[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28733-28754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12067]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XW30


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Pile-
Driving and Renovation Operations on the Trinidad Pier by the Cher-Ae 
Heights Indian Community for the Trinidad Rancheria in Trinidad, CA

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from the Cher-Ae Heights 
Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria (Trinidad Rancheria) for an 
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of 
marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to pile-driving and 
renovation operations for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project in 
Trinidad, California. NMFS has reviewed the application, including all 
supporting documents, and determined that it is adequate and complete. 
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting 
comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to the Trinidad Rancheria to 
incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, three species of 
marine mammals during the specified activities.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 17, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to P. 
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address 
for providing e-mail comments is [email protected]. NMFS is not 
responsible for e-mail comments sent to addresses other than the one 
provided here. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, 
must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size.
    All comments received are a part of the public record and will 
generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information 
(for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    A copy of the application containing a list of the references used 
in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified 
above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 
notice, including the IHA application and Biological Assessment (BA), 
may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the 
aforementioned address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-713-2289, ext. 172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361(a)(5)(D)) directs 
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but 
not intentional, taking of marine mammals for periods not more than one 
year by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice 
of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
    An authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals by 
harassment 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 to achieve the 
least practicable adverse impact. 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

[[Page 28734]]

species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization 
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 
defines ``harassment'' as ``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 
which (I) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to 
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level 
B harassment].'' 16 U.S.C. 1362(18).
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS 
review of an application followed by a publication in the Federal 
Register and other relevant media proposed authorizations for the 
incidental harassment of marine mammals. The publication of the 
proposed authorization initiates a 30-day public comment period. Within 
45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or 
deny issuance of the authorization.

Summary of Request

    On November 3, 2009, NMFS received a letter from the Trinidad 
Rancheria, requesting an IHA. A revised IHA application was submitted 
on July 23, 2010. The requested IHA would authorize the take, by Level 
B (behavioral) harassment, of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals 
(Phoca hispida richardsi), California sea lions (Zalophus 
californianus), and Eastern Pacific gray whales (Eschrictius robustus) 
incidental to pile-driving and renovation operations on the Trinidad 
Pier. The Trinidad Pier has served the Trinidad Community for decades 
and continues to be one of the marine economic generators for the area. 
This project will not only address the structural deficiencies of the 
aged pier, but will completely remove the presence of creosote and 
other wood preservatives from Trinidad Bay and eliminate non-point 
source run-off with the construction of the new pier. The pile-driving 
and renovation operation are proposed to take place during August, 2011 
to January, 2012 in Trinidad, California. Additional information on the 
Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project is contained in the application 
and Biological Assessment (BA), which is available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES).

Description of the Proposed Specified Activities

    The Trinidad Pier, located on Trinidad Bay, is an antiquated 
structure that requires reconstruction in order to maintain public 
safety and to redress certain environmental deficiencies in the 
existing structure. The 165 m (540 ft) long pier is located on 
tidelands granted by the State of California to the City of Trinidad 
and leased by the Trinidad Rancheria. The project area consists of the 
pier (0.31 acres) and a nearby staging area (0.53 acres). The existing 
pier was constructed in 1946 to serve commercial fishing and 
recreational uses. Since that time the creosote-treated wood piles 
which support the pier, as well as the wood decking, have deteriorated 
and are proposed to be replaced by cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) concrete 
piles and pre-cast concrete decking, respectively. This will improve 
the safety of the pier. Existing utilities which will require 
replacement include electrical, water, sewer, and phone. Additional 
dock amenities that will be replaced including lighting, railing, four 
hoists, three sheds, a saltwater intake pipe used by Humboldt State 
University's (HSU) Telonicher Marine Laboratory, and a water quality 
sonde utilized by the Center for Integrative Coastal Observation, 
Research, and Education. The proposed construction schedule is from 
August 1, 2011 to May 1, 2012, however the pile-driving and removal 
activities will occur from August 1, 2011 to January 31, 2012.

