus
temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a
limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short
duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat
that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not
expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
Furthermore, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for other
marine mammals are known to be near the proposed action area.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff,
2006; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from
the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile
driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only
in association with impact pile driving. In response to vibratory
driving and removal, pinnipeds (which may become somewhat habituated to
human activity in industrial or urban waterways) have been observed to
orient towards and sometimes move towards the sound. The pile removal
activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than,
numerous construction activities conducted in other similar locations,
which have taken place with no reported injuries or mortality to marine
mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral
harassment. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that
may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing
impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even
repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock
is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness
for the affected individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse
impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment will be reduced to
the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation
measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities
is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the
project area while the activity is occurring.
In summary, we considered the following factors: (1) The
possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be
considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B
harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
(3) the absence of any significant habitat, other than identified
critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales within the project
area, including rookeries, significant haul-outs, or known areas or
features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; (4) the
expected efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in minimizing the
effects of the specified activity on the affected species or stocks and
their
[[Page 43737]]
habitat to the level of least practicable impact. In combination, we
believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence
from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects
of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on
individuals. The take resulting from the proposed WSF Mukilteo
Multimodal Project Tank Farm Pier Removal project is not reasonably
expected to and is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the marine
mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment
or survival.
Therefore, 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 proposed
monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the
total marine mammal take from WSF's Mukilteo Multimodal Project Tank
Farm Pier Removal project will have a negligible impact on the affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
Based on long-term marine mammal monitoring and studies in the
vicinity of the proposed construction areas, it is estimated that
approximately 1,820 Pacific harbor seals, 840 California sea lions, 280
Steller sea lions, 1,120 harbor porpoises, 420 Dall's porpoises, 10
transient killer whales, 15 Southern Resident killer whales, 90 gray
whales, and 36 humpback whales could be exposed to received noise
levels above 122 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa from the proposed construction work
at the Mukilteo Multimodal Ferry Terminal. These numbers represent
approximately 0.3%-18.2% of the stocks and populations of these species
that could be affected by Level B behavioral harassment.
The numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would
be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even
if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual--an extremely
unlikely scenario. 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, we find that small numbers of marine mammals will
be taken relative to the population sizes of the affected species or
stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in Puget Sound or
the San Juan Islands relevant to section 101(a)(5)(D).
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The humpback whale and Southern Resident stock of killer whale are
the only marine mammal species currently listed under the ESA that
could occur in the vicinity of WSF's proposed construction projects.
NMFS issued a Biological Opinion that covers the proposed action on
July 31, 2013, and concluded that the proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of Southern Resident killer whales
or humpback whales, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
Southern Resident killer whales critical habitat.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS re-affirms the document titled Final Environmental Assessment
Issuance of Marine Mammal Incidental Take Authorizations to the
Washington State Department of Transportation to Take Marine Mammals
which was issued in February 2014. A Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) was signed on February 28, 2014. In the FONSI NMFS determined
that the issuance of IHAs for the take, by harassment, of small numbers
of marine mammals incidental to the WSF's Mukilteo Ferry Terminal
replacement project in Washington State, will not significantly impact
the quality of the human environment, as described in this document and
in the Mukilteo EA. These documents are found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.
Proposed Authorization
For the reasons discussed in this document, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the vibratory pile removal associated with the Mukilteo
Tank Farm Pier Removal Project would result, at worst, in the Level B
harassment of small numbers of eight marine mammal species that inhabit
or visit the area. While behavioral modifications, including
temporarily vacating the area around the project site, may be made by
these species to avoid the resultant visual and acoustic disturbance,
the availability of alternate areas within Washington coastal waters
and haul-out sites has led NMFS to preliminarily determine that this
action will have a negligible impact on these species in the vicinity
of the proposed project area.
In addition, no take by TTS, Level A harassment (injury) or death
is anticipated and harassment takes should be at the lowest level
practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures mentioned previously in this document.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to WSF for conducting the Mukilteo Tank Farm removal
project, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is
provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if
issued).
1. This Authorization is valid from September 1, 2015, through
August 31, 2016.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with
in-water construction work at the Mukilteo Multimodal Ferry Terminals
in the State of Washington.
3. (a) The species authorized for incidental harassment takings,
Level B harassment only, are: Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina
richardsi), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea
lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's
porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), transient and Southern Resident killer
whales (Orcinus orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the
following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
(i) Vibratory pile removal; and
(ii) Work associated with pile removal activities.
(c) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under
this Authorization must be reported within 24 hours of the taking to
the Northwest Regional Administrator (206-526-6150), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427-8401.
4. The holder of this Authorization must notify Monica DeAngelis of
the West Coast Regional Office (phone: (562) 980-3232) at least 24
hours prior to starting activities.
