[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 56 (Friday, March 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15025-15044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05843]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XF246
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Chevron Richmond Refinery Long
Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project in San Francisco Bay,
California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from Chevron for an
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by
harassment, incidental to pile driving and removal associated with the
Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project (WMEP). Pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its
proposal to issue an IHA to Chevron to incidentally take marine mammals
during the specified activity.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April
24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the applications should be addressed to Jolie
Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should
be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and
electronic comments should be sent to [email protected].
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. Comments received electronically,
including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size.
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word
or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a
part of the public record and will generally be posted for public
viewing on the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm without change. All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional,
taking of small numbers of marine mammals, providing that certain
findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.
The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be
[[Page 15026]]
allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary)
finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the
specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species
or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking, as well as the
other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species or stock and its habitat (i.e., mitigation) must be prescribed.
Last, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such
taking must be set forth.
Where there is the potential for serious injury or death, the
allowance of incidental taking requires promulgation of regulations
under section 101(a)(5)(A). Subsequently, a Letter (or Letters) of
Authorization (LOA) may be issued as governed by the prescriptions
established in such regulations, provided that the level of taking will
be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable
under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may
authorize incidental taking by harassment only (i.e., no serious injury
or mortality), for periods of not more than one year, pursuant to
requirements and conditions contained within an IHA. The promulgation
of regulations or issuance of IHAs (with their associated prescripted
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) requires notice and opportunity
for public comment.
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.''
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).
Summary of Request
On July 21, 2014, NMFS received a request from Chevron for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and
pile removal associated with the WMEP in San Francisco Bay, California.
The project was delayed due to funding constraints. Chevron submitted a
revised version of the request on November 16, 2016, which was deemed
adequate and complete on January 12, 2017. Chevron proposes to
undertake the WMEP in order to comply with current Marine Oil Terminal
Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS) requirements and to
improve safety and efficiency at the Long Wharf. Construction would
start in 2018, and be complete by the fourth quarter of 2022.
Therefore, Chevron expects to request additional IHAs in association
with this multi-year project. The effective dates for this first
proposed IHA would be from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving during pile removal
and installation during the four-year construction period is expected
to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result
in Level B (behavioral) harassment of marine mammals. However, only
impact driving will occur during 2018 and would be covered under the
proposed IHA. Species expected to occur in the area and for which
authorization is requested include California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus) and Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina).
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
The Chevron's Richmond Refinery Long Wharf (Long Wharf) is the
largest marine oil terminal in California. Its operations are regulated
primarily by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) through a
State Lands lease, Article 5 of CSLC regulations, and MOTEMS
(California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 31F). The Long Wharf has
existed in its current location since the early 1900s (Figure 1-1 in
Application). The Berth 2 fender system (timber pile and whaler) was
designed and installed in 1940. Marine loading arms, gangways, and
fender systems at Berths 1, 3 and 4 were installed in 1972. The Berth 4
fender panels were replaced in 2011 and the Berth 1 fender panels were
replaced in 2012. The existing configuration of these systems have
limitations to accepting more modern, fuel efficient vessels with
shorter parallel mid-body hulls and in some cases do not meet current
MOTEMS requirements.
The purpose of the proposed WMEP is to comply with current MOTEMS
requirements and to improve safety and efficiency at the Long Wharf. To
meet MOTEMS requirements, the fendering system at Berth 2 is being
updated and the Berth 4 loading platform will be seismically
retrofitted to stiffen the structure and reduce movement of the Long
Wharf in the event of a level 1 or 2 earthquake. Safety will be
improved by replacing gangways and fire monitors. Efficiency at the
Long Wharf will be improved by updating the fender system configuration
at Berth 4 to accommodate newer, more fuel efficient vessels and thus
reduce idling time for vessels waiting to berth. Further, efficiency
will be improved by updating the fender system at Berth 1 to
accommodate barges, enabling balanced utilization across Berths 1, 2,
and 3.
Dates and Duration
Project construction would start in 2018, and be completed by the
fourth quarter of 2022. Pile driving activities would be timed to occur
within the standard NMFS work windows for listed fish species (June 1
through November 30) in those four years. The effective date for the
first proposed IHA would be from January 1, 2018 through December 31,
2018. Over the course of the multi-year project 249 piles of various
sizes will be installed via impact and vibratory driving; 161 piles
will be removed via vibratory removal; and 209 driving days are
planned. During the first year of construction covered under this
proposed IHA, eight 24-inch concrete piles would be installed by impact
driving over 4 workdays at Berth 2.
Specified Geographic Region
The Long Wharf is located in San Francisco Bay (the Bay) just south
of the eastern terminus of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (RSRB) in
Contra Costa County. The wharf is located in the northern portion of
the Central Bay, which is generally defined as the area between the
RSRB, Golden Gate Bridge, and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The
South Bay is located south of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. San
Pablo Bay extends north of the RSRB.
Detailed Description of Specified Activities
The complete multi-year project would involve modifications at four
berths (Berths 1, 2, 3, and 4) as shown in Figure 1-1 in the
Application. Proposed modifications to the Long Wharf include replacing
gangways and cranes, adding new mooring hooks and standoff fenders,
adding new dolphins and catwalks, and modifying the fire water system
at Berths 1, 2, 3 and/or 4, as well as the seismic retrofit to the
Berth 4 loading platform. The type and numbers of piles to be
installed, as well
[[Page 15027]]
as those that will be removed, are summarized in Table 1-1 in the
Application and an overview of the modifications at Berths 1 to 4 are
shown in Figure 1-2 in the Application.
The combined modifications to Berths 1-4 would require the
installation of 141 new concrete piles to support new and replacement
equipment and their associated structures. The Berth 4 loading platform
would add eight, 60-inch diameter steel piles as part of the seismic
retrofit.
The project would also add four clusters of 13 composite piles each
(52 total) as markers and protection of the new batter (driven at an
angle) piles on the east side of the Berth 4 retrofit. The project
would remove 106 existing timber piles, two existing 18[hyphen]inch and
two existing 24[hyphen]inch concrete piles. A total of 12 24-inch
temporary steel piles would also be installed and removed during the
seismic retrofit of Berth 4. The modifications at each berth are
summarized below.
Modifications at Berth 1 include the following:
Replace gangway to accommodate barges and add a new raised
fire monitor.
Construct a new 24' x 20' mooring dolphin and hook to
accommodate barges.
Construct a new 24' x 25' breasting dolphin and 13' x 26'
breasting point with standoff fenders to accommodate barges.The new
breasting dolphin will require removal of an existing catwalk and two
piles and moving a catwalk to a slightly different location to maintain
access to currently existing dolphins. A new catwalk will be installed
to provide access to the new breasting dolphin.
A portion of the existing gangway will be removed. The
remaining portion is used for other existing services located on its
structure.
Much of this work will be above the water or on the deck of the
terminal. The mooring dolphin and hook, breasting dolphin, and new
gangway will require installation of 42 new 24[hyphen]inch square
concrete piles using impact driving methods.
Modifications at Berth 2 include the following:
Install new gangway to replace portable gangway and add a
new elevated fire monitor.
Replace one bollard with a new hook.
Install four new standoff fenders (to replace timber
fender pile system).
Replace existing auxiliary and hose cranes and vapor
recovery crane to accommodate the new standoff fenders.