Background

    The Trinidad Pier is the northernmost oceanfront pier in California 
and has been used for commercial and recreational purposes over the 
last 50 years. Trinidad harbor and pier serve a fleet of commercial 
winter crab fishermen and year-round water angling for salmon, and 
nearshore/finfish species. Trinidad Pier was first built by Bob 
Hallmark in 1946. Since that time only minor maintenance activities 
have occurred on the pier. Today, Trinidad's economy is based on 
fishing and tourism and the pier supports these activities. The pier 
also provides educational opportunities by accommodating HSU's 
Telonicher Marine Lab's saltwater intake pipe, and the California 
Center of Integrated Technology's (CICORE) water quality sonde.
    Currently, the Trinidad Rancheria plays an important role in the 
economic development of the Trinidad area through three main business 
enterprises, one of which is the Seascape Restaurant and the pier. The 
Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria is a 
Federally-recognized Tribe composed of descendants of the Yurok, Weott, 
and Tolowa peoples. In 1906, the Trinidad Rancheria was established by 
a U.S. congressional enactment, and a congressional action authorized 
the purchase of small tracts of land for landless homeless California 
Indians. In 1908, through this Federal authority, 60 acres of land was 
purchased on Trinidad Bay to establish the Trinidad Rancheria. In 1917, 
the Secretary of the Interior formally approved the Trinidad Rancheria 
as a Federally Recognized Tribe.
    The community began developing in the 1950's. In January, 2000, the 
Trinidad Rancheria purchased the Trinidad Pier, harbor facilities, and 
the Seascape Restaurant. The Trinidad Rancheria leases a total area of 
14 acres in Trinidad Bay from the City of Trinidad. The Trinidad 
Rancheria currently operates the pier, and upland improvements 
including a boat launch ramp and the Seascape Restaurant. Funds for 
permitting and designs of the pier were granted to the Trinidad 
Rancheria by the California State Coastal Conservancy.
    The purpose of the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project is to 
correct the structural deficiencies of the pier and improve pier 
utilities and safety for the benefit of the public, and indirectly 
improve the water quality conditions and provide additional habitat for 
the biological community in the ASBS. Currently, it is difficult to 
ensure the continued safety of the pier due to excessive deterioration 
of the creosote-treated Douglas fir piles and the pressure treated 
decking.

Pier Construction Overview

    Summary plans for the pier and staging area are presented in 
Appendix A of the IHA application. Pier improvements are proposed to 
replace at a one-to-one ratio, approximately 1,254 m\2\ (13,500 ft\2\) 
of the pre-cast concrete decking. In addition, the project includes 
installation of 115 concrete piles (and removal of 205 piles) including 
batter and moorage piles (45.7 cm or 18 inches [in] in diameter), four 
hoists, standard lights, guardrail, and dock utility pipes including 
water, power, and telephone. A new stormwater collection system will 
also be incorporated into the reconstructed pier design. The new cast-
in-steel-shell (CISS) concrete piles will be separated at 1.5 m (5 ft) 
intervals along 7.6 m (25 ft) long concrete bents. A total of 22 bents 
separated 7.6 m (25 ft) apart shall be used. The decking of the new 
pier

[[Page 28735]]

will be constructed of pre-cast 6.1 m (20 ft) long concrete sections. 
The new pier will be 164.6 m (540 ft) long and 7.3 to 7.9 m (24 to 26 
ft) wide, corresponding to the existing footprint.
    A pile bent will be installed at the existing elevation of the 
lower deck to provide access to the existing floating dock. The 
existing stairs to the lower deck will be replaced with a ramp that is 
ADA compliant. The decking of the pier will be constructed at an 
elevation of 6.4 m (21 ft) above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The top 
of the decking will be concrete poured to create a slope for drainage 
and to incorporate a pattern and a color into the concrete surface in 
order to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. An open 
guardrail, 1.1 m (3.5 ft) in height shall be constructed of tubular 
galvanized steel rail bars (approximately 1.9 cm [\3/4\ in] diameter) 
uniform in shape throughout the length of pier. Lighting will be 
installed in the decking (and railing in the landing area) along the 
length of the pier and will be focused and directed to minimize 
lighting of any surfaces other than the pier deck.
    Currently there are four hoists on the pier. Three of the hoists 
are used to load and unload crab pots from the pier and the fourth 
hoist located at the end of the pier is suited to load and unload 
skiffs. The hoists are approximately 30 years old and may have had the 
Yale motors replaced since the time they were installed. The hoists 
shall be re-installed at points corresponding to their current location 
and their current duties. All design specifications shall conform to 
the Uniform Building Code.