5. Prohibitions:
(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the
species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in
Table 3 of this Federal Register notice. The taking by Level A
harassment,
[[Page 43738]]
injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or
death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may
result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this
Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the
required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition
7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this
Authorization.
6. Mitigation:
(a) Ramp Up (Soft Start): Vibratory hammer for pile removal and
pile driving shall be initiated at reduced power for 15 seconds with a
1 minute interval, and be repeated with this procedure for an
additional two times.
(b) Marine Mammal Monitoring: Monitoring for marine mammal presence
shall take place 30 minutes before, during and 30 minutes after pile
driving.
(c) Power Down and Shutdown Measures:
(i) A shutdown zone of 10 m radius for all marine mammals will be
established around all vibratory extraction activity.
(ii) WSF shall implement shutdown measures if Southern Resident
killer whales (SRKWs) are sighted within the vicinity of the project
area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (zone of
influence, or ZOI) during in-water construction activities.
(iii) If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or
removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer
whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSF shall implement the
shutdown measure identified in 6(c)(i).
(iv) If a SRKW enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or
pile removal shall be suspended until the SRKW exits the ZOI to avoid
further level B harassment.
(d) Time Restrictions--Work would occur only during daylight hours,
when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. In addition,
all in-water construction will be limited to the period between August
1, 2015 and February 15, 2016; and August 1, 2016 until IHA expires on
August 31, 2016.
7. Monitoring:
(a) Protected Species Observers: WSF shall employ qualified
protected species observers (PSOs) to monitor the 122 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa
(nominal ambient level) zone of influence (ZOI) for marine mammals.
Qualifications for marine mammal observers include:
(i) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of binoculars
will be required to correctly identify the target.
(ii) Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds).
(iii) Sufficient training, orientation or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations.
(iv) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
(v) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience).
(vi) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations
that would include such information as the number and type of marine
mammals observed; the behavior of marine mammals in the project area
during construction, dates and times when observations were conducted;
dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted;
and dates and times when marine mammals were present at or within the
defined ZOI.
(b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall be present on site at all
times during pile removal.
(i) During vibratory pile removal, two land-based biologists will
monitor the area from the best observation points available. If weather
conditions prevent adequate land-based observations, boat-based
monitoring shall be implemented.
(ii) The vibratory Level B acoustical harassment ZOI shall be
monitored for the presence of marine mammals 30 minutes before, during,
and 30 minutes after any pile removal activity.
(iii) Monitoring shall be continuous unless the contractor takes a
significant break, in which case, monitoring shall be required 30
minutes prior to restarting pile removal.
(iv) A range finder or hand-held global positioning system device
shall be used to ensure that the 122 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa Level B
behavioral harassment ZOI is monitored.
(v) If marine mammals are observed, the following information will
be documented:
(A) Species of observed marine mammals;
(B) Number of observed marine mammal individuals;
(C) Behavioral of observed marine mammals;
(D) Location within the ZOI; and
(E) Animals' reaction (if any) to pile-driving activities
8. Reporting:
(a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within
90 days of the conclusion of the construction work. This report shall
detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have
been harassed.
(b) If comments are received from the NMFS Northwest Regional
Administrator or NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft
report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days
thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report
will be considered to be the final report.
(c) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities
clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by
this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement),
WSF shall immediately cease all operations and immediately report the
incident to the Chief Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401and/or be
email to [email protected] and [email protected] and the
West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator Brent Norberg
([email protected]). The report must include the following
information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
(iv) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);
(v) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(vi) Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(vii) The fate of the animal(s); and
(viii) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is
available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with WSF to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WSF may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(d) In the event that WSF 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),
WSF will immediately report the
[[Page 43739]]
incident to the Chief Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or
be email to [email protected] and [email protected] and the
West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator Brent Norberg
([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 WSF to determine whether modifications in
the activities are appropriate.
(e) In the event that WSF discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), WSF shall report the incident to
the Chief, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401and/or be email to
[email protected] and [email protected] and the West Coast
Regional Stranding Coordinator Brent Norberg ([email protected])
within 24 hours of the discovery. WSF shall provide photographs or
video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded
animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. WSF
can continue its operations under such a case.
9. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the
authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the
species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or
stocks for subsistence uses.
10. A copy of this Authorization and the Incidental Take Statement
must be in the possession of each contractor who performs the
construction work at Mukilteo Multimodal Ferry Terminals.
11. WSF is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the
Incidental Take Statement corresponding to NMFS' Biological Opinion.
Request for Public Comments
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for WSF's Mukilteo Tank
Farm removal project. Please include with your comments any supporting
data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on WSF's
request for an MMPA authorization.
Dated: July 16, 2015.
Perry Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-18020 Filed 7-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P