[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19243-19254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09238]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XF882
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Astoria Waterfront Bridge
Replacement Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the City of Astoria, Oregon, to incidentally harass, by Level B
harassment only, marine mammals during construction activities
associated with a waterfront bridges replacement project in Astoria,
Oregon.
DATES: This authorization is effective from October 1, 2018 through
September 30, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Fowler, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the IHA and
[[Page 19244]]
supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this
document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call
the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . .
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt,
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A,
which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Summary of Request
On October 17, 2017, NMFS received a request from the City of
Astoria (City), Oregon, for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to
replacement of bridges in downtown Astoria along the Columbia River.
The application was considered adequate and complete on January 17,
2018. The City's request was for take of California sea lions (Zalophus
californianus), Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), and harbor
seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) by Level B harassment only. Neither
the City nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and,
therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of the Specified Activity
The City of Astoria is planning to replace three bridges connecting
city streets to waterfront piers in the Columbia River. The bridges are
currently supported by deteriorated timber piles, which will be removed
and replaced with steel piles. Bridge replacement is scheduled to begin
with above-water work to remove the superstructures of the bridges in
October 2018. In-water pile removal and installation will occur over 80
days between November 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Vibratory removal
of 255 timber piles is expected to take 26 days while impact driving of
74 permanent steel piles and installation and subsequent removal of 10
temporary steel piles is expected to take 42 days. The remaining 12
days of in-water work will be used to remove concrete footings and a
concrete retaining wall along the riverbank. Additional above-water
construction to replace the bridge superstructures will occur in March
and April 2019.
A detailed description of the planned bridge replacement project is
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR
7680; February 22, 2018). Since that time, no changes have been made to
the planned construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description
is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for
the description of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
Federal Register on February 22, 2018 (83 FR 7680). During the 30-day
public comment period, the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission)
submitted a letter on March 21, 2018. The Commission provided comments
as described below and concurred with NMFS's finding that recommended
the issuance of an IHA to the City, subject to the inclusion of the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.
Comment 1: The Commission commented that NMFS' method of estimating
takes from this project was inappropriate. Rather than multiplying the
average count of pinnipeds from the South Jetty by months of activity,
NMFS should have multiplied by days of activity. As a result, the take
numbers proposed in the Federal Register notice (83 FR 7680; February
22, 2018) were underestimated. The Commission recommended revising the
take estimates to better reflect the likelihood of pinniped occurrence
in the project area.
Response 1: NMFS concurs with the Commission recommendation and has
modified the authorized take limits to account for newly available
site-specific data. These changes are described further in the ``Marine
Mammal Occurrence'' and ``Take Calculation and Estimation'' sections in
this notice. As a result of this modification, NMFS authorized the take
of 33,736 California sea lions, 5,360 Steller sea lions, and 4,560
harbor seals.
Comment 2: The Commission requested clarification of certain issues
associated with NMFS's notice that one-year renewals could be issued in
certain limited circumstances and expressed concern that the process
would bypass the public notice and comment requirements. The Commission
also suggested that NMFS should discuss the possibility of renewals
through a more general route, such as a rulemaking, instead of notice
in a specific authorization. The Commission further recommended that if
NMFS did not pursue a more general route, that the agency provide the
Commission and the public with a legal analysis supporting our
conclusion that this process is consistent with the requirements of
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
Response 2: The process of issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass
the public
[[Page 19245]]
notice and comment requirements of the MMPA. The notice of the proposed
IHA expressly notifies the public that under certain, limited
conditions an applicant could seek a renewal IHA for an additional
year. The notice describes the conditions under which such a renewal
request could be considered and expressly seeks public comment in the
event such a renewal is sought. Importantly, such renewals would be
limited to where the activities are identical or nearly identical to
those analyzed in the proposed IHA, monitoring does not indicate
impacts that were not previously analyzed and authorized, and the
mitigation and monitoring requirements remain the same, all of which
allow the public to comment on the appropriateness and effects of a
renewal at the same time the public provides comments on the initial
IHA. NMFS has, however, modified the language for future proposed IHAs
to clarify that all IHAs, including renewal IHAs, are valid for no more
than one year and that the agency would consider only one renewal for a
project at this time. In addition, notice of issuance or denial of a
renewal IHA would be published in the Federal Register, as are all
IHAs. Last, NMFS will publish on our website a description of the
renewal process before any renewal is issued utilizing the new process.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the
City's actions, including brief introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, are
provided in the City's application and the Federal Register notice for
the proposed IHA (83 FR 7680; February 22, 2018). We are not aware of
any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore,
detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that
Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please refer to
additional species information available in the NMFS stock assessment
reports for the Pacific and Alaska at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/region.htm.