Remove the existing timber fender pile system along the
length of the Berth (~650 ft.)
Three (3) existing brace piles (22-inch square concrete
jacketed timber piles) would be removed by cutting below the mud line
if possible.
These modifications will require the installation of 51 new 24-inch
square concrete piles, using impact driving methods, to support the
gangway, standoff fenders, hose crane, and auxiliary crane. To keep
Berth 2 operational during construction, four temporary fenders will be
installed, supported by 36 temporary 14-inch H-piles driven using
vibratory methods. It is expected that the H-piles would largely sink
under their own weight and would require very little driving. The H-
piles and temporary fenders will be removed once the permanent standoff
fenders are complete. The auxiliary and hose cranes are being replaced
with cranes with longer reach to accommodate the additional distance of
the new standoff fenders. The new vapor recovery crane would be mounted
on an existing pedestal and not require in[hyphen]water work.
Modifications at Berth 3 include the following:
Install new fixed gangway to replace portable gangway and
add a new raised fire monitor. The gangway would be supported by four,
24-inch square concrete piles. This would be the only in-water work for
modifications at Berth 3.
Modifications at Berth 4 include the following:
Install two new 36' x 20' dolphins with standoff fenders
(two per dolphin) and two catwalks.
Seismically retrofit the Berth 4 loading platform
including bolstering and relocation of piping and electrical
facilities.
The new fenders would add 44 new 24-inch square concrete piles.
The seismic retrofit would structurally stiffen the Berth 4 Loading
Platform under seismic loads. This will require cutting holes in the
concrete decking and driving eight, 60-inch diameter hollow steel
batter piles, using impact pile driving. To accommodate the new
retrofit, an existing sump will be replaced with a new sump and two,
24-inch square concrete piles will be removed or cut to the
``mudline.'' The engineering team has determined that to drive the 60-
inch batter piles, twelve temporary steel piles, 24 inches in diameter,
will be needed to support templates for the angled piles during
driving. Two templates are required, each 24 feet by 4 feet and
supported by up to six 24-inch steel pipe piles. The templates will be
above water. The project would also add 4 clusters of 13 composite
piles each (52 total composite piles) as markers and protection of the
new batter piles on the east side of the retrofit. See Table 1 for pile
summary information.
[[Page 15028]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MR17.000
Note that the proposed IHA covers actions occurring during 2018
only. These actions include only the installation of eight 24-inch
concrete piles by impact hammer driving over four workdays. These piles
would replace existing auxiliary and hose cranes and vapor recovery
crane at Berth 2. Impact installation would occur utilizing a DelMag
D62 22 or similar diesel hammer, producing approximately 165,000 ft lbs
maximum energy (may not need full energy) over a duration of
approximately 20 minutes per pile.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in in detail later in the document (Mitigation and Monitoring
and Reporting sections).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
Although 35 species of marine mammals can be found off the coast of
California, few species venture into San Francisco Bay, and only
Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus
californianus), and harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) make the Bay a
permanent home. Small numbers of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus)
are regularly sighted in the Bay during their yearly migration, though
most sightings tend to occur in the Central Bay near the Golden Gate
Bridge. Two other species that may occasionally occur within San
Francisco Bay include the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus).
Pacific Harbor Seal
The Pacific harbor seal is one of five subspecies of Phoca
vitulina, or the common harbor seal. They are a true seal, with a
rounded head and visible ear canal, distinct from the eared seals, or
sea lions, which have a pointed head and an external ear. Although
generally solitary in the water, harbor seals come ashore at ``haul-
outs''--shoreline areas where pinnipeds congregate to rest, socialize,
breed, and molt--that are used for resting, thermoregulation, birthing,
and nursing pups. Haul-out sites are relatively consistent from year to
year (Kopec and Harvey 1995), and females have been recorded returning
to their own natal haul-out when breeding (Green et al., 2006). The
nearest haul-out site to the project site is Castro Rocks,
approximately 650 meters north
[[Page 15029]]
of the northernmost point on the Long Wharf.
The haul-out sites at Mowry Slough (~55 km distant from project
site), in the South Bay, Corte Madera Marsh (~8 km distant) and Castro
Rocks (~650 m distant), in the northern portion of the Central Bay, and
Yerba Buena Island (~12 km distant) in the Central Bay, support the
largest concentrations of harbor seals within the San Francisco Bay.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted marine
mammal surveys before and during seismic retrofit work on the RSRB in
northern San Francisco Bay. The RSRB is located north of the project
site, The surveys included extensive monitoring of marine mammals at
points throughout the Bay. Although the study focused on harbor seals
hauled out at Castro Rocks and Red Rock Island near the RSRB, all other
observed marine mammals were recorded. Monitoring took place from May
1998 to February 2002 (Green et al., 2002.) and determined that at
least 500 harbor seals populate San Francisco Bay. This estimate agrees
with previous seal counts in San Francisco Bay, which ranged from 524
to 641 seals from 1987 to 1999 (Goals Project 2000).
Although births of harbor seals have not been observed at Corte
Madera Marsh and Yerba Buena Island, a few pups have been seen at these
sites. The main pupping areas in the San Francisco Bay are at Mowry
Slough and Castro Rocks (Caltrans 2012). Seals haul out year-round on
Castro Rocks during medium to low tides; few low tide sites are
available within San Francisco Bay. The seals at Castro Rocks are
habituated, to a degree, to some sources of human disturbance such as
large tanker traffic and the noise from vehicle traffic on the bridge,
but often flush into the water when small boats maneuver close by or
when people work on the bridge (Kopec and Harvey 1995). Long-term
monitoring studies have been conducted at the largest harbor seal
colonies in Point Reyes National Seashore (~45 km west of the project
site on Pacific coast) and Golden Gate National Recreation Area (~15 km
southwest of the project site) since 1976. Castro Rocks and other haul-
outs in San Francisco Bay are part of the regional survey area for this
study and have been included in annual survey efforts. Between 2007 and
2012, the average number of adults observed at Castro Rocks ranged from
126 to 166 during the breeding season (March through May) and from 92
to 129 during the molting season (June through July) (Truchinski et
al., 2008, Flynn et al., 2009, Codde et al., 2010, Codde et al., 2011,
Codde et al. 2012, Codde and Allen 2013).
California Sea Lion
The California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) belongs to the
family Otariidae or ``eared seals,'' referring to the external ear
flaps not shared by other pinniped families. While California sea lions
forage and conduct many activities within the water, they also use
haul-outs. California sea lions breed in Southern California and along
the Channel Islands during the spring.
In the Bay, sea lions haul out primarily on floating docks at Pier
39 in the Fisherman's Wharf area of the San Francisco Marina,
approximately 12.5 km southwest of the project site. The California sea
lions usually arrive at Pier 39 in August after returning from the
Channel Islands (Caltrans 2013). In addition to the Pier 39 haul-out,
California sea lions haul out on buoys and similar structures
throughout the Bay. They are seen swimming off mainly the San Francisco
and Marin County shorelines within the Bay but may occasionally enter
the project area to forage. Over the monitoring period for the RSRB,
monitors sighted California sea lions on 90 occasions in the northern
portion of the Central Bay and at least 57 times in the Central Bay. No
pupping activity has been observed at this site or at other locations
within the San Francisco Bay (Caltrans 2012).
