[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23643-23657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10871]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XG219
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project in
Seattle, Washington
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed incidental harassment authorization (IHA); request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle,
Washington. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to incidentally
take marine mammals during the specified activities.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 21,
2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments 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: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. 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 online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111 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: Shane Guan, 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 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 to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt,
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
National Environmental Policy Act
Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5)(D) authorization requires compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NMFS preliminary determined the issuance of the proposed IHA is
consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 (issuance
of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated) of NOAA's 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 under NEPA.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to making a final decision as to whether application of this CE
is appropriate in this circumstance.
Summary of Request
On November 21, 2017, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting
an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of marine mammal
species incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in
Seattle, Washington, from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019. After
receiving the revised project description and the revised IHA
application, NMFS determined that the IHA application is adequate and
complete on April 4, 2018. NMFS is proposing to authorize the take by
Level A and Level B harassments of the following marine mammal species:
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris); California sea lion (Zalophus californianus); Steller
sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); killer whale (Orcinus orca); long-beaked
common dolphin (Delphinus capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata);
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); and Dall's porpoise (P. dalli).
Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued an IHA to WSDOT for the first year of this
project (FR 21579; July 7, 2017). WSDOT
[[Page 23644]]
complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their
monitoring results may be found in the Estimated Take section.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The purpose of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock is to
preserve the transportation function of an aging, deteriorating and
seismically deficient facility to continue providing safe and reliable
service. The project will also address existing safety concerns related
to conflicts between vehicles and pedestrian traffic and operational
inefficiencies.
Dates and Duration
Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water
work timing restrictions to protect ESA-listed salmonids, planned WSDOT
in-water construction is limited each year to July 16 through February
15.
Specified Geographic Region
The Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock, serving State Route 519,
is located on the downtown Seattle waterfront, in King County,
Washington. The terminal services vessels from the Bainbridge Island
and Bremerton routes, and is the most heavily used terminal in the
Washington State Ferry system. The Seattle terminal is located in
Section 6, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, and is adjacent to Elliott
Bay, tributary to Puget Sound (Figure 1-2 of the IHA application). Land
use in the area is highly urban, and includes business, industrial, the
Port of Seattle container loading facility, residential, the Pioneer
Square Historic District and local parks.
Detailed Description of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock:
Year 2
The project will reconfigure the Colman Dock while maintaining
approximately the same vehicle holding capacity as current conditions.
The construction began in August 2017. In the 2017-2018 season, the
construction activities were focused on the South Trestle, Terminal
Building Foundation, and the temporary and permanent Passenger
Offloading Facility.
In the 2018-2019 season, WSDOT plans to continue the project by
constructing the North Trestle, and Slip 3 bridge seat, overhead
loading, wingwall, and inner dolphin. Both impact pile driving and
vibratory pile driving and pile removal would be conducted. A total of
37 days are estimated for pile driving and 77 days for pile removal.
In-water construction methods include:
Installing 119 36-inch (in) permanent steel piles with a
vibratory hammer, and then proofed with an impact hammer for the last
5-10 feet;
Installing six 36-in and (8) 30-in steel piles with a
vibratory hammer;
Installing one 108-in steel pile with a vibratory hammer;
Removing all existing 12-in steel, 14-in timber, 14-in H,
24-in steel and 30-in steel piles with a vibratory hammer;
Installing and then removing eight 24-in Slip 3 Overhead
loading temporary piles with a vibratory hammer; and
Installing and then removing 147 24-in temporary template
piles with a vibratory hammer.
A list of pile driving and removal activities is provided in Table
1.
Table 1--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving and Removal Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile size Duration
Method Pile type (inch) Pile number Piles/day Minutes/pile (days)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive...................... Steel (temporary)...... 24 147 8 20...................... 18
Vibratory drive...................... Steel (Slip 3)......... 24 8 8 20...................... 1
Vibratory drive...................... Steel.................. 30 8 8 20...................... 1
Vibratory drive...................... Steel.................. 36 6 6 20...................... 1
Vibratory drive *.................... Steel.................. 36 119 8 20...................... 15
Impact drive (proof) *............... Steel.................. 36 119 8 300 strikes............. 15
Vibratory drive...................... Steel.................. 108 1 1 120..................... 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................... ....................... .............. .............. .............. ........................ 37
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory remove..................... Timber................. 14 925 20 15...................... 47
Vibratory remove..................... Steel.................. 12 22 11 20...................... 2
Vibratory remove..................... Steel H................ 14 19 10 20...................... 2
Vibratory remove..................... Steel.................. 24 35 8 20...................... 5
Vibratory remove..................... Steel (Slip 3)......... 24 8 8 20...................... 1
Vibratory remove..................... Steel (temporary)...... 24 147 8 20...................... 19
Vibratory remove..................... Steel.................. 30 1 1 20...................... 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................... ....................... .............. .............. .............. ........................ 77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These two activities occur on the same day.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see ``Proposed
Mitigation'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting'').