Table 1--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of Astoria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA Stock abundance
status; (CV, Nmin, most Annual M/ Relative
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/ recent abundance PBR SI \3\ occurrence near
N) \1\ survey) \2\ Astoria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
California sea lion......... Zalophus U.S................ -; N 296,750 (N/A, 9,200 389 Likely.
californianus. 153,337, 2011).
Steller sea lion............ Eumetopias jubatus. Eastern U.S........ -; N 41,638 (N/A, 2,498 108 Likely.
41,638, 2015).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Pacific harbor seal......... Phoca vitulina Oregon/Washington -; N Unknown (0.12, undet. 10.6 Likely.
richardii. Coast. 24,732, 1999).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated
CV.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from vibratory and impact pile
driving and airborne noise from superstructure construction for the
bridge replacement project have the potential to result in behavioral
harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 7680; February 22,
2018) included a discussion of the effects of the project and
anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, therefore that information is
not repeated here; please refer to the Federal Register notice (83 FR
7680; February 22, 2018) for that information. We provide a summary
here.
The main impact associated with the bridge replacement project
would be exposure to temporarily elevated sound levels and the
associated direct effects on marine mammals (e.g., temporary hearing
impairment, behavioral disturbance, and stress). The new bridges will
be installed within the footprint of the existing bridges, therefore no
new permanent impacts to habitats used by marine mammals would result
from the project. Some short-term impacts to prey availability (e.g.,
fish) and minor impacts to the immediate substrate may occur as a
result of increased turbidity from pile installation and removal but
the effects are expected to be minimal. No critical habitat for any
marine mammal species occurs in the project area.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized by this IHA, which informs both NMFS' consideration of
whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are by Level B harassment only, for individual
marine mammals resulting from exposure to pile driving and construction
activities. Based on the nature of the activity and
[[Page 19246]]
the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e.,
shutdown--discussed in detail below in Proposed Mitigation section),
Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be
authorized. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or
proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the
take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering:
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these
components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also
been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above
which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed.
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 decibels (dB) re 1 micro pascal ([mu]Pa) root
mean square (rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving,
drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive
impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. For in-air sounds, NMFS predicts that pinnipeds exposed
above received levels of 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms) will be behaviorally
harassed.
The City's activities include the use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the
120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
The City's activities include the use of impulsive (impact pile
driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are
provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis, and methodology
used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016
Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/underwater-acoustic-thresholds-onset-permanent-and-temporary-threshold-shifts.
Table 2--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW); (Underwater).... Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds.
Level B Harassment
In-Air Disturbance during General Construction Activities--Level B
behavioral disturbance may occur incidental to the use of construction
equipment during general construction that is proposed in the dry,
above water, or inland within close proximity to the river banks. These
construction activities are associated with the removal and
construction of the rail superstructures, and the removal of the
existing concrete foundations and the 9th Street retaining wall.
Possible equipment includes an excavator, crane, dump truck, and chain
saw. It is estimated that the sound levels during these activities will
range from 78 to 93
[[Page 19247]]
dB (rms) at 20 meters (m) from the sound source, with the loudest
airborne noise produced by the use of a concrete saw (Hanan &
Associates, 2014). These noise levels are based on acoustic data
collected during the City of San Diego Lifeguard Station Demolition and
Construction Monitoring project. Using the Spherical Spreading Loss
Model (20logR), a maximum sound source level of 93 dB (rms) at 20 m,
sound levels in-air would attenuate below the 90dB (rms) Level B
harassment threshold for harbor seals at 28 m, and below the 100 dB
(rms) threshold for all other pinnipeds at 9 m. Harbor seals are only
present in the main river channel and are not expected to occur within
28 m of the activity and are therefore not expected to be harassed by
in-air sound. Additionally, the city will implement a 10 m shutdown
zone for all general construction work to prevent injury from physical
interaction with equipment. The City would therefore shut down
equipment before hauled out sea lions could be acoustically harassed by
the sound produced. No Level B harassment is expected to occur due to
increased sounds from railway and roadway construction. However, sea
lions may be disturbed by the presence of construction equipment and
increased human presence during above-water construction.