Pier Demolition Methods

    Removal of the existing pier and construction of the new pier shall 
occur simultaneously. Construction shall begin from the north (shore) 
end of the pier. All pier utilities and structures shall first be 
removed. Utilities to be removed include water, electrical, power and 
phone lines, temporary bathroom, ladders, and pier railing. Structures 
to be removed include four hoists, two wood sheds, HSU's 20 horse-power 
(hp) (14.9 kiloWatt [kW]) pump and saltwater intake pipes, CICORE's 
water quality sonde, and a concrete bench. Then the existing pressure 
treated decking, joists, and bent beams shall be removed and 
transported by truck to the upland staging area for temporary storage.
    All existing piles located in the section of pier being worked on 
(active construction area) will then be removed by vibratory 
extraction, unless some are broken in the process. Vibratory extraction 
is a common method for removing both steel and timber piling. The 
vibratory hammer is a large mechanical device mostly constructed of 
steel that is suspended from a crane by a cable. The vibratory hammer 
is deployed from the derrick and positioned on the top of the pile. The 
pile will be unseated from the sediment by engaging the hammer and 
slowly lifting up on the hammer with the aid of the crane. Once 
unseated, the crane will continue to raise the hammer and pull the pile 
from the sediment. When the bottom of the pile reaches the mudline, the 
vibratory hammer will be disengaged. A choker cable connected to the 
crane will be attached to the pile, and the pile will be lifted from 
the water and placed upland. This process will be repeated for the 
remaining piling. Extracted piling will be stored upland, at the 
staging area, until the piles are transferred for upland disposal. Each 
such extraction will require approximately 40 minutes (min) of 
vibratory hammer operation, with up to five piles extracted per day (a 
total of 3.3 hours per day). Operation of the vibratory hammer is the 
primary activity within the pier demolition group of activities that is 
likely to affect marine mammals by potentially exposing them to both 
in-air (i.e., airborne or sub-aerial) and underwater noise.
    Douglas-fir pilings are prone to breaking at the mudline. In some 
cases, removal with a vibratory hammer is not possible because the pile 
will break apart due to the vibration. Broken or damaged piling can be 
removed by wrapping the individual pile with a cable and pulling it 
directly from the sediment with a crane. If the pile breaks between the 
waterline and the mudline it will be removed by water jetting.
    A floating oil containment boom surrounding the work area will be 
deployed during creosote-treated timber pile removal. The boom will 
also collect any floating debris. Oil-absorbent materials will be 
deployed if a visible sheen is observed. The boom will remain in place 
until all oily material and floating debris has been collected. Used 
oil-absorbent materials will be disposed at an approved upland disposal 
site. The contractor shall also follow Best Management Practices 
(BMPs): NS-14--Material Over Water, NS-15--Demolition Adjacent to 
Water, and WM-4--Spill Prevention and Control listed in the CASQA 
Handbook.
    The existing Douglas-fir piles are creosote treated. The depth of 
creosote penetration into the piles varies from 0.6 to 5.1 cm (0.25 to 
2 in). Creosote is composed of a mixture of chemicals that are 
potentially toxic to fish, other marine organisms, and humans. 
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), phenols and cresols are the 
major chemicals in creosote that can cause harmful health effects to 
marine biota. The replacement of the creosote treated piles with cast-
in-steel-shell (CISS) concrete piles is expected to eliminate potential 
contamination of the water column by PAH, phenols and cresols from the 
existing treated wood piles.
    All removed piles shall be temporarily stored at the upland staging 
areas until all demolition activities are complete (approximately 6 
months). Following the cessation of demolition activities, the creosote 
treated piles will be transported by the Contractor to Anderson 
Landfill in Shasta County. This landfill is approved to accept 
construction demolition, wood wastes, and non-hazardous/non-designated 
sediment.
    The pressure treated 2x4 in Douglas-fir decking will also be stored 
at the staging area until demolition is complete. The partially 
pressure treated decking and railing may be reused and will be kept by 
the Trinidad Rancheria for potential future use.

Pile Installation

    Design--Two 45.7 cm (18 in) diameter battered piles, which are 
designed to resist lateral load, will be located on each side of the 
pier at 12:1 slopes. Three vertical piles, which are designed to 
support 50 tons of vertical loads, will be located between the battered 
piles separated 1.5 m (5 ft) apart.
    Overview--New piles will be installed initially from shore and 
then, as construction proceeds, from the reconstructed dock. Following 
removal of each existing pile, steel casings will be vibrated (using a 
vibratory hammer) to a depth of approximately 0.8 m (2.5 ft) above the 
top elevation of the proposed pile (7.6 to 10.7 m [25 to 35 ft] below 
the mudline). The steel shell of 1.9 cm (\3/4\ in) thickness shall 
extend from above the water surface to below the upper layer of 
sediment, which consists of sand, into the harder sediment, which 
consists mostly of weathered shale and sandstone. The steel shell will 
be coated with polymer to protect the casings for corrosion. The steel 
shell will be coasted with polymer to protect the casings from 
corrosion. The steel shell shall be used to auger the holes and will 
then be cleaned and concrete poured using a tremie to seal the area 
below the shell. The shell will then be dewatered and a steel rebar 
cage installed prior to pouring concrete to fill the shell. These steps 
are described in further detail below.