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical
and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the lower Puget Sound area and summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a
[[Page 23645]]
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious
injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as
gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For harbor seal Washington northern inland waters
stock, the abundance is based on radio-tagging studies conducted at
three Washington inland waters with correcting factors described in the
2016 SARs (Jefferies et al., 2003; Carretta et al., 2017). For some
species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All
managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's 2016 U.S. Pacific
Draft Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta et al., 2017). All values presented
in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 2017); and draft 2017
SARs (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
Table 2--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific.. N 20,990................ 624 132
Family Balaenopteridae:
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaneagliae. California/Oregon/ Y 1,918................. 11.0 >6.5
Washington.
Minke whale..................... Balaenoptera California/Oregon/ N 636................... 3.5 >1.3
acutorostrata. Washington.
Family Delphinidae:
Killer whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Eastern N. Pacific Y 81.................... 0.14 0
Southern resident.
West coast transient... N 243................... 2.4 0
Long-beaked common dolphin...... Delphinus capensis..... California............. N 101,305............... 657 >35.4
Bottlenose dolphin.............. Tursiops truncatus..... California/Oregon/ N 1,924................. 198 >0.84
Washington offshore.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Washington inland N 11,233................ 66 7.2
waters.
Dall's porpoise................. P. dali................ California/Oregon/ N 25,750................ 172 0.3
Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California sea lion............. Zalophus californianus. U.S.................... N 296,750............... 9,200 389
Steller sea lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern U.S............ N 71,562................ 2,498 108
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Washington northern N \4\ 11,036............ 1,641 43
inland waters.
Northern elephant seal.......... Mirounga angustirostris California breeding.... N 179,000............... 4,882 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\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.
\4\ Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here (Jefferies et al., 2003;
Carretta et al., 2017).
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 2. However, the temporal and/or spatial
occurrence of humpback whale and Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW)
and the implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures are such
that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further
beyond the explanation provided here. The occurrence of humpback whale
in the WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal Project area is considered
extralimital, and WSDOT's 2017 monitoring report showed no sighting of
this species. Although the SRKW could occur in the vicinity of the
project area, WSDOT proposes to implement strict monitoring and
mitigation measures with assistance from local marine mammal
researchers and observers. Thus, the take of this marine mammal stock
can be avoided (see details in Proposed Mitigation section).
In addition, the sea otter may be found in Puget Sound area
However, this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and are not considered further in this document.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species
[[Page 23646]]
have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et
al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional
hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges
on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived
using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing
ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing
ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold
from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower
limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to
be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al.
(2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated frequencies
are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges correspond to the
range for the composite group, with the entire range not necessarily
reflecting the capabilities of every species within that group):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35
kilohertz (kHz);
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz;
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from
Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid
species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of
hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al.,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information.
Twelve marine mammal species (8 cetacean and 4 pinniped (2 otariid and
2 phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the
proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean
species that may be present, two species are classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., gray whale and humpback whale), two are
classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and
Dall's porpoise), and the rest of them mid-frequency cetaceans.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section
later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity.
The ``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section will
consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed Mitigation''
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of 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.
Potential impacts to marine mammals from the proposed Bremerton and
Edmonds ferry terminals dolphin relocation project are from noise
generated during in-water pile driving and pile removal activities.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal
hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
The WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal Project using in-water pile driving
and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal species and
stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the
activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift
(TS)--an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise
(Finneran et al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold
shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal
pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of
hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following
cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of TS just after exposure
is the initial TS. If the TS eventually returns to zero (i.e., the
threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is a temporary
threshold shift (TTS) (Southall et al., 2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced TS. An animal
can experience TTS or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last
from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can
occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a
temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and
10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's
hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced
by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can
also occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above
for TTS.
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise (Finneran, 2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to
measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California
sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b).
Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing
it to airgun noise with a received sound pressure level (SPL) at 200.2
dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 micropascal ([mu]Pa), which corresponds to a
sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa\2\ s after integrating
exposure. Because the airgun noise is a broadband impulse, one cannot
directly determine the equivalent of root mean square (rms) SPL from
the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative
conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys
(McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-
[[Page 23647]]
to-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms
SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, and the
received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be
higher. Therefore, based on these studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS of
harbor porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically
tested (Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and
Jennings, 2012).
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note,
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall
et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-
intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions
(Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as
from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals
such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental
sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain
circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment
are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize.
Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly
concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high
frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However,
lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of
communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such
as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when
they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space
of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels
(e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects
both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent
science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased
by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms ofSPL) in the
world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases
are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). For WSDOT's dolphin
relocation project, noises from vibratory pile driving and pile removal
contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels in the project area,
thus increasing potential for or severity of masking. Baseline ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of project area are high due to ongoing
shipping, construction and other activities in the Puget Sound.
Finally, marine mammals' exposure to certain sounds could lead to
behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), such as changing
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g.,
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises
(such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for
continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the WSDOT's
Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Ferry Terminal, both 120-dB and
160-dB levels are considered for effects analysis because WSDOT plans
to use both impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile
removal.
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity,
duration, and context of the effects.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile
removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts
to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of
sound (such as noise from impact pile driving) rather than continuous
signals (such as noise from vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al.,
1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal
intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the
same level.