Although some piles may potentially be driven or removed in the dry
due to tidal conditions, the City assumed all pile driving and removal
will occur in water. The Level B harassment zone for in-water pile
driving and removal is greater than the airborne Level B harassment
zone so no airborne harassment is requested from pile driving or
removal. All harassment due to pile driving and removal is assumed to
be in-water.
In-Water Disturbance during Vibratory Pile Removal--Level B
behavioral disturbance may occur incidental to the use of a vibratory
hammer due to propagation of underwater noise during the removal of the
existing timber substructures. An estimated 255 timber piles will need
to be removed to facilitate construction of the three new crossings. It
is anticipated that the contractor will need to utilize a vibratory
hammer during extraction. Removal via vibratory hammer will result in
the greatest amount of underwater noise during construction and will be
the farthest reaching extent of aquatic impacts during pile removal
activities. We note that some pile removal will occur in the dry
(depending on tidal stage); however, we conservatively assumed all work
would occur in-water since it is not feasible to determine how many
piles would be removed in the dry. When piles are removed at lower
tidal stages, we do not anticipate sound to propagate as far or, in the
case of no water, at all.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) monitored
underwater noise during the removal of three 12-in timber dolphin piles
at Port Townsend (Laughlin 2011a). Most of the timber piles to be
removed in this project are 12-in but some may be up to 14-in. Average
noise levels during vibratory removal of the wood piles were measured
at 150 dB (rms) at 16 m from the source. The Practical Spreading Loss
Model (15logR) was used to calculate the in-water Level B harassment
zone during vibratory pile removal. Using a measurement of 150dB at 16
m, a 1,600 m Level B harassment zone (120 dB rms threshold) is expected
for vibratory pile removal activities. Based on the contours of the
shoreline and 1,600 m Level B harassment zone, a total of 4.5 square
kilometers (km\2\) is expected to be ensonified due to vibratory pile
removal (see Figure 10 in application) (Table 7).
In-Water Disturbance during Impact Pile Driving--Level B behavioral
disturbance may occur incidental to the use of an impact hammer due to
the propagation of underwater noise during the installation of
permanent and temporary steel piles. The City will install a total of
74 24-in and 10 16-in steel piles. The City used the sound source
levels from 24-in piles only to estimate the Level B harassment zone
due to pile driving as the sound source levels from 24-in piles are
greater than those of 16-in piles. The City will use the Level B
harassment zone created by installation of 24-in piles during the
installation of 16-in piles to be conservative.
Based on the most recent WSDOT data, the unmitigated sound pressure
level associated with impact pile driving 24-in steel piles is 194 dB
RMS at 10 m (WSDOT 2016). The contractor will be required to use a
bubble curtain device during impact pile driving in compliance with the
Federal Aid Highway Program (FAHP) Programmatic Biological Opinion,
which will be utilized for ESA coverage for listed salmonids. Use of a
bubble curtain device was assumed to decrease initial sound levels by
10 dB (Reyff, 2007), resulting in an initial sound pressure level (SPL)
of 184 dB RMS at 10 m from the source. Using the values from WSDOT in
the Practical Spreading Loss Model (15logR), the distance to the 160 dB
behavioral disturbance threshold is calculated to be 398 m from the
pile when a noise attenuation device is used (Table 3) as opposed to
1,848 m when a device is not used. The use of a noise attenuation
device would shrink the distance at which noise exceeds the thresholds
by approximately 80 percent, resulting in a significantly smaller area
of potential impact. With a 398 m Level B harassment zone, a total of
0.40 km\2\ is expected to be ensonified by impact pile driving (Figure
11 in application).