Although there is little information regarding the foraging
behavior of the California sea lion in the San Francisco Bay, they have
been observed foraging on a regular basis in the shipping channel south
of Yerba Buena Island. Because California sea lions forage over a wide
range in San Francisco Bay, it is possible that a limited number of
individuals would be incidentally harassed during construction.
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) is a member of the
Phocoenidae family. They generally occur in groups of two to five
individuals, and are considered to be shy, relatively nonsocial
animals.
In prior years, harbor porpoises were observed primarily outside of
San Francisco Bay. The few harbor porpoises that entered did not
venture far into the Bay. No harbor porpoises were observed during
marine mammal monitoring conducted before and during seismic retrofit
work on the RSRB. In recent years, there have been increasingly common
observations of harbor porpoises within San Francisco Bay. According to
observations by the Golden Gate Cetacean Research team, as part of
their multi- year assessment, approximately 650 harbor porpoises have
been observed in the San Francisco Bay, and up to 100 may occur on a
single day (Golden Gate Cetacean Research 2017). In San Francisco Bay,
harbor porpoises are concentrated in the vicinity of the Golden Gate
Bridge (approximately 12 km southwest of the project site) and Angel
Island (5.5 km southwest), with lesser numbers sighted in the vicinity
of Alcatraz (11 km south) and west of Treasure Island (10 km southeast)
(Keener 2011). Because this species may venture into the Bay east of
Angel Island, there is a slight chance that a small number of
individuals could occur in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Gray Whale
Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) are large baleen whales. They
are one of the most frequently seen whales along the California coast,
easily recognized by their mottled gray color and lack of dorsal fin.
They feed in northern waters primarily off the Bering, Chukchi, and
western Beaufort seas during the summer, before heading south to the
breeding and calving grounds off Mexico over the winter. Between
December and January, late-stage pregnant females, adult males, and
immature females and males will migrate southward. The northward
migration peaks between February and March. During this time, recently
pregnant females, adult males, immature females, and females with
calves move north to the feeding grounds (NOAA 2003). A few individuals
will enter into the San Francisco Bay during their northward migration.
RSRB project monitors recorded 12 living and 2 dead gray whales,
all in either the Central Bay or San Pablo Bay, and all but 2sightings
occurred during the months of April and May (Winning 2008). One gray
whale was sighted in June and one in October (the specific years were
unreported). The Oceanic Society has tracked gray whale sightings since
they began returning to the Bay regularly in the late 1990s. The
Oceanic Society data show that all age classes of gray whales are
entering the Bay and that they enter as singles or in groups of up to
five individuals. However, the data do not distinguish between
sightings of gray whales and number of individual whales (Winning
2008). It is possible that a small number of gray whales enter the Bay
in any given year, typically from March to May. However, this is
outside of the June to November window when pile driving would occur.
[[Page 15030]]
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) have been reported at
A[ntilde]o Nuevo Island between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay and at the
Farallon Islands about 48 km off the coast of San Francisco (Fuller
2012). Two studies of Steller sea lion distribution did not detect
individuals in San Francisco Bay. The SF Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals
Report, Appendix 2-1 contains one reference to Steller sea lions in the
San Francisco Bay, stating that since 1989, several hundred California
sea lions have congregated in the winter on docks at Pier 39, which are
on rare occasions joined by a few Steller sea lions (Cohen 2010). Over
a 2-year period from 2010-2012, 16 Steller sea lions were sighted in
the Bay from land or from the Golden Gate Bridge (GGCR, 2012) This
species is an uncommon visitor to San Francisco Bay and is not expected
to occur in the project area during construction. As a result, this
species is not considered further.
Bottlenose Dolphin
The range of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) has
expanded northward along the Pacific Coast since the 1982-1983 El
Ni[ntilde]o (Carretta et al., 2013; Wells and Baldridge 1990). They now
occur as far north as the San Francisco Bay region and have been
observed along the coast in Half Moon Bay, San Mateo, Ocean Beach in
San Francisco, and Rodeo Beach in Marin County. Observations indicate
that bottlenose dolphin occasionally enter San Francisco Bay, sometimes
foraging for fish in Fort Point Cove, just east of the Golden Gate
Bridge (Golden Gate Cetacean Research 2014). While individuals of this
species occasionally enter San Francisco Bay, observations indicate
that they remain in proximity to the Golden Gate near the mouth of the
Bay and would not be within the project area during construction. As a
result, this species is not considered further.
Table 2 lists the marine mammal species with the potential for
occurrence in the vicinity of the project during the project timeframe
and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance.
None of these species are listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, they are not listed as depleted or
as strategic stocks under the MMPA. Section 3 and 4 of Chevron's
application contains summaries of marine mammal species' status and
trends, distribution and habitat preferences, behavior and life
history, and auditory capabilities. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species
accounts. NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports are also available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, and provide more detailed accounts of these
stocks' status and abundance.
Table 2--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of the Project \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA
status; Stock abundance (CV/Nmin) \3\ Occurrence in/
Species Stock strategic (Y/ PBR \4\ near project Seasonal
N) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific harbor seal Phoca California Stock -/N 30,968 (-/27,348)................ 1,641 Common......... Year-round.
vitulina.
California sea lion Zalophus Eastern U.S. -/N 296,750 (-/153,337).............. 9,200 Uncommon....... Year-round.
californianus. Stock.
Harbor porpoise Phocoena San Francisco- -/N 9,886 (0.51/6,625)............... 66 Common in the Year-round.
phocoena. Russian River vicinity of
Stock. the Golden
Gate and
Richardson's
Bay, Rare
elsewhere.
Gray whale Eschrichtius Eastern North -/N 20,990 (0.05/20,125)............. 624 Rare to December-April.
robustus. Pacific Stock. occasional.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Carretta et al. 2016.
\2\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see
footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\3\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks of
pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge
of the species' (or similar species') life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the
minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore.
\4\ Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document will
include an analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to
be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analyses and
Determination section will consider the content of this section, the
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section, and the Mitigation
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals
and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal
species or stocks.
Impact pile driving may create underwater noise at levels that
could injure or behaviorally disturb marine mammals. In order to assess
the level of impacts of sound on marine mammals it is necessary to have
a basic understanding of underwater sound characteristics and potential
effects. A brief overview is provided below.
Description of Sound Sources
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude.
[[Page 15031]]
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 [micro]Pa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse, and 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 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.
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
include impact pile driving. Underwater sounds produced by pile driving
fall into one of two general sound types: Impulsive and non-impulsive
(defined in the following). The distinction between these two sound
types is important because they have differing potential to cause
physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997
in Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al., (2007) for an
in-depth discussion of these concepts. Only impulsive sound is
described as part of this notice of proposed IHA.
Impulsive 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.
Impulsive 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.
Impact hammers used as part of the proposed project operate by
repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into
the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by
rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious
combination (Hastings and Popper 2005).
[[Page 15032]]
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals,
and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the
frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate
that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten 1999; Au and
Hastings 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al., (2007) recommended
that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on
measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. The lower and/or upper
frequencies for some of these functional hearing groups have been
modified from those designated by Southall et al., (2007), and the
revised generalized hearing ranges are presented in the new Guidance.
The functional hearing groups and the associated frequencies are
indicated in Table 3 below.
Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups and Their Generalized Hearing
Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
(baleen whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger and L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
Acoustic Effects, Underwater
Potential Effects of Pile Driving 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 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
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
impulsive sounds on marine mammals. Potential effects from impulsive
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 defined as ``a
change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a
specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level'' (NMFS, 2016). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed in decibels (ANSI 1995, Yost
2007). A TS can be permanent (PTS) or temporary (TTS). PTS is a
permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a
specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2016). TTS is a temporary,
reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2016).
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. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS does
not (Southall et al., 2007). 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.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of
[[Page 15033]]
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency range
of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have
effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious. For
example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief,
relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that
occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as
many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is
critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more
serious impacts.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and Yangtze finless
porpoise (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis)) and three species of pinnipeds
(northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina) and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)) exposed to
a limited number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band
noise) in laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran, 2016; Finneran et al.,
2002; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010, 2013; Nachtigall et al., 2004;
Kastaket et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In
general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than
other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Kastak et al., 2005;
Kastelein et al., 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b,
2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2016). Additionally, the existing marine mammal
TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these
species. There are no data available on noise-induced hearing loss for
mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for
further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al.,
(2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), and Finneran (2016).
Permanent Threshold Shift--When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be
total or 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 might incur TTS, there has been further
speculation about the possibility 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. Available data from humans and other
terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates
PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al., 1966;
Miller 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008).
PTS onset acoustic thresholds for marine mammals have not been
directly measured and must be extrapolated from available TTS onset
measurements. Thus, based on cetacean measurements from TTS studies
(see Southall et al., 2007; Finneran, 2015; Finneran, 2016 (found in
Appendix A of the Guidance)) a threshold shift of 6 dB is considered
the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or
session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability and
is typically the minimum amount of threshold shift that can be
differentiated in most experimental conditions (Finneran et al., 2000;
Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002).
Measured peak underwater source levels from impact pile driving can
be as high as 214 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (Laughlin 2011). 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 kilopascal (kPa) (30
psi) peak-to-peak (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 sound exposure level (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.
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. Given the modest number of piles that will be driven,
limited driving time per pile, short duration of the project,
relatively low sound source levels, and small Level A (injury)
harassment zones, NMFS is confident that marine mammals would not
experience auditory or non-acoustic physiological impacts.
Disturbance Reactions
Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including
subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area
or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar
behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe
reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality
habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-
specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic
factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current
activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as
well as the interplay between factors (e.g., Richardson et al.,1995;
Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et
al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals
but also within an individual, depending on previous
[[Page 15034]]
experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors
(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics
associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is moving or
stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). Please see
Appendices B-C of Southall et al., (2007) for a review of studies
involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
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. It is important to note that
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). 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).
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
(cetaceans only), 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; 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 the amount of time
spent hauled out, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and
Reyff 2006). Since pile driving would likely only occur for a few hours
a day, over a short period, it is unlikely to result in permanent
displacement. Any potential impacts from pile driving activities could
be experienced by individual marine mammals, but would not be likely to
cause population level impacts, or affect the long-term fitness of the
species.
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant
behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on
growth, survival, or reproduction include:
Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as
those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
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).
Stress Responses
An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger
stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral
responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine
responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg 2000). In many
cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of
energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential
stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically
involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal
activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or
may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano
et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g.,
Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that
noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC 2003).
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
[[Page 15035]]
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 man-made, 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 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.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound
generated from in-water pile driving is mostly concentrated at low
frequency ranges, it may 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.
The most intense underwater sounds in the proposed action are those
produced by impact pile driving. Given that the energy distribution of
pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these
sources would likely be within the audible range of marine mammals
present in the project area. Impact pile driving activity is relatively
short-term, with rapid pulses occurring for approximately twenty
minutes per pile.
Anticipated Effects on Habitat
The proposed project would result in small net increase in bay fill
of approximately 0.01 acre of benthic habitat due to the placement of
piles. The piles would generally be placed within the existing
footprint of the Long Wharf. This would not have a measurable influence
on habitat for marine mammals in the Bay. A temporary, small-scale loss
of foraging habitat may occur for marine mammals if marine mammals
leave the area during pile driving activities. Acoustic energy created
during pile replacement work would have the potential to disturb fish
within the vicinity of the pile replacement work. As a result, the
affected area could have a temporarily decreased foraging value to
marine mammals. During pile driving, high noise levels may exclude fish
from the vicinity of pile driving; Hastings and Popper (2005)
identified several studies that suggest fish will relocate to avoid
areas of damaging noise energy. An analysis of potential noise output
of the proposed project indicates that the distance from underwater
pile driving at which noise has the potential to cause temporary
hearing loss in fish ranges from approximately 10 to 158 m (32 ft to
520 ft) from pile driving activity, depending on the type of pile.
Therefore, if fish leave the area of disturbance, pinniped foraging
habitat may have temporarily decreased foraging value when piles are
driven.
The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving
stops is unknown. However, the affected area represents an extremely
small portion of the total area within foraging range of marine mammals
that may be present in the project area.
As such, the main impact associated with the proposed activity
would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct
effects on marine mammals, as discussed previously in this document.
The most likely impact to marine mammal habitat occurs from pile
driving effects on likely marine mammal prey (i.e., fish) near the
project location, and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during
installation and removal of piles during the dock construction project.
Effects on Potential Prey--Construction activities would produce
impulsive sounds. Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/
or intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can
cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution.
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009)
and are therefore not directly comparable with the proposed project.
Sound pulses at received levels of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in
fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior
(Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient
strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality. In
general, impacts to marine mammal prey species from the proposed
project are expected to be minor and temporary due to the relatively
short timeframe of four days of pile driving activities for a total of
160 minutes that would occur under the proposed IHA.
The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the
project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The
duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and
behavior is anticipated.
Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat--San Francisco Bay is
classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act. The EFH provisions of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act are designed to protect fisheries habitat from being lost
due to disturbance and degradation. The act requires implementation of
measures to conserve and enhance EFH. San Francisco Bay, including the
area of the project, is classified as EFH for 20 species of
commercially important fish and sharks that are federally managed under
three fisheries management plans (FMPs): Coastal Pelagic, Pacific
Groundfish, and Pacific Coast Salmon (Table 9-1 in the Application).
The Pacific Coast Salmon FMP includes Chinook salmon.
In addition to EFH designations, San Francisco Bay is designated as
a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for various fish species
within the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic FMPs, as this
estuarine system serves as breeding and rearing grounds important to
these fish stocks. A number of these
[[Page 15036]]
fish species are prey species for pinnipeds.
Given the short duration of increased underwater noise levels and
small project footprint associated with the proposed project, there is
not likely to be a permanent, adverse effect on EFH. Therefore, the
project is not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on marine
mammal foraging habitat.
Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still
leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging
habitat in San Francisco Bay. While the proposed project would result
in a small net increase in Bay fill of approximately 0.01 acre of
benthic foraging habitat, this would not have a measurable influence on
habitat for marine mammals in the Bay.
In summary, given the short duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving events and the relatively small area that would
be affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed
action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish
habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, any impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
Estimated Take
This section includes an estimate of the number of incidental
``takes'' proposed for authorization pursuant to this IHA, which will
inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is
``small'' and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the primary means of take expected to result from
these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not
pertinent here, the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit,
torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii)
has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in
the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
As described previously in the Effects section, Level B Harassment
is expected to occur and is proposed to be authorized for select
species in numbers identified below. Based on the nature of the
activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures,
Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be
authorized.