During the coastal construction, only a small fraction of the
available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to
fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the
[[Page 23648]]
proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on marine
mammals' prey availability in the area where construction work is
planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid
the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to noise generated from vibratory pile driving
and removal. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated
effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown measures--
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 authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering:
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these
components in more detail and present the take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (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.
Applicant's proposed activity includes the generation of impulse
(impact pile driving) and non-impulse (vibratory pile driving and
removal) sources; and, therefore, both 160- and 120-dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) are used.
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).
Applicant's proposed activity would generate and non-impulsive
(vibratory pile driving and pile removal) noises. These thresholds were
developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and
soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers
to inform the final product and are provided in the table below. The
references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the
thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be
accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
Table 3--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Non-Explosive Sound Underwater
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds Behavioral thresholds
Hearing group ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans. Lpk,flat: 219 LE,LF,24h: 199 Lrms,flat: 160 dB..... Lrms,flat: 120 dB.
dB; LE,LF,24h: dB.
183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans. Lpk,flat: 230 LE,MF,24h: 198
dB; LE,MF,24h: dB.
185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans Lpk,flat: 202 LE,HF,24h: 173
dB; LE,HF,24h: dB.
155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Lpk,flat: 218 LE,PW,24h: 201
(Underwater). dB; LE,PW,24h: dB.
185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Lpk,flat: 232 LE,OW,24h: 219
(Underwater). dB; LE,OW,24h: dB.
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.
[[Page 23649]]
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.
Source Levels
The source level for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24-
and 30-in steel pile is based on vibratory pile driving of the 30-in
steel pile at Port Townsend (WSDOT, 2010). The unweighted
SPLrms source level at 10 meters (m) from the pile is 174 dB
re 1 re 1 [mu]Pa.
The source level for vibratory pile driving of the 36-in steel
piles is based on vibratory test pile driving of 36-in steel piles at
Port Townsend in 2010 (Laughlin 2011). Recordings of vibratory pile
driving were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile. The results show
that the unweighted SPLrms for vibratory pile driving of 36-
in steel pile was 177 dB re 1 [mu]Pa.
The source level for vibratory pile driving of the 108-in steel
pile is based on measurements of 72-in steel piles vibratory driving
conducted by CALTRANS. The unweighted SPLrms source level
ranged between 170 and 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa at 10 m from the pile
(CALTRANS 2015). The value of 180 dB is chosen to be more conservative.
The source level for impact pile driving of the 36-in steel pile is
based on impact test pile driving for the 36-in steel pile at Mukilteo
in November 2006 (WSDOT 2007). Recordings of the impact pile driving
that were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile were analyzed using
Matlab. The results show that the unweighted source levels are 178 dB
re 1 [micro]Pa\2\-s for SELss and 193 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for
SPLrms. The peak source level for impact pile driving of the
36-in steel pile is based on measurement conducted by CALTRANS for the
same type and dimension of the pile, which is 210 dBpk re 1
[micro]Pa.
The source level for vibratory pile removal of 14-in timber pile is
based measurements conducted at the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal during
vibratory removal of a 12-in timber pile by WSDOT (Laughlin 2011). The
recorded source level is 152 dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa at 16 m
from the pile, with an adjusted source level of 155 dBrms re
1 [micro]Pa at 10 m.
The source levels for vibratory pile removal of 12-in steel and 14-
in steel H piles are based on vibratory pile driving of 12-in steel
pipe pile measured by CALTRANS. The unweighted source level is 155
dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa at 10 m.
A summary of source levels is presented in Table 4.
Table 4--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving Source Levels
[At 10 m from source]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEL, dB re 1 SPLrms, dB re SPLpk, dB re 1
Method Pile type/size (inch) [micro]Pa\2\-s 1 [micro]Pa [micro]Pa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving/removal............. Steel, 24-in............ 174 174
Vibratory driving/removal............. Steel, 30-in............ 174 174
Vibratory driving..................... Steel, 36-in............ 177 177
Impact pile driving (proof)........... Steel, 36-in............ 178 193 210
Vibratory driving..................... Steel, 108-in........... 180 180
Vibratory removal..................... Timber, 14-in........... 155 155
Vibratory removal..................... Steel, 12-in............ 155 155
Vibratory removal..................... Steel H, 14-in.......... 155 155
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These source levels are used to compute the Level A injury zones
and to estimate the Level B harassment zones. For Level A harassment
zones, since the peak source levels for both pile driving are below the
injury thresholds, cumulative SEL were used to do the calculations
using the NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016).
Estimating Harassment Zones
The Level B harassment ensonified areas for vibratory removal of
the 14-in timber, 12-in steel, 14-in steel H, and 18-in concrete piles
are based on the above source level of 155 dBrms re 1
[micro]Pa at 10 m, applying practical spreading loss of 15*log(R) for
transmission loss calculation. The derived distance to the 120-dB Level
B zone is 2,175 m.
For Level B harassment ensonified areas for vibratory pile driving
and removal of the 24-in, 30-in, 36-in, and 108-in steel piles, the
distance is based on measurements conducted during the year 1 Seattle
multimodal project at Colman. The result showed that pile driving noise
of two 36-in steel piles being concurrently driven was no longer
detectable at a range of 5.4 miles (8.69 km) (WSDOT 2017). Therefore,
the distance of 8,690 m is selected as the Level B harassment distance
for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24-in, 30-in, 36-in and
108-in steel piles.