Table 3--Inputs and Resulting Distances to Level B Harassment Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propagation
Activity SL (distance Threshold level loss Level B Level B area
measured) coefficient isopleth (m) (km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile driving/ 150 dB (16 m)... 120 dB re 1 15 1,600 4.5
removal. [micro]Pa.
Impact pile driving (24-in 184 dB (10 m) 160 dB re 1 15 398 0.4
piles). \a\. [micro]Pa.
General Construction (in-air) 93 dB (20 m).... 100 dB re 20 20 9 m n/a
[micro]Pa \b\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Proxy SL with 10 dB reduction due to bubble curtain.
b 100 dB re 20 [micro]Pa airborne threshold applies only to sea lions. The distance to the 90 dB re 20[micro]Pa
applicable to harbor seals is 28 m but harbor seals are not expected to be harassed by airborne sound, as
described above.
Level A Harassment
When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition
of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically
challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new
thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine
mammal density or
[[Page 19248]]
occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the
assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate
that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some
degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A
take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate
isopleths when more sophisticated 3D-modeling methods are not
available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine
these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where
appropriate. For stationary sources (such as impact and vibratory pile
driving), NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which,
if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would not incur permanent threshold shift (PTS). Inputs
used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths are reported
below.
Table 4--PTS Isopleth Data for Vibratory Pile Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level (RMS SPL).................................. 150
Activity Duration (hours) within 24-hr period........... 8
Activity Duration (seconds)............................. 28,800
10 Log (Duration)....................................... 44.59
Propagation (xLogR)..................................... 15
Distance of source level measurement (m)................ 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Resulting PTS Isopleths for Vibratory Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phocid Otariid
pinnipeds pinnipeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELcum Threshold........................ 210 219
PTS Isopleth to Threshold (meters)...... 4.9 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--PTS Isopleth Data for Impact Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL)................... 168
(a) Number of strikes in 1 h OR (b) Number of strikes 250
per pile...............................................
(a) Activity Duration (h) within 24-h period OR (b) 4
Number of piles per day................................
Propagation (xLogR)..................................... 15
Distance of single strike SEL measurement (meters)...... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Resulting PTS Isopleths for Impact Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phocid Otariid
pinnipeds pinnipeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELcum Threshold........................ 185 203
PTS Isopleth to Threshold (m)........... 53.4 3.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting small PTS isopleths assume an animal would remain
stationary at that distance for the duration of the activity. Given the
extended durations and due to the relatively small distances to PTS
onset from each activity, and the mitigation measures (See
``Mitigation'') proposed by the City, Level A take is neither expected
nor authorized.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations.
In the Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 7680;
February 22, 2018), takes of marine mammals were estimated using counts
from 2000-2014 by WDFW at the South Jetty at the mouth of the Columbia
River. At the time of publication, these counts were believed to be the
best available data on pinniped occurrence in the lower Columbia River.
After publication of the Federal Register notice (83 FR 7680; February
22, 2018), NMFS learned of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) aerial surveys of pinnipeds at the East Mooring Basin
(approximately one mile upstream from the project site) and Desdemona
Sands (approximately one mile downstream from the project site).
Estimated takes of California sea lions were recalculated using data
generated by those surveys (ODFW; Bryan Wright, pers. comm., March
2018).
Aerial surveys of the East Mooring Basin in Astoria from 2011 to
2017 were used to calculate take of California sea lions. Maximum daily
counts of California sea lions at the East Mooring Basin ranged from 3
in July 2016 to 3,834 in March 2016. In addition to ODFW aerial
surveys, the City conducted opportunistic surveys of pinnipeds at the
bridge sites in December 2017. A maximum of four California sea lions
were observed in the water surrounding the bridges and piers.
Additional California sea lions were heard vocalizing from the
riverbanks under the bridges but the number of sea lions could not be
determined. A conservative estimate of 16 California sea lions per day
may be hauled out on the riverbanks and subject to harassment from
above-water construction work.
Counts of Steller sea lions at the East Mooring Basin typically
numbered in the single digits (B. Wright, pers. comm., March 2018).