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 the sound field 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--NMFS uses sound exposure thresholds to determine
when an activity that produces underwater sound might result in impacts
to a marine mammal such that a ``take'' by harassment might occur. On
August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance) (81
FR 51694) (available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm). This new guidance established new thresholds for
predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under
the MMPA. As will be discussed below, NMFS has revised PTS (and TTS)
onset acoustic thresholds for impulsive and non-impulsive sound as part
of its new acoustic guidance. The Guidance does not address Level B
harassment; therefore, NMFS uses the current acoustic exposure criteria
to determine exposure to underwater noise sound pressure levels for
Level B harassment (Table 4).
During the installation of piles, the project has the potential to
increase airborne noise levels. Airborne pile-driving RMS noise levels
above the NMFS airborne noise thresholds are not expected to extend to
the Castro Rocks haul-out site, which is located 650 m north of Long
Wharf. In addition, the Castro Rocks haul out is subject to high levels
of background noise from the Richmond Bridge, ongoing vessel activity
at the Long Wharf, ferry traffic, and other general boat traffic. Any
pinnipeds that surface in the area over which the airborne noise
thresholds may be exceeded would have already been exposed to
underwater noise levels above the applicable thresholds and thus would
not result in an additional incidental take. Airborne noise is not
considered further.
Source Levels--Pile driving generates underwater noise that can
potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project
area. In order to establish distances to PTS and behavioral harassment
isopleths, the sound source level associated with a specific pile
driving activity must be measured directly or estimated using proxy
information. The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced
by factors such as the material type and dimension of piles. To
estimate the noise effects of the 24-inch square concrete piles
proposed for use in Year 1 of this project, Chevron reviewed sound
pressure levels (SPLs) from other projects conducted under similar
circumstances. These projects include the Pier 40 Berth Construction in
San Francisco, and the Berth 22 and Berth 32 reconstruction projects at
the Port of Oakland. However, NMFS elected to use data from only the
Pier 40 project since 24-inch square concrete piles were installed at
that location. At Berth 22 and Berth 32, 24-inch octagonal concrete
piles were installed. The differences in pile shape may result in
varying SPLs. Impact pile driving at Pier 40 resulted in measured RMS
values ranging from 162-174 dB and peak SPLs from 172 to 186 dB. SEL
measurements were not recorded. From Pier 40, NMFS selected a RMS value
of 170 dB, which was the average of the eight piles tested, excluding 2
piles that utilized ``jetting''. Jetting consists of employing a
carefully directed and pressurized flow of water to assist in pile
placement by liquefying soils at the pile tip during pile placement.
Jetting tends to increase driving efficiency while decreasing sound
levels and will not be utilized by Chevron during this project. NMFS
used an identical approach to arrive at an average peak value of 181
dB.
Based on Pier 40 Results
Sound Propagation--Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in
acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a
source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater
TL is:
TL = B * log10 (R1/R2),
Where:
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement.
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which
is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or
[[Page 15037]]
absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water
structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly
unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water
surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling
of distance from the source (20*log(range)). Cylindrical spreading
occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the
water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound
level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log(range)). As
is common practice in coastal waters, here we assume practical
spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of
distance) here. Practical spreading is a compromise that is often used
under conditions where water increases with depth as the receiver moves
away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation
environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading
loss conditions.
Level A Zone--Chevron's Level A harassment zone was calculated by
utilizing the methods presented in Appendix D of NMFS' Guidance and the
accompanying User Spreadsheet. The Guidance provides updated PTS onset
thresholds using the cumulative SEL (SELcum) metric, which
incorporates marine mammal auditory weighting functions, to identify
the received levels, or acoustic thresholds, at which individual marine
mammals are predicted to experience changes in their hearing
sensitivity for acute, incidental exposure to all underwater
anthropogenic sound sources. The Guidance (Appendix D) and its
companion User Spreadsheet provide alternative methodology for
incorporating these more complex thresholds and associated weighting
functions.
The User Spreadsheet accounts for weighting functions using
Weighting Factor Adjustments (WFAs), and NMFS used the recommended
values for impact driving therein (2 kHz). Pile driving durations were
estimated based on similar project experience. NMFS' new acoustic
thresholds use dual metrics of SELcum and peak sound level (PK) for
impulsive sounds (e.g., impact pile driving). The noise levels noted
above were used in the Spreadsheet for 24-inch square concrete piles.
It was estimated that two piles would be installed in one 24-hr workday
with installation for each pile requiring approximately 300 blows. NMFS
used an RMS of 170 dB and pulse duration of 0.1 seconds. Measured SEL
values were not available for 24-inch square concrete piles.
Utilizing the User Spreadsheet, NMFS applied the updated PTS onset
thresholds for impulsive PK and SELcum in the new acoustic guidance to
determine distance to the isopleths for PTS onset for impact pile
driving. In determining the cumulative sound exposure levels, the
Guidance considers the duration of the activity, the sound exposure
level produced by the source during a 24-hr period, and the generalized
hearing range of the receiving species. In the case of the duel metric
acoustic thresholds for impulsive sound, the larger of the two
isopleths for calculating PTS onset is used. Results in Table 4 display
the Level A injury zones for the various hearing groups.
Table 4--Injury Zones and Shutdown Zones for Hearing Groups Associated With Installation of 24-Inch Concrete Piles via Impact Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-frequency
Hearing group Low-frequency Mid-frequency cetaceans (harbor Phocid pinnipeds Otariid pinnipeds (CA
cetaceans (gray whale) cetaceans porpoise) (harbor seal) sea lion)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds-- Lpk,flat: 219 dB...... Lpk,flat: 230 dB...... Lpk,flat: 202 dB..... Lpk,flat: 218 dB..... Lpk,flat: 232 dB.
Impulsive * (Received Level). LE,LF,24h: 183 dB..... LE,MF,24h: 185 dB..... LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.... LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.... LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
PTS Isopleth to threshold (m)...... 20.8.................. 0.7................... 24.8................. 11.1................. 0.8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive
sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be
considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa\2\s. In
this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined
by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is being included to
indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative
sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways
(i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which
these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
The zone of influence (ZOI) refers to the area(s) in which SPLs
equal or exceed NMFS' current Level B harassment thresholds (160 dB for
impulse sound). Calculated radial distances to the 160 dB threshold
assume a field free of obstruction. Assuming a source level of 170 dB
RMS, installation of the 24-inch concrete piles is expected to produce
underwater sound exceeding the Level B 160 dB RMS threshold over a
distance of 46 meters (150 feet) (Table 5).
Table 5--Isopleth for Level B Harassment Associated With Impact Driving of 24-Inch Concrete Piles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isopleth
Criterion Definition Threshold (distance from
source)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment...................... Behavioral disruption..... 160 dB RMS (impulse 46 m
sources).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15038]]
Density/Abundance--Data specifying a marine mammal's density or
abundance in a given area can often be used to generate exposure
estimates. However, no systematic line transect surveys of marine
mammals have been performed in the San Francisco Bay near the project
site. Density information for marine mammal species has been generated
by Caltrans based on 15 years (2000-2015) of observations as part of
the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge replacement project (Caltrans
2016). The data revealed densities of 0.00004 animals/km\2\ for gray
whale, 0.021 animals/km\2\ for harbor porpoise, 0.09 animals/km\2\ for
California sea lion, and 0.17 animals/km\2\ for harbor seal.