The Level B harassment ensonified area for impact pile driving of
the 36-in steel piles is based on the above source level of 193
dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa at 10 m, applying practical spreading
loss of 15*log(R) for transmission loss calculation. The derived
distance to the 160-dB Level B zone is 1,585 m.
For Level A harassment, calculation is based on pile driving
duration of each pile and the number of piles installed or removed per
day, using NMFS optional spreadsheet.
[[Page 23650]]
Table 5--Modeled Distances and Areas to Harassment Zones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SL (10m) Level A distance (m) Level A area (km\2\) Level B
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ distance (m)
Level A area
Pile driving activity (km\2\)
SEL LF Cetacean MF Cetacean HF Cetacean Phocid Otariid ---------------
All marine
mammals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive/removal, 24'' & 30'' 174 96.7 8.6 143.0 58.8 4.1 8,690
steel piles, 8 piles/day, 20 min/pile..
0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.29
Vibratory removal 30'' steel pile, 1 174 24.2 2.1 35.7 14.7 1.0 8,960
pile/day, 20 min/pile..................
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.29
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile, 8 piles/ 177 126.4 11.2 186.9 76.8 5.4 8,960
day, 20 min/pile.......................
0.05 0.00 0.11 0.02 0.00 74.29
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile, 8 piles/ 177 153.3 13.6 226.6 93.2 6.5 8,960
day, 20 min/pile.......................
0.07 0.00 0.16 0.03 0.00 74.29
Impact drive (proof) 36'' steel pile, 8 178 432.1 15.4 514.7 231.2 16.8 1,585
piles/day, 300 strikes/pile............
0.59 0.00 0.83 0.17 0.00 7.89
Vibratory drive 108'' steel pile, 1 pile/ 180 200.3 17.8 296.2 121.8 8.5 8,690
day, 120 min/pile......................
0.13 0.00 0.28 0.05 0.00 74.29
Vibratory remove 14'' timber pile, 20 155 8.0 0.7 11.8 4.8 0.3 2,175
piles/day, 15 min/pile.................
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.85
Vibratory remove 12'' steel pile, 11 155 6.5 0.6 9.6 3.9 0.3 2,175
piles/day, 20 min/pile.................
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.85
Vibratory remove 14'' steel H pile, 10 155 6.1 0.5 9.0 3.7 0.3 2,175
piles/day, 20 min/pile.................
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distances of ensonified area for different pile driving/removal
activities for different marine mammal hearing groups is present in
Table 5.
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.
All marine mammal density data except harbor seal, California sea
lion, harbor porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, and short-beaked common
dolphin are from the U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Report. For
harbor seal and California sea lion, because WSDOT has better local
distribution data based on recent survey in the area, local animal
abundance are used to calculate the take numbers. Specifically, the
occurrence of these two species are based on local seal abundance
information off the Seattle area from Year One (2017/18) of WSDOT's
Seattle Colman Project.
For bottlenose dolphin and short-beaked common dolphin, no density
estimate is available. Therefore, take numbers for these two species
are based on prior anecdotal observations and strandings in the action
area (Shuster et al., 2015; Huggins et al., 2016).
Harbor porpoise density is based on a recent study by Jefferson et
al. (2016) for the Seattle area near the Colman Dock.
A summary of marine mammal density, days and Level A and Level B
harassment areas from different pile driving and removal activities is
provided in Table 6.
Table 6--Marine Mammal Density and Local Occurrence in the WSDOT Project
Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (#/km\2\) or animals/
Species day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale................................ 0.0051/km\2\.
Humpback whale............................ 0.0007/km\2\.
Minke whale............................... 0.00003/km\2\.
Killer whale (West coast transient)....... 0.002/km\2\.
Bottlenose dolphin........................ NA.
Short-beaked common dolphin............... NA.
Harbor porpoise........................... 0.69/km\2\.
Dall's porpoise........................... 0.048/km\2\.
California sea lion....................... 11 animals/day.
Steller sea lion.......................... 0.04/km\2\.
Harbor seal............................... 8 animals/day.
Northern elephant seal.................... 0.00001/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23651]]
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
For all other marine mammals, takes were calculated as: Take =
ensonified area x average animal abundance in the area x pile driving
days. All Level A takes were further adjusted by subtract animals that
would occur within the Level A harassment zone (except for harbor seal
where a 60-m shutdown zone would be implemented), where pile driving
activities that could cause Level A injury for all marine mammals,
except harbor seal, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise, would be
suspended when an animal is observed to approach such a zone. Further,
the number of Level B takes were adjusted to exclude those already
counted for Level A takes.
The harbor seal take estimate is based on local seal abundance
information off the Seattle area from Year One (2017/18) of WSDOT's
Seattle Colman Project. During 99 days of marine mammal visual
monitoring, 813 harbor seals were observed, an average of 8 animals/
day, with a one-day high of 43 observations on 10/24/17 (WSDOT 2018b).