However, there are typically dozens of Steller sea lions at the
Bonneville Dam and a few individuals at Willamette Falls. While the sea
lions observed at Bonneville and Willamette are often the same
individuals seen daily, these animals must transit past Astoria at some
point in their travels from the Pacific to the
[[Page 19249]]
upper Columbia River (B. Wright, pers. comm., March 2018).
Numbers of harbor seals hauled out at Desdemona Sands have been
reported to reach into the thousands (Profita 2015) but specific counts
were unavailable. Without counts of harbor seals closer to the project
site, the maximum average count of harbor seals at the South Jetty (57
seals; WDFW 2014) is used to calculate take.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
In the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 7680;
February 22, 2018), take of each species was calculated using average
counts of pinnipeds at the South Jetty (WDFW 2014). Average monthly
counts were multiplied by months of activity to determine the total
take estimation. During the public comment period, we received
information that although the WDFW counts were presented as average
number of pinnipeds per month, the numbers were actually daily counts
and therefore should have been multiplied by days of activity. The take
limits in the final authorization were calculated by multiplying
maximum counts of pinnipeds by days of activity.
Although three species of pinniped occur in the vicinity of the
project, they do not occur in equal numbers. Harbor seals and Steller
sea lions do not haul-out near the project area and would only be
harassed if they are transiting through the in-water Level B harassment
zone (1,600 m for vibratory pile removal, 398 m for impact pile
driving) at the time of pile driving. Because harbor seals and Steller
sea lions do not have the potential to be harassed when hauled-out (in-
air), they would only be harassed during the in-water work period
(November through February).
California sea lions are the most commonly observed marine mammal
in the area, and are known to haul out on the riverbanks and structures
near the bridges. California sea lions may be harassed by underwater
sound resulting from vibratory pile removal and impact pile driving (at
the distances listed above) as well as airborne sound resulting from
roadway and railway demolition and construction. As such, California
sea lions may be subject to both in-water and in-air sources of
harassment (October through April).
Using the highest sound source (concrete saw, 93 dBrms
re: 20 [micro]Pa at 20 m), the isopleth to Level B harassment from
airborne noise (100 dB re: 20 [micro]Pa) is 9 m. The City is proposing
a 10 m shutdown zone during all railway and roadway above-water
construction to prevent injury from physical interaction with equipment
(see ``Mitigation''). The City would therefore shut down equipment
before sea lions would be acoustically harassed by the sound produced
and no Level B acoustic harassment would occur. However, the City
anticipates that California sea lions hauled out on the banks of the
river in the vicinity of the construction work may be visually
disturbed by the presence of construction equipment and may flush,
resulting in Level B take. Therefore, we have authorized take of
California sea lions during the above-water work period (October 2018
and March-April 2019).
While harbor seals and Steller sea lions would only be harassed
during the in-water work period (November through February), California
sea lions may be harassed over the entire duration of the project
(October through April). To determine the estimated exposure and take
of harbor seals, the maximum average daily count of harbor seals at the
South Jetty (57 seals) was multiplied by planned days of in-water work
(80 days). Similarly, the maximum number of Steller sea lions observed
at the Bonneville Dam (63; USACE 2017) and Willamette Falls (4; ODFW
2017) were multiplied by 80 days of in-water work to account for the
maximum number of Steller sea lions likely to be in the Columbia River
transiting past Astoria each day (Table 8).
Table 8--Take Calculation of Harbor Seals and Steller Sea Lions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Days of Total take
Species count activity (Level B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal..................................................... \1\ 57 80 4,560
Steller sea lion................................................ \2\ 67 80 5,360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ WDFW 2014.
\2\ 63 sea lions at Bonneville Dam + 4 sea lions at Willamette Falls (USACE 2017; ODFW 2017).
Take of California sea lions was calculated by multiplying the
average maximum daily count per month by the days of activity in each
month (Table 9).
Table 9--Take Calculation of California Sea Lions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total takes
Month Daily average Days of work per month
maximum \1\ in month \2\ (Level B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October......................................................... 16 22 352
November........................................................ 141 20 2,817
December........................................................ 135 20 2,690
January......................................................... 408 21 8,577
February........................................................ 980 19 18,612
March........................................................... 16 21 336
April........................................................... 16 22 352
-----------------------------------------------
Total Takes................................................. .............. .............. 33,736
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ B. Wright, pers. comm.