Utilization of these data to develop exposure estimates results in very
small exposure values. Despite the near zero estimate provided through
use of the Caltrans density data, local observational data leads us to
believe that this estimate may not be accurate in illustrating the
potential for take at this particular site, so we have to use other
information. Instead, NMFS relied on local observational data as
described below.
Take Estimate--The estimated number of marine mammals that may be
exposed to noise at levels expected to result in take as defined in the
MMPA is determined by comparing the calculated areas over which the
Level B harassment threshold may be exceeded, as described above, with
the expected distribution of marine mammal species within the vicinity
of the proposed project. NMFS calculated take qualitatively utilizing
observational data taken during marine mammal monitoring associated
with the RSRB retrofit project, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
replacement project, and other marine mammal observations for San
Francisco Bay. As described previously in the Effects section, Level B
Harassment is expected to occur and is proposed to be authorized in the
numbers identified below.
Pacific Harbor Seal
Castro Rocks is the largest harbor seal haul out site in the
northern part of San Francisco Bay and is the second largest pupping
site in the Bay (Green et al., 2002). The pupping season is from March
to June in San Francisco Bay. During the molting season (typically
June-July and coinciding with the period when piles will be driven) as
many as 129 harbor seals have been observed using Castro Rocks as a
haul out. Harbor seals are more likely to be hauled out in the late
afternoon and evening, and are more likely to be in the water during
the morning and early afternoon (Green et al., 2002). However, during
the molting season, harbor seals spend more time hauled out and tend to
enter the water later in the evening. During molting, harbor seals can
stay onshore resting for an average of 12 hours per day during the molt
compared to around 7 hours per day outside of the pupping/molting
seasons (NPS 2014).
Tidal stage is a major controlling factor of haul out usage at
Castro Rocks with more seals present during low tides than high tide
periods (Green et al., 2002). Additionally, the number of seals hauled
out at Castro Rocks also varies with the time of day, with
proportionally more animals hauled out during the nighttime hours
(Green et al. 2002). Therefore, the number of harbor seals in the water
around Castro Rocks will vary throughout the work period. The take
estimates are based on the highest number of harbor seals observed at
Castro Rocks during 2007 to 2012 annual surveys (approximately 129
seals). Without site-specific data, it is impossible to determine how
many hauled out seals enter the water and, of those, how many enter
into the Level B harassment area. Given the relatively small size of
the Level B harassment area compared to the large expanse of Bay water
that is available to the seals, NMFS will assume that no more than 6
seals per day would enter into the Level B harassment area during the
40 minutes of pile driving per day scheduled to occur over 4 days.
Therefore, NMFS proposes that up to 6 seals per day may be exposed to
Level B harassment over 4 days of impact driving, resulting in a total
of 24 takes.
California Sea Lion
Relatively few California sea lions are expected to be present in
the project area during periods of pile driving, as there are no haul-
outs utilized by this species in the vicinity. However, monitoring for
the RSRB did observe small numbers of this species in the north and
central portions of the Bay during working hours. During monitoring
that occurred over a period of May 1998 to February 2002, California
sea lions were sighted at least 90 times in the northern portion of the
Central Bay and at least 57 times near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge in the Central Bay. During monitoring for the San Francisco-
Oakland Bay Bridge Project in the Central Bay, California sea lions
were observed on 69 occasions in the vicinity of the bridge over a 14-
year period from 2000-2014 (Caltrans 2015b). The limited data regarding
these observations do not allow a quantitative assessment of potential
take. Given the limited driving time, low number of sea lions that are
likely to be found in the northern part of the Bay, and small size of
the level B zone, NMFS is proposing a total of 2 California sea lion
takes.
Harbor Porpoise
A small but growing population of harbor porpoises utilizes San
Francisco Bay. Harbor porpoises are typically spotted in the vicinity
of Angel Island and the Golden Gate Bridge (6 and 12 km southwest
respectively) (Keener 2011), but may utilize other areas in the Central
Bay in low numbers, including the project area. The density and
frequency of this usage throughout the Bay is unknown. For this
proposed IHA, NMFS is not authorizing take of any harbor porpoise since
the proposed exclusion zone will be conservatively set at 50 m, which
is larger than the Level B zone isopleth of 46 m, and take can be
avoided.
Gray Whale
The only whale species that enters San Francisco bay with any
regularity is the gray whale. Gray whales occasionally enter the Bay
during their northward migration period, and are most often sighted in
the Bay between February and May. Most venture only about 2 to 3 km
past the Golden Gate Bridge, but gray whales have occasionally been
sighted as far north as San Pablo Bay. Impact pile driving is not
expected to occur during this time, however, and gray whales are not
likely to be present at other times of year. Furthermore, the proposed
exclusion zone of 50 m for this species is larger than the Level B zone
isopleth of 46 m. As such, NMFS is not proposing to authorize any gray
whale take.
Table 6 shows estimated Level B take for authorized species.
[[Page 15039]]
Table 6--Summary of Estimated Take by Species
[Level B Harassment]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
Pile type Pile driver type Number of piles Number of ---------------------------------
driving days Harbor seal CA sea lion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch square concrete......................... Impact............................ 8 4 24 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation
Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS shall prescribe the
``permissible methods of taking by harassment 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 subsistence uses.''
To ensure that the ``least practicable impact'' will be achieved,
NMFS evaluates mitigation measures in 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(s) is expected
to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks,
their habitat, and their availability for subsistence uses (latter
where relevant); the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the
practicability of the measures for applicant implementation.
Mitigation for Mammals and Their Habitat
The following measures would apply to Chevron's mitigation through
the exclusion zone and zone of influence ZOI:
Time Restriction--For all in-water pile driving activities, Chevron
shall operate only during daylight hours when visual monitoring of
marine mammals can be conducted.
Seasonal Restriction--To minimize impacts to listed fish species,
pile-driving activities would occur between June 1 and November 30.
Exclusion Zone--For all pile driving activities, Chevron will
establish an exclusion zone intended to contain the area in which Level
A harassment thresholds are exceeded. The purpose of the exclusion zone
is to define an area within which shutdown of construction activity
would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal within that area (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus preventing
potential injury of marine mammals. The calculated distance to Level A
harassment isopleths threshold during impact pile driving, assuming a
maximum of 2 piles per day is 25 m for harbor porpoise; 11.1 m for
harbor seal; 0.8 m for California sea lion, and; 20.8 m for gray
whales.
NMFS proposes to require a 15 m exclusion zone for harbor seals and
California sea lions. In order to prevent any take of the cetacean
species, a 50 m exclusion zone is proposed for harbor porpoises and
gray whales. A shutdown will occur prior to a marine mammal entering
the shutdown zones. Activity will cease until the observer is confident
that the animal is clear of the shutdown zone. The animal will be
considered clear if:
It has been observed leaving the shutdown zone; or
It has not been seen in the shutdown zone for 30 minutes
for cetaceans and 15 minutes for pinnipeds.