Based on a total of 114 pile driving days for the WSDOT Seattle Colman
Dock project, it is estimated that up to 912 harbor seals could be
exposed to noise levels associated with ``take''. Since 17 days would
involve vibratory/impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles (16 days)
and vibratory driving of and 108-in steel pile (1 day) with Level A
zones beyond shutdown zones (231 m and 122 m, respectively, vs. the 60-
m shutdown zone), we consider that 136 harbor seals exposed during
these 17 days would experience Level A harassment.
The California sea lion take estimate is also based on local sea
lion abundance information from the Seattle Colman Project). During 99
days of marine mammal visual monitoring 1,047 California sea lions were
observed, an average of 11 animals/day, with a one-day high of 48
observations on 1/8/2018. (WSDOT 2018b). Based on a total of 114 pile
driving days for the WSDOT Seattle Colman Dock project, it is estimated
that up to 1,254 California sea lions could be exposed to noise levels
associated with ``take''. Since the Level A zones of otariids are all
very small (<17 m, Table 5), we do not consider it likely that any sea
lions would be taken by Level A harassment. Therefore, all California
sea lion takes estimated here are expected to be taken by Level B
harassment.
The Common bottlenose dolphin estimate is based on sightings data
from Cascadia Research Collective. Between September 2017 and March
2018, a group of up to five to six individuals was sighted in South
Puget Sound (CRC 2017/18). It is assumed that this group is still
present in the area.
Given how rare Common bottlenose dolphins are in the area, it is
unlikely they would be present on a daily basis. Instead it is assumed
that they may be present in the Level B harassment zone once a month
during the in-water work window (7 months), and adjusted for potential
group size of 5-10 individuals with an average of 7 animals per group.
The Long-beaked Common dolphin estimate is based on sightings data
from Cascadia Research Collective. Four to six Long-beaked Common
dolphins have remained in Puget Sound since June 2016, and four animals
with distinct markings have been seen multiple times and in every
season of the year as of October 2017 (CRC 2017).
Given how rare Long-beaked Common dolphins are in the area, it is
unlikely they would be present on a daily basis. Instead it is assumed
that they may be present in the Level B harassment zone once a month
during the in-water work window (7 months), and adjusted for potential
group size of 5-10 individuals with an average of 7 animals per group.
For calculated take number less than 15, such as northern elephant
seals, transient killer whales, minke whales, long-beaked common
dolphins, and bottlenose dolphins, takes numbers were adjusted to
account for group encounter and the likelihood of encountering.
Specifically, for northern elephant seal, take of 15 animals is
estimated based on the likelihood of encountering this species during
the project period. For transient killer whale, takes of 30 animals is
estimated based on the group size and the likelihood of encountering in
the area. For minke whale, takes of 8 animals each are estimated based
on the likelihood of encountering. For long-beaked common dolphin, and
bottlenose dolphin, take of 50 animals is estimated based on the group
size and the likelihood of encountering in the area.
For SRKWs, WSDOT will implement strict monitoring and mitigation
measures and to suspend pile driving activities when such animal is
detected in the vicinity of the action area (see Proposed Mitigation
section below).
A summary of estimated takes based on the above analysis is listed
in Table 7.
Table 7--Estimated Take Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Species Level A take Level B take total take Abundance Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific harbor seal............. 132 780 912 11,036 8
Northern elephant seal.......... 0 15 15 81,368 0
California sea lion............. 0 1,254 1,254 296,750 0
Steller sea lion................ 0 232 232 67,290 0
Killer whale, transient......... 0 30 30 243 12
Killer whale, Southern Resident. 0 0 0 84 0
Gray whale...................... 0 30 30 20,990 0
Humpback whale.................. 0 8 8 1,918 0
Minke whale..................... 0 8 8 202 2
Harbor porpoise................. 12 3,985 3,997 11,233 *36
Dall's porpoise................. 1 277 278 25,750 1
Long-beaked common dolphin...... 0 49 49 101,305 0
Bottlenose dolphin.............. 0 49 49 1,921 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The percentage of individual harbor porpoises take is estimated to be notably smaller than this, as described
in the ``Small Numbers'' section.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds,
[[Page 23652]]
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
1. Time Restriction
Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring
of marine mammals can be conducted.
2. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, and
Shutdown Zones
WSDOT shall establish shutdown zones that encompass the distances
within which marine mammals could be taken by Level A harassment (see
Table 7 above) except for harbor seal. For Level A harassment zones
that is less than 10 m from the source, a minimum of 10 m distance
should be established as a shutdown zone. For harbor seal, a maximum of
60 m shutdown zone would be implemented if the actual Level A
harassment zone exceeds 60 m. This is because there are a few
habituated harbor seals that repeated occur within the larger Level A
zone, which makes implementing a shutdown zone larger than 60 m
infeasible.
A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 8.
Table 8--Shutdown Zones for Various Pile Driving Activities and Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury zone (m)
Pile type, size & pile driving -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
method LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive/removal, 24'' & 97 10 143 59 10
30'' steel piles, 8 piles/day,
20 min/pile....................
Vibratory removal 30'' steel 24 10 36 15 10
pile, 1 pile/day, 20 min/pile..