\2\ Days of work excludes weekends and holidays.
[[Page 19250]]
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
General Construction Measures--All construction activities shall be
performed in accordance with the current Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) Standard Specifications for Construction, the
Contract Plans, and the Project Special Provisions. In addition, the
following general construction measures shall be adhered to:
All work below the highest measured tide shall be
completed during the ODFW prescribed in-water work period of November 1
through February 28;
All work shall be performed according to the requirements
and conditions of the regulatory permits issued by federal, state, and
local governments. Seasonal restrictions, i.e., work windows, shall be
applied to the Project to avoid or minimize potential impacts to listed
or proposed species based on agreement with, and the regulatory permits
issued by Department of State Lands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) in consultation with NMFS. The City shall comply with all
stipulations from the FAHP Biological Opinion for salmonids (i.e.,
using air bubble curtains);
The City shall have an inspector onsite during
construction. The role of the inspector is to ensure compliance with
the construction contract and other permits and regulations. The onsite
inspector shall also perform marine mammal monitoring duties when
protected species observers (PSOs) are not onsite (See Proposed
Monitoring section);
To ensure no contaminants enter the water, mobile heavy
equipment shall be stored in a staging area at least 150 ft from the
river or in an isolated hard zone. Equipment shall be inspected daily
for fluid leaks before leaving the staging area. Stationary equipment
operated within 150 ft of the river shall be maintained and protected
to prevent leaks and spills. Erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be
installed prior to initiating and construction activities; and
The contractor shall be responsible for the preparation of
a Pollution Control Plan (PCP). The PCP shall designate a professional
on-call spill response team, and identify all contractor activities,
hazardous substances used, and wastes generated. The PCP shall describe
how hazardous substances and wastes will be stored, used, contained,
monitored, disposed of, and documented.
Pile Removal and Installation BMPs--The following mitigation
measures shall be implemented to minimize disturbance during pile
removal and installation activities:
An air bubble system shall be employed during impact
installation unless the piles are driven on dry areas;
The contractor shall implement a soft-start procedure for
impact pile driving activities. The objective of a soft-start is to
provide a warning and/or give animals in close proximity to pile
driving a chance to leave the area prior to an impact driver operating
at full capacity, thereby exposing fewer animals to loud underwater and
airborne sounds. A soft-start procedure shall be used at the beginning
of each day that pile installation activities are conducted (i.e., for
impact driving, an initial set of three strikes would be made by the
hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one minute wait period, then
two subsequent 3-strike sets at 40 percent energy, with one minute
waiting periods, before initiating continuous driving);
Monitoring of marine mammals shall take place starting 30
minutes before construction begins until 30 minutes after construction
ends (See Proposed Monitoring);
Before beginning vibratory pile removal activities, the
City shall establish a 15 m shutdown zone to protect marine mammals
from Level A harassment;
Before beginning impact pile driving activities, the City
shall establish a 55 m shutdown zone to protect marine mammals from
Level A harassment;
Before beginning any in-water work (not including pile
driving/removal) and any above-water construction activities, the City
shall establish a 10 m Level A shutdown zone to prevent injury from
physical interaction with construction equipment;
The City shall shut down operations if a marine mammal is
sighted within or approaching the shutdown zone until the marine mammal
is sighted moving away from the shutdown zone, or if not sighted for 15
minutes after the shutdown;
If a species for which authorization has been not been
granted or for which authorization has been granted but the take limit
has been met approaches or enters the Level B harassment zone,
construction activity must cease and the City shall contact the Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS;
If the shutdown zone is obscured by poor lighting
conditions, pile driving shall not be initiated until the entire zone
is visible; and
In-water work shall only commence once observers have
declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has determined that the 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.
[[Page 19251]]
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 and to ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Monitoring
The following marine mammal monitoring measures are included in the
IHA.