10-meter Shutdown Zone--During the in-water operation of heavy
machinery (e.g., barge movements), a 10-m shutdown zone for all marine
mammals will be implemented. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m,
operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum
level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions.
Level B Harassment Zone (Zone of Influence)--The ZOI refers to the
area(s) in which SPLs equal or exceed NMFS' current Level B harassment
thresholds (160 dB rms for pulse sources). ZOIs provide utility for
monitoring that is conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., exclusion
zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas
adjacent to the exclusion zone. Monitoring of the ZOI enables observers
to be aware of, and communicate about, the presence of marine mammals
within the project area but outside the exclusion zone and thus prepare
for potential shutdowns of activity should those marine mammals
approach the exclusion zone. However, the primary purpose of ZOI
monitoring is to allow documentation of incidents of Level B
harassment; ZOI monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see
Monitoring and Reporting). The modeled radial distances for the ZOI for
impact pile driving of 24-inch square concrete piles is 46 m. NMFS
proposes a 50 m Level B zone for harbor seals and California sea lions.
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors
will record all marine mammals observed within the ZOI. Due to the
relatively small ZOI and to the monitoring locations chosen by Chevron
we expect that two monitors will be able to observe the entire ZOI.
Ramp up/Soft-start--A ``soft-start'' technique is intended to allow
marine mammals to vacate the area before the pile driver reaches full
power. For impact driving, an initial set of three strikes would be
made by the hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-sec waiting
period, then two subsequent three- strike sets before initiating
continuous driving. Soft start will be required at the beginning of
each day's impact pile driving work and at any time following a
cessation of impact pile driving of thirty minutes or longer.
Pile Caps/Cushions--Chevron will employ the use of pile caps or
cushions as sound attenuation devices to reduce impacts from sound
exposure during impact pile driving.
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
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
[[Page 15040]]
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the
action area (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Chevron will collect sighting data and will record behavioral
responses to construction activities for marine mammal species observed
in the project location during the period of activity. Monitoring will
be conducted by qualified marine mammal observers (MMO), who are
trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel)
are required;
At least one observer must have prior experience working
as an observer;
Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate
degree in biological science or related field) or training for
experience;
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior;
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; and
NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
Chevron will monitor the exclusion zones and Level B harassment
zone before, during, and after pile driving, with at least two
observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Based on our
requirements, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan would implement the
following procedures for pile driving:
During observation periods, observers will continuously
scan the area for marine mammals using binoculars and the naked eye;
Monitoring shall begin 30 minutes prior to impact pile
driving;
Observers will conduct observations, meet training
requirements, fill out data forms, and report findings in accordance
with this IHA;
If the exclusion zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting
conditions, pile driving will not be initiated until the exclusion zone
is clearly visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving
is underway, the activity would be halted;
Observers will be in continuous contact with the
construction personnel via two-way radio. A cellular phone will be used
for back-up communications and for safety purposes;
Observers will implement mitigation measures including
monitoring of the proposed shutdown and monitoring zones, clearing of
the zones, and shutdown procedures; and
At the end of the pile-driving day, post-construction
monitoring will be conducted for 30 minutes beyond the cessation of
pile driving.
Data Collection
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, chevron will record detailed information about
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to
the pile being driven, a description of specific actions that ensued,
and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, Chevron will
attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken
and the number of incidents of take, when possible. We require that, at
a minimum, that the following information be recorded on sighting
forms:
Date and time that permitted construction activity begins
or ends;
Weather parameters (e.g., percent cloud cover, percent
glare, visibility) and Beaufort sea state;
Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
observed marine mammals;
Construction activities occurring during each sighting;
Marine mammal behavior patterns observed, including
bearing and direction of travel;
Specific focus should be paid to behavioral reactions just
prior to, or during, soft-start and shutdown procedures;
Location of marine mammal, distance from observer to the
marine mammal, and distance from pile driving activities to marine
mammals;
Record of whether an observation required the
implementation of mitigation measures, including shutdown procedures
and the duration of each shutdown; and
Other human activity in the area. Record the hull numbers
of fishing vessels if possible.
Reporting Measures
Chevron shall submit a draft report to NMFS within 90 days of the
completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the
issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project (if required),
whichever comes first. The annual report would detail the monitoring
protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate
the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. If no
comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report
will become final. If comments are received, a final report must be
submitted up to 30 days after receipt of comments. Reports shall
contain the following information:
Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period,
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and
detectability of marine mammals);
Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of
[[Page 15041]]
marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare);
and
Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of
marine mammal sightings, including date, numbers, age/size/gender
categories (if determinable), and group sizes.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA
(if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement),
Chevron would immediately cease the specified activities and
immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report
would include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Name and type of vessel involved (if applicable);
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident (if
applicable);
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source used in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Chevron to
determine necessary actions to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Chevron would not be able
to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that Chevron discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO 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),
Chevron would immediately report the incident to the Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding
Coordinator. The report would include the same information identified
in the section above. Activities would be able to continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with Chevron
to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.
In the event that Chevron discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO 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), Chevron would report the incident
to Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and West Coast Regional
Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. Chevron would
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine
Mammal Stranding Network. Pile driving activities would be permitted to
continue.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as ``an impact resulting from
the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103).
A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes, alone, is not
enough information on which to base an impact determination. In
addition to considering the authorized number of marine mammals that
might be ``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors,
such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration, etc.), as well as effects on habitat, the status
of the affected stocks, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation.
Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations
(54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into these analyses
via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in
the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate
where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient
noise levels).
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses
applies to all the species listed in Table 7 given that the anticipated
effects of Chevron's construction activities involving impact pile
driving on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in
nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the
impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that
would lead to a different analysis for this activity, or else species-
specific factors would be identified and analyzed.
Impact pile driving activities associated with the proposed
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) from underwater sounds generated from pile driving.
Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present
in the ensonified zone when in-water construction is under way.
No marine mammal stocks for which incidental take authorization is
proposed are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or
determined to be strategic or depleted under the MMPA. No injuries or
mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Chevron's impact
pile driving activities. The relatively low marine mammal density and
small shutdown zones make injury takes of marine mammals unlikely. In
addition, the Level A exclusion zones would be thoroughly monitored
before the proposed impact pile driving occurs and driving activities
would be would be postponed if a marine mammal is sighted entering the
exclusion zones. The likelihood that marine mammals will be detected by
trained observers is high under the environmental conditions described
for the proposed project. The employment of the soft-start mitigation
measure would also allow marine mammal in or near the ZOI or exclusion
zone to move away from the impact driving sound source. Therefore, the
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to eliminate
the potential for injury and reduce the amount and intensity of
behavioral harassment. Furthermore, the pile driving 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.
The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be
limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral and TTS) as only
eight piles will be driven over 4 days with each pile requiring
approximately 20 minutes of driving time. Marine mammals
[[Page 15042]]
present near the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most
likely show overt brief disturbance (e.g. startle reaction) and
avoidance of the area from elevated noise level during pile driving. A
few marine mammals could experience TTS if they move into the Level B
ZOI. However, TTS is a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity when
exposed to loud sound, and the hearing threshold is expected to recover
completely within minutes to hours. Therefore, it is not considered an
injury. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may
cause Level B harassment are unlikely 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.
The proposed project is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. While EFH for several
species does exist in the proposed project area, the proposed
activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat.