[[Page 28736]]

    Pile Excavation--Following installation of the steel casing, each 
hole will be augered to the required pile depth of 7.6 to 10.7 m (25 to 
35 ft) below the mudline. An auger drill shall be used to excavate the 
sediment and rock from the steel shell. Geotechnical studies (Taber, 
2007) indicate that the material encountered in the test borings can be 
excavated using typical heavy duty foundation drilling equipment. 
Driving the new piles and augering the holes are the primary activities 
within the pile installation group of activities most likely to result 
in incidental harassment of marine mammals by potentially exposing them 
to underwater and in-air noise.
    Steel casing member of 1.9 cm (\3/4\ in) thickness shall be used to 
form the CISS concrete foundation columns in underwater locations. In 
this technique, inner and outer casings are partially imbedded in the 
ground submerged in the water and in concentric relationship with one 
another. The annulus formed between the inner and outer casings is 
filled with water and cuttings, while the inner casing is drilled to 
the required depth, and the sediment is removed from the core of inner 
steel casing. Following removal of the core, the outer casing is left 
in place as the new pile shell.
    The sediment and cuttings excavated shall be temporarily stockpiled 
in 50 gallon drums (or another authorized sealed waterproof container) 
at the staging area until all excavations are complete and then 
transferred for upland disposal at the Anderson Landfill or another 
approved upland sediment disposal site.
    The existing piles extend to approximately 6.1 m (20 ft) below the 
mudline. Each one of the existing 0.3 m (1 ft) diameter pile has 
displaced 0.4 m\3\ (15.7 ft\3\) of sediment. There are approximately 
205 wood piles to be removed. The total amount of sediment displaced by 
the existing piles is approximately 91.7 m\3\ (3,238.4 ft\3\). Each of 
the proposed CISS piles requires the displacement of approximately 1.5 
m\3\ (53 ft\3\) of sediment. There are 115 CISS piles to install. A 
total of approximately 172 m\3\ (6,074 ft\3\) of sediment would have to 
be removed in order to auger 115 holes to a depth of 9.1 m (30 ft) 
below the mudline. It is estimated that 7.6 to 76.5 m\3\ (268.4 to 
2,701.5 ft\3\) would have to be removed during pile installation. Many 
new holes will be augered in the location of existing piles where they 
overlap. As a result, less sediment will be required to be removed than 
would be required for the construction of a new pier, however, the 
exact location and penetration of the old piles is not recorded and 
will be determined during reconstruction activities. Therefore, a range 
of quantity of material to be removed is specified. Existing holes 
created by old wood piles removed and that do not overlap with the 
location of holes augered for the new piles will collapse and naturally 
fill with adjacent sediment.
    Most of the sediment excavated is expected to be in the form of 
cuttings if the hole is augered and/or drilled at a location of exiting 
piles. Sediment removed from the inner core during augering shall be 
mostly dry due to the compression created in the core during augering. 
Approximately fifty 50-gallon drums will be used to store the cuttings 
and sediment prior to disposal upland. The contractor shall implement 
BMPs WM-3--Stockpile Management, WM-4--Spill Prevention and Control, 
and WM-10--Liquid Waste Management listed in the CASQA Handbook (see 
handbook for detail).
    Concrete Seal Installation--A tremie (i.e., a steel pipe) will be 
used to seal the bottom 0.9 m (3 ft) of the hole below the bottom of 
the steel shell and above the ground. Before the tremie seal is poured, 
the inside walls of the pile will be cleaned by brushing or using a 
similar method of removing any adhering soil or debris in order to 
improve the effectiveness of the seal. A ``cleaning bucket'' or similar 
apparatus will be used to clean the bottom of the excavation of loose 
or disrupted material.
    The tremie is a steel pipe long enough to pass through the water to 
the required depth of placement. The pipe is initially plugged until 
placed at the bottom of the holes in order to exclude water and to 
retain the concrete, which will be poured. The plug is then forced out 
and concrete flows out of the pipe to its place in the form without 
passing through the water column. Concrete is supplied at the top of 
the pipe at a rate sufficient to keep the pipe continually filled. The 
flow of concrete in the pipe is controlled by adjusting the depth of 
embedment of the lower end of the pipe in the deposited concrete. The 
upper end may have a funnel shape or a hopper, which facilitates 
feeding concrete to the tremie. Each concrete seal is expected to cure 
within 24 to 48 hours.
    Dewatering Methodology--After the tremie seal has been poured, the 
water will be pumped out of the steel shells, which will act as a 
cofferdam. Pumping within the excavation at the various footings may be 
required to maintain a dewatered work area.
    The contractor shall test the pH of the water in each casing one 
day following pouring of the tremie seal to insure that the pH of the 
water did not change from the ambient pH. The water shall then be 
pumped into 50-gallon drums and transported to the staging area for 
discharge through percolation to eliminate solids. Should the pH of the 
water change from ambient pH, then the contractor shall haul the water 
to the Eureka Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment prior to 
discharge. The contractor is expected to dewater a volume of 
approximately 450 gallons (1,720 L) each day during pile installation. 
For the installation of 115 piles, approximately 49,500 gallons 
(197,800 L) will be dewatered and discharged at the appropriate 
location at the staging area. Percolation rates will be verified prior 
to discharge of the ocean water at the designated location at the 
staging area, but are not expected to be prohibitive due to the sandy 
texture of the soil. The Contractor shall implement BMP WM-10 Liquid 
Waste Management as listed in the CASQA Handbook. Liquid waste 
management procedures and practices are used to prevent discharge of 
pollutants to the storm drain system or to watercourses as a result of 
the creation, collection, and disposal of non-hazardous liquid wastes. 
WM-10 provides procedures for containing liquid waste, capturing liquid 
waste, disposing liquid waste, and inspection and maintenance.
    Completion--Following dewatering of the steel shells, steel rebar 
cages shall be inserted into each shell. Ready-mix concrete placed into 
the drilled piers shall be conveyed in a manner to prevent separation 
or loss of materials. The cement-mixer truck containing the concrete 
shall be located on land adjacent to the north end of the pier. The 
concrete shall be pumped to the borings through a pipe (at least 0.9 cm 
[\3/4\ in] thick) that will span the length of the pier. When pouring 
concrete into the hole, in no case shall the concrete be allowed to 
freefall more than 1.5 m (5 ft). Poured concrete will be dry within at 
least 24 hours and completely cured within 30 days.
    A concrete washout station shall be located in the staging area at 
the designated location. The contractor shall implement BMP, WM-8--
Concrete Waste Management, as listed in the CASQA Handbook to prevent 
discharge of liquid or solid waste.