(1) Protected Species Observers: The City shall employ two
qualified PSOs to monitor the extent of the Region of Activity for
marine mammals. Qualifications for marine mammal observers include:
a. Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discerning moving targets at the water's surface with
ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of binoculars is
necessary to correctly identify the target;
b. Advanced education (at least some college level course work) in
biological science, wildlife management, mammalogy, or related fields
(bachelor's degree or higher is preferred but not required);
c. Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds);
d. Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
e. 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;
f. Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect
data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience); and
g. Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations
that would include such information as the number and type of marine
mammals observed; the behavior of marine mammals in the project area;
dates and times when observations were conducted; dates and times when
in-water construction activities were conducted; and dates and times
when marine mammals were present at or within the defined Region of
Activity.
(2) Monitoring Schedule: PSOs shall be present onsite during IWW
construction activities as follows:
a. During vibratory pile removal activities:
i. Two NMFS qualified observers shall be onsite the first day of
removal at each bridge, one NMFS qualified observer shall be onsite
every third day thereafter.
ii. One NMFS qualified observer shall be stationed at the best
practicable land-based vantage point to observe the downstream portion
of the disturbance zone, and the other positioned at the best
practicable land-based vantage point to monitor the upstream portion of
the disturbance zone.
iii. When PSOs are not onsite, the contractor's onsite inspector
shall be trained in species identification and monitoring protocol, and
shall be onsite during all pile removal activities to ensure that no
species enter the 15 m shutdown zone.
b. During pile driving activities:
i. Two NMFS qualified observers shall be onsite the first two days
of pile driving at each bridge, and every third day thereafter.
ii. One NMFS observer shall be stationed at the best practicable
land-based vantage point to observe the downstream portion of the
disturbance and exclusion zones, and the other positioned at the best
practicable land-based vantage point to monitor the upstream portion of
the disturbance and exclusion zones.
iii. When PSOs are not onsite, the contractor's onsite inspector
shall be trained in species identification and monitoring protocol, and
shall be onsite during all pile driving activities to ensure that no
species enter the shutdown zone.
c. During in-water substructure demolition activities (not
including pile driving/removal) and above-water superstructure
demolition and construction activities:
i. One NMFS qualified observer shall be onsite once a week to
monitor the shutdown zone within 10 m of the construction site.
ii. When PSO is not on-site, the contractor's inspector shall be
trained in species identification and monitoring protocol, and shall be
onsite during all construction activities to ensure that no species
enter the 10 m shutdown zone during superstructure demolition and
construction activities.
(3) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall monitor marine mammal presence
within the shutdown zone and Level B harassment zones per the following
protocols:
a. A range finder or hand-held global positioning system device
shall be used by PSOs to ensure that the defined shutdown zones are
fully monitored and the Level B ZOIs monitored to the best extent
practicable.
b. A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring period
shall be required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the
day. A 30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring period
shall be required after the last pile driving or pile removal of the
day. If the contractor's personnel take a break between subsequent pile
driving or pile removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional pre-
construction marine mammal monitoring shall be required before the next
start-up of pile driving or pile removal.
c. If marine mammals are observed, the following information shall
be documented:
i. Species of observed marine mammals;
[[Page 19252]]
ii. Number of observed marine mammal individuals;
iii. Life stages of marine mammals observed;
iv. Behavioral habits, including feeding, of observed marine
mammals, in both presence and absence of activities;
v. Location within the Region of Activity; and
vi. Animals' reaction (if any) to pile driving activities or other
construction-related stressors including:
1. Impacts to the long-term fitness of the individual animal, if
any
2. Long-term impacts to the population, species, or stock (e.g.,
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival), if any
vii. Overall effectiveness of mitigation measures
d. During vibratory pule removal and impact driving, qualified PSOs
shall monitor the Level B harassment zones from the best practicable
land-based vantage point to observe the downstream and upstream
portions of the disturbance zone according to the above schedule.
e. PSOs shall use binoculars to monitor the Level B harassment
zone.
f. PSOs shall keep a running tally of takes of each marine mammal
species authorized by extrapolating the observed takes to the days when
monitoring did not occur. The City shall notify the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS if takes of any species come with five percent of the
take limits established in the IHA.
Reporting
(1) The City shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report
within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work. This report
shall detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded
during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may
have been harassed.
(2) If comments are received from the NMFS West Coast Regional
Administrator or NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft
report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days
thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report
will be considered to be the final report.