The activities may cause fish to leave the area temporarily. This could
impact 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 affected habitat, the
impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant
or long-term negative consequences.
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the
following factors: (1) The possibility of non-auditory injury, serious
injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the
anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, TTS
or temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the short duration of in-
water construction activities (4 days, 160 minutes total driving time);
(4) limited spatial impacts to marine mammal habitat; and (5) the
presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the
effects of the specified activity 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 specified activity is not
expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore
not result in population-level impacts.
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 the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of
individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant
species or stock size in our determination of whether an authorization
is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
The numbers of animals authorized to be taken would be considered
small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (<0.01 percent for
both species as shown in Table 7) even if each estimated taking
occurred to a new individual. However, the likelihood that each take
would occur to a new individual is extremely low. Further, these takes
are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall
regional stock.
Table 7--Population Abundance Estimates, Total Proposed Level B Take, and Percentage of Population That may be
Taken for the Potentially Affected Species During the Proposed Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Species Abundance * Total proposed stock or
Level B take population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal..................................................... 30,968\1\ 24 <0.01
California sea lion (U.S. Stock)................................ 296,750 2 <0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Abundance estimates are taken from the 2015 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Carretta et al.,
2016).
\1\ California stock abundance estimate
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with the ESA.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization
or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required
for this action.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with NEPA.
NMFS will pursue categorical exclusion (CE) status under NEPA for this
action. As such, we have preliminary determined the issuance of the
proposed IHA is consistent with categories of activities identified in
CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A and we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion
Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude this categorical exclusion.
If, at the close of the public comment period, NMFS has not received
comments or information contradictory to our initial CE determination,
we will prepare a CE memorandum for the record.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to Chevron for conducting
[[Page 15043]]
impact pile driving at the MWEP in San Francisco Bay. 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 Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from
January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
2. This Authorization is valid only for in-water construction work
associated with the Chevron Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency
Project.
3. General Conditions.
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of Chevron, its
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of
this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking by Level B harassment include
Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus). Table 1 shows the number of takes permitted for each
species.
Table 8--Total Proposed Level B Takes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total proposed
Species Level B takes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal............................................. 24
California sea lion..................................... 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species listed in condition 3(b). See Table 1 above.
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or
death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) or any taking of
any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the
modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(e) Chevron shall conduct briefings between construction
supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and staff prior
to the start of all in-water pile driving, and when new personnel join
the work.
4. Mitigation Measures.
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measures:
(a) Time Restrictions: For all in-water pile driving activities,
Chevron shall operate only during daylight hours.
(b) Establishment of Shutdown zone: For all pile driving
activities, Chevron shall establish shutdown zones of 50 m for harbor
porpoises and gray whales and 15 m for harbor seals and California sea
lions.
(c) Establishment of Level B harassment zone (ZOI): For all pile
driving activities, Chevron shall establish a ZOI of 50 m for species
listed in 3(b).
(d) The shutdown zone and ZOI shall be monitored throughout the
time required to install a pile. If a harbor seal or California sea
lion is observed entering the ZOI, a Level B exposure shall be recorded
and behaviors documented. That pile segment shall be completed without
cessation, unless the animal approaches the shutdown zone. Pile
installation shall be halted immediately before the animal enters the
Level A zone.
(e) If any marine mammal species other than those listed in
condition 3(b) enters or approaches the ZOI zone all activities shall
be shut down until the animal is seen leaving the ZOI or it has not
been seen in the shutdown zone for 30 minutes for cetaceans and 15
minutes for pinnipeds.
(f) Use of Ramp Up/Soft Start.
(i) The project shall utilize soft start techniques for all impact
pile driving. We require Chevron to implement an initial set of three
strikes would be made by the hammer at reduced energy, followed by a
30-second waiting period, then two subsequent three- strike sets.
(ii) Soft start shall be required at the beginning of each day's
impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile
driving of 30 minutes or longer.
(iii) If a marine mammal is present within a shutdown zone, ramping
up shall be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the relevant shutdown
zone. Activity shall begin only after the MMO has determined, through
sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the relevant shutdown
zone or it has not been seen in the shutdown zone for 30 minutes for
cetaceans and 15 minutes for pinnipeds.
(iv) If species listed in 3(b) is present in the Level B harassment
zone, ramping up shall begin and a Level B take shall be documented.
Ramping up shall occur when these species are in the Level B harassment
zone whether they entered the Level B zone from the Level A zone, or
from outside the project area.
(g) Pile caps or cushions shall be used during all impact pile-
driving activities.
(h) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving
(e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or
clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine
mammal comes within 10 meters, operations shall cease and vessels shall
reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and
safe working conditions.
5. Monitoring and Reporting.
The holder of this Authorization is required to submit a report to
NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or
60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project
(if required), whichever comes first.
(a) Visual Marine Mammal Monitoring and Observation.
(i) At least two individuals meeting the minimum qualifications
below shall monitor the shutdown zones and Level B harassment zone from
best practicable vantage points during impact pile driving,
(ii) Requirements when choosing MMOs as follows:
a. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required.
b. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
c. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree
in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
d. Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols
e. Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals, including the identification of behaviors.
f. Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations.
g. Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound
of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine
mammal behavior.
h. 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.
i. Chevron shall submit observer CVs for NMFS approval.
(iii) If the exclusion zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting
conditions, pile driving shall not be initiated until the exclusion
zone is clearly visible. Should such conditions arise while impact
driving is underway, the activity shall be halted.
(iv) At the end of the pile-driving day, post-construction
monitoring will be conducted for 30 minutes beyond the cessation of
pile driving
(b) Data Collection.
(i) Observers are required to use approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, Chevron shall record detailed information about
any implementation of shutdowns,
[[Page 15044]]
including the distance of animals to the pile and description of
specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if
any. In addition, Chevron shall attempt to distinguish between the
number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take.
At a minimum, the following information shall be collected on the
sighting forms:
a. Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
b. Weather parameters (e.g., percent cloud cover, percent glare,
visibility) and Beaufort sea state.
c. Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
observed marine mammals;
d. Construction activities occurring during each sighting;
e. Marine mammal behavior patterns observed, including bearing and
direction of travel;
f. Specific focus should be paid to behavioral reactions just prior
to, or during, soft-start and shutdown procedures;
g. Location of marine mammal, distance from observer to the marine
mammal, and distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals;
h. Record of whether an observation required the implementation of
mitigation measures, including shutdown procedures and the duration of
each shutdown; and
i. Other human activity in the area.
(c) Reporting Measures.
(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA,
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality
(e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), Chevron
would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West
Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the
following information:
a. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
b. Name and type of vessel involved;
c. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
d. Description of the incident;
e. Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
f. Water depth;
g. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
h. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
i. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
j. Fate of the animal(s); and
k. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is
available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Chevron to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Chevron would not be able
to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
(ii) In the event that Chevron discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO 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),
Chevron would immediately report the incident to the Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding
Coordinator. The report would include the same information identified
in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with Chevron
to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that Chevron discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO 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), Chevron would report the incident
to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional
Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. Chevron would provide
photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding
Network.
6. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for impact pile driving
associated with Chevron's Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project
from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Please include with
your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help
inform our final decision on Chevron's request for an MMPA
authorization.
Dated: March 17, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05843 Filed 3-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P