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile, 126 11 187 60 10
8 piles/day, 20 min/pile.......
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile, 153 14 227 60 10
8 piles/day, 20 min/pile.......
Impact drive (proof) 36'' steel 432 15 515 60 17
pile, 8 piles/day, 300 strikes/
pile...........................
Vibratory drive 108'' steel 200 18 296 60 10
pile, 1 pile/day, 120 min/pile.
Vibratory remove 14'' timber 10 10 12 10 10
pile, 20 piles/day, 15 min/pile
Vibratory remove 12'' steel 10 10 10 10 10
pile, 11 piles/day, 20 min/pile
Vibratory remove 14'' steel H
pile, 10 piles/day, 20 min/pile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSDOT shall also establish a Zone of Influence (ZOI) based on the
Level B harassment zones for take monitoring where received underwater
SPLs are higher than 160 dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa for impulsive
noise sources (impact pile driving) and 120 dBrms re 1
[micro]Pa for non-impulsive noise sources (vibratory pile driving and
pile removal).
NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSO) shall conduct an
initial 30-minute survey of the exclusion zones to ensure that no
marine mammals are seen within the zones before pile driving and pile
removal of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within
the exclusion zone, pile driving of the segment would be delayed until
they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and
then dives below, the contractor would wait 15 minutes. If no marine
mammals are seen by the observer in that time it can be assumed that
the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a
marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to
commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the pile
driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and
continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until
the marine mammal has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have
elapsed since the last sighting.
3. Soft-Start
A ``soft-start'' technique is intended to allow marine mammals to
vacate the area before the impact pile driver reaches full power.
Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact
pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up
procedures described below.
Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an
initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent
three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at
the beginning of impact pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for
more than 30 minutes.
4. Shutdown Measures
WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is
detected within an exclusion zone or is about to enter an exclusion
zone listed in Tables 8.
WSDOT shall also implement shutdown measures if SRKWs are sighted
within the vicinity of the project
[[Page 23653]]
area and are approaching the ZOI during in-water construction
activities.
If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or
removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer
whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the
shutdown measure.
If a SRKW or an unidentified killer whale enters the ZOI
undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall be suspended
until the whale exits the ZOI to avoid further level B harassment.
Further, WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of
authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the
IHA and if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the
project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during in-
water construction activities.
5. Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network
Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the Orca Network
and/or Center for Whale Research will be contacted by WSDOT to find out
the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings
Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents,
scientists, and government agency personnel in the U.S. and Canada.
Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately
distributed to other sighting networks including: The NMFS Northwest
Fisheries Science Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia
Research, the Whale Museum Hotline and the British Columbia Sightings
Network.
Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes
detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a
system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine
environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca
communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology and local climatic
conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center
measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects
unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to
hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic
network, combined with the volunteer (incidental) visual sighting
network allows researchers to document presence and location of various
marine mammal species.
With this level of coordination in the region of activity, WSDOT
will be able to get real-time information on the presence or absence of
whales before starting any pile driving.
Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the prescribed mitigation measures
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed 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.
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.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal
monitoring for its dolphin relocation project at Bremerton and Edmonds
ferry terminals. The purposes of marine mammal monitoring are to
implement mitigation measures and learn more about impacts to marine
mammals from WSDOT's construction activities. The PSOs will observe and
collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30
minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and
pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required;
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer;
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree
in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an
observer; and
5. NMFS Will Require Submission and Approval of Observer CVs
Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be
conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power).
Due to the different sizes of ZOI from different pile types, three
different ZOIs and different monitoring protocols corresponding to a
specific pile type will be established.
For Level B harassment zones with radii less than 1,600 m,
3 PSOs will be monitoring from land.
For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 1,600
m but smaller than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land.
For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 2,500
m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land with an additional 1 PSO
monitoring from a ferry.
6. PSOs Shall Collect the Following Information During Marine Mammal
Monitoring
Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for
each day conducted (monitoring period);
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
[[Page 23654]]
Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile
types, average driving times, etc.;
Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea
state, tide state);
For each marine mammal sighting:
[cir] Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
[cir] Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
[cir] Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
and
[cir] Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the
Level B zone;
Description of implementation of mitigation measures
within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay);
Other human activity in the area within each monitoring
period
To verify the required monitoring distance, the exclusion zones and
ZOIs will be determined by using a range finder or hand-held global
positioning system device.
WSDOT will conduct noise field measurement to determine the actual
Level B distance from the source during vibratory pile driving. If the
actual Level B harassment distance is less than modelled, the number of
PSOs will be adjusted based on the criteria listed above.
Reporting Measures
WSDOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90
days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the
IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. In the case if WSDOT intends
to renew the IHA (if issued) in a subsequent year, a monitoring report
should be submitted 60 days before the expiration of the current IHA
(if issued). This report would detail the monitoring protocol,
summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number
of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would have an
opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if NMFS has
comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a final report to
NMFS within 30 days.
In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS' Office of
Protected Resources and NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within
48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the
construction site. WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the Stranding Network
with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the
animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and
photo or video (if available).