(3) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities
clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the
NMFS authorization, such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality),
the City shall immediately cease all operations and immediately report
the incident to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator,
(206) 526-4747. The report must include the following information:
a. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
b. Description of the incident;
c. Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
d. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);
e. Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
f. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved,
including life stage and the fate of the animal(s); and
g. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is
available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with the City to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Activities may not be
resumed until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(4) In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of injury or death
is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a
moderate state of decay as described in the next paragraph), the City
shall immediately report the incident to the Chief, Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must contain the
same information identified above. Activities may continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with the City
to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.
(5) In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), the City shall report the incident
to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators,
within 24 hours of the discovery. The City shall provide photographs or
video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded
animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The
City can continue its operations under such a case.
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 estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all
three species authorized to be taken by this project (California sea
lion, Steller sea lion, and harbor seal), given that the anticipated
effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are
expected to be similar. There is little information about the nature or
severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of
these species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for
this activity.
Authorized takes are expected to be limited to short-term Level B
harassment. Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area
and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief
disturbance (e.g., startle reaction, flushing) and avoidance of the
area from elevated noise levels during pile removal and installation
and railway superstructure construction. The project is not expected to
have a significant adverse effect on affected marine mammal habitat, as
discussed in
[[Page 19253]]
detail in the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section.
There is no critical habitat in the vicinity of the project and the
project activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal
habitat. The impacts to marine mammal habitat from the construction
actions are expected to be temporary and include increased human
activity and noise levels, minimal impacts to water quality, and
negligible changes in prey availability near the individual bridge
sites. The project may benefit marine mammal habitat by removing
several hundred treated timber piles from the Columbia River.
Impacts to pinnipeds are expected to be minor and temporary. The
area likely impacted by the construction is relatively small compared
to the available habitat in the river. Pinnipeds in the vicinity are
likely habituated to high levels of human activity as the Astoria
waterfront is a highly developed area. Exposures to elevated sound
levels produced during pile driving and removal activities may cause
behavioral responses by an animal, but they are expected to be minor
and temporary. Animals may become alert, avoid the area, leave the
area, or show no observable response. Given the short daily duration of
noise-generating activities and the limited season of in-water work,
any harassment would be temporary. For California and Steller sea
lions, sub-adult and adult males could be harassed during construction
activities. For harbor seals, sub-adult and adult males and/or females
could be harassed during construction activities. The project occurs
outside of known pupping periods for all species, and there are no
known rookeries within the region of activity. Therefore, no pups or
breeding adults are expected to be affected by the project activities.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No injury is anticipated or authorized;
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
In-water work is limited to a four-month period, and
likely only 80 days within that time;
No permanent effects to marine mammal habitat or prey is
expected;
Marine mammals are currently exposed to high human use
area and are likely habituated to disturbance;
Any impacts from the project are expected to result in
short-term, mild behavioral reactions such as avoidance or flushing;
There are no known important feeding, pupping, or other
areas of biological significance in the project area; and
The project affects only a small percentage of each stock
of marine mammal affected, and only in a limited portion of their
overall range.
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 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, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of
the activities.
Table 10--Authorized Pinniped Take, by Level B Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Percent of
take stock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Sea Lion..................... 33,736 11.4
Steller Sea Lion........................ 5,360 12.9
Harbor Seal............................. 4,560 18.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of instances of take of each stock proposed to be taken
as a result of this project is less than 20 percent of the total stock
(Table 10). Additionally, the number of takes requested is based on the
number of estimated exposures, not necessarily the number of
individuals exposed. Pinnipeds may remain in the general area of the
project sites and the same individuals may be harassed multiple times
over multiple days, rather than numerous individuals harassed once.
Therefore, the percent of stock may be less since the numbers
represented in Table 10 assume distinct individuals.
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 finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the
affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the NMFS West Coast Region
Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize
take for endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected
to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that
formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this
action.
[[Page 19254]]
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the
City for the harassment of small numbers of California sea lions,
Steller sea lions, and Pacific harbor seals incidental to construction
activities related to bridge replacements in Astoria, Oregon, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: April 26, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-09238 Filed 5-1-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P