In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that
is not in the construction area, WSDOT would report the same
information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., 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' 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, this introductory discussion of our analyses
applies to all the species listed in Table 7, given that the
anticipated effects of WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal at Colman Dock
project involving pile driving and pile removal on marine mammals are
expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information
about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or
structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different
analysis by species for this activity, or else species-specific factors
would be identified and analyzed.
Although a few marine mammals (132 harbor seals, 12 harbor
porpoises, and 1 Dall's porpoise) are estimated to experience Level A
harassment in the form of PTS if they stay within the Level A
harassment zone during the entire pile driving for the day, the degree
of injury is expected to be mild and is not likely to affect the
reproduction or survival of the individual animals. It is expected
that, if hearing impairments occurs, most likely the affected animal
would lose a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is
not likely to affect its survival and recruitment. Hearing impairment
that occur for these individual animals would be limited to the
dominant frequency of the noise sources, i.e., in the low-frequency
region below 2 kHz. Therefore, the degree of PTS is not likely to
affect the echolocation performance of the two porpoise species, which
use frequencies mostly above 100 kHz. Nevertheless, for all marine
mammal species, it is known that in general animals avoid areas where
sound levels could cause hearing impairment. Therefore, it is not
likely that an animal would stay in an area with intense noise that
could cause severe levels of hearing damage. In addition, even if an
animal receives a TTS, the TTS would be a one-time event from the
exposure, making it unlikely that the TTS would evolve into PTS.
Furthermore, Level A take estimates are based on the assumption that
the animals are randomly distributed in the project area and would not
avoid intense noise levels that could cause TTS or PTS. In reality,
animals tend to avoid areas where noise levels are high (Richardson et
al., 1995). Nonetheless, we evaluate the estimated take in this
negligible impact analysis.
For these species except harbor seal, harbor porpoise and Dall's
porpoise, takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be
limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral and TTS). Marine
mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B
harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle
reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during
pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise. A few marine
mammals could experience TTS if they occur within the Level B TTS ZOI.
However, as discussed earlier in this document, TTS is a temporary loss
of hearing sensitivity when exposed to loud sound, and the hearing
threshold is expected to recover completely
[[Page 23655]]
within minutes to hours. Therefore, it is not considered an injury.
Portions of the SRKW is within the proposed action area. However,
WSDOT would be required to implement strict mitigation measures to
suspend pile driving or pile removal activities when this stock is
detected in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the potential
effects to SRKW would be fully mitigated. There is no other important
areas for marine mammals, such as know important feeding, pupping, or
other areas.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in
the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' subsection. There
is no ESA designated critical area in the vicinity of the Seattle
Multimodal Project at Colman Dock area. The project activities would
not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities
may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily,
thus impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited
portion of the foraging range. However, because of the short duration
of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may
be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given
the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species
and their physical environment, WSDOT's proposed construction activity
at Colman Dock would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
Injury--only 3 species of marine mammals would experience
Level A affects in the form of mild PTS, which is expected to be of
small degree.
Behavioral disturbance--twelve species/stocks of marine
mammals would experience behavioral disturbance and TTS from the
WSDOT's Seattle Colman Dock project. However, as discussed earlier, the
area to be affected is small and the duration of the project is short.
Although portion of the SWKR critical habitat is within the project
area, strict mitigation measures such as implementing shutdown measures
and suspending pile driving will mitigate such effects. No other
important habitat for marine mammals exist in the vicinity of the
project area. Therefore, the overall impacts are expected to be
insignificant.
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 monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total take from the proposed activity
will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of
individuals anticipated to be taken to the most appropriate estimation
of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether
an authorization would be limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
The estimated takes are below 13 percent of the population for all
marine mammals except harbor porpoise (Table 7). For harbor porpoise,
the estimate of 3,997 incidences of takes would be 36 percent of the
population, if each single take were a unique individual. However, this
is highly unlikely because the harbor porpoise in Washington waters
shows site fidelity to small areas for periods of time that can extend
between seasons (Hanson et al., 1999; Hanson 2007a, 2007b). For
example, Hanson et al. (1999) tracked a female harbor porpoise for 215
days, during which it remained exclusively within the southern Strait
of Georgia region. Based on studies by Jefferson et al. (2016), harbor
porpoise abundance in the southern Puget Sound region, which
encompasses waters off Seattle, is 550. Therefore, if the estimated
incidents of take accrued to all the animals expected to occur in the
entire southern Puget Sound area (550 animals), it would be 4.90
percent of the Washington inland water stock of the harbor porpoise.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of
each species or stock will be taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Subsistence 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.
The California-Oregon-Washington stock of humpback whale and the
Southern Resident stock of killer whale are the only marine mammal
species listed under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity of
WSDOT's proposed construction projects. Two DPSs of humpback whales,
the Mexico DPS and the Central America DPS, are listed as threatened
and endangered under the ESA, respectively. NMFS is proposing to
authorize take of California/Oregon/Washington stock of humpback whale,
which are listed under the ESA. The Permit and Conservation Division
has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the NMFS West
Coast Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude
the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the
proposed issuance of the authorization.
NMFS worked with WSDOT to implement shutdown measures in the IHA
that would avoid takes of SRKW. Therefore, NMFS determined that no ESA-
listed marine mammal species would be affected as a result of WSDOT's
Seattle Colman Dock construction project.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to WSDOT for conducting Seattle Multimodal Project at
Colman Dock in Seattle, Washington, between August 1, 2018, and July
31, 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft
of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed
for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2018, through July
31, 2019.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with
in-water construction work at the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman
Dock in the State of Washington.
3. (a) The species authorized taking by Level A and Level B
harassments and in the numbers shown in Table 7 are: Gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback whale (Megaptera
[[Page 23656]]
novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), killer whale
(Orcinus orca), long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis),
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena), Dall's porpoise (P. dali), California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), Pacific harbor
seal (Phoca vitulina), and northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris).
(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the
following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
(1) Vibratory pile and impact pile driving; and
(2) Vibratory pile removal.
4. Prohibitions.
(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the
species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in
Table 7 of this notice. The taking by serious injury or death of these
species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other
species of marine mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or
exempted under the MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension,
or revocation of this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the
required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition
7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this
Authorization.
5. Mitigation.
(a) Time Restriction. In-water construction work shall occur only
during daylight hours.
(b) Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones,
and Shutdown Zones.
(i) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal
activities, WSDOT shall establish Level A harassment zones. The modeled
Level A zones are summarized in Table 5.
(ii) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal
activities, WSDOT shall establish Level B harassment zones. The modeled
Level B zones are summarized in Table 5.
(iii) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal
activities, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones. The proposed
exclusion zones are summarized in Table 8.
(c) Monitoring of marine mammals shall take place starting 30
minutes before pile driving begins until 30 minutes after pile driving
ends.
(d) Soft Start
(i) When there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without pile
driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up
procedures described below.
(ii) Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide
an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent
three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at
the beginning of impact pile driving or removal, or if pile driving has
ceased for more than 30 minutes.
(e) Shutdown Measures
(i) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is
detected within or to be approaching the exclusion zones provided in
Table 8 of this notice.
(ii) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if SRKWs (SRKWs) are
sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the
Level B harassment zone (zone of influence, or ZOI) during in-water
construction activities.
(iii) If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or
removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer
whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the
shutdown measure identified in 6(e)(ii).
(iv) If a SRKW enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or
pile removal shall be suspended until the SRKW exits the ZOI to avoid
further level B harassment.
(v) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any
allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA, if such
marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and
are approaching the Level B harassment zone during pile removal
activities.
(f) Coordination with Local Marine Mammal Research Network. Prior
to the start of pile driving, WSDOT will contact the Orca Network and/
or Center for Whale Research to get real-time information on the
presence or absence of whales before starting any pile driving.
6. Monitoring.
(a) Protected Species Observers.
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal
monitoring for its construction project. NMFS-approved PSOs will meet
the following qualifications.
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required.
(ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate
degree in biological science or related field) or training for
experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
(v) NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
(b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall be present on site at all
times during pile removal and driving.
(i) A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be
required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A
30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required
after the last pile driving or pile removal of the day. If the
constructors take a break between subsequent pile driving or pile
removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional 30-minute pre-
construction marine mammal monitoring will be required before the next
start-up of pile driving or pile removal.
(ii) Marine mammal visual monitoring will be conducted for
different zones of influence (ZOIs) based on different sizes of piles
being driven or removed.
(A) For Level B harassment zones with radii less than 1,600 m, 3
PSOs will be monitoring from land.
(B) For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 1,600 m but
smaller than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land.
(C) For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 2,500 m, 4
PSOs will be monitoring from land with an additional 1 PSO monitoring
from a ferry.
(iii) If marine mammals are observed, the following information
will be documented:
(A) Species of observed marine mammals;
(B) Number of observed marine mammal individuals;
(C) Behavior of observed marine mammals; and
(D) Location within the ZOI.
7. Reporting.
(a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within
90 days of the conclusion of the construction work or within 90 days of
the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes first. This report shall
detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have
been harassed.
(b) IF WSDOT plans to renew the IHA for an additional year, a
monitoring report must be received within 60 days before the expiration
of an existing IHA.
(c) If comments are received from NMFS Office of Protected
Resources on the draft report, a final report shall be
[[Page 23657]]
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.
(d) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities
clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by
this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or
mortality, WSDOT shall immediately cease all operations and immediately
report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the
following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) description of the incident;
(iii) status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
(iv) environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, sea
state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);
(v) description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(vi) species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(vii) the fate of the animal(s); and
(viii) photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is
available).
(e) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with WSDOT to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WSDOT may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(f) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph),
WSDOT will immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators.
The report must include the same information identified above.
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with WSDOT to determine whether modifications
in the activities are appropriate.
(g) In the event that WSDOT 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), WSDOT shall report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional
Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. WSDOT shall
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine
Mammal Stranding Network. WSDOT can continue its operations under such
a case.
8. 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.
9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each
contractor who performs the construction work at the Colman ferry
terminals.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed WSDOT
Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock. We also request comment on
the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the
paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data
or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the
request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA
without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly
identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section
is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section,
provided all of the following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size)
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates,
or mitigation and monitoring requirements.
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and
the original findings remain valid.
Dated: May 17 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10871 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P