Pier Deck Construction

    Following the installation of the concrete piles, pre-cast concrete 
bent caps measuring 7.6 m (25 ft)--long shall be installed on top of 
each row of pilings. The concrete bents act to

[[Page 28737]]

distribute the load between the piles and support the pier.
    Pre-cast 6.1 m (20 ft)--long concrete sections shall be used for 
the decking. An additional layer of concrete shall be poured following 
installation of the precast sections. The layer of concrete will allow 
the decking of the pier to be sloped to the west for drainage purposes 
and to create an aesthetically pleasing decking. The surface of the 
decking will be colored and contain an earth tone pattern to match the 
surrounding environment.

Utilities

    Utilities located on the pier will require location during 
construction and replacement following construction of the pier 
footings and decking. Utilities include:
    Power: A 2 in PG&E power line that is currently attached to the 
west side of the pier and PG&E electrical boxes located along the west 
side of the pier.
    Sewer: Currently there are no sewer pipes on the pier. Visitors to 
the pier are served by a temporary restroom located on the south side 
of the pier. No direct sewer discharge is allowed in the ASBS.
    New utilities installed include water, phone, and electrical. New 
pier utilities will be constructed along the east and west side of the 
pier and will be enclosed within concrete utility trenches. Water pipes 
shall be routed along both sides of the pier to several locations along 
the pier. Phone lines shall be routed along the west side of the pier. 
All electrical switches will be located in one central box towards the 
west end of the pier by the loading and unloading landings location.
    Lighting installed along the pier shall be designed to improve 
visibility and safety. The proposed lighting will be embedded in the 
decking and railing of the pier to minimize light pollution from the 
pier. Lighting shall be designed to minimize light pollution by 
preventing the light from going beyond the horizontal plane at which 
the fixture is directed. Currently, there are lighting poles on the 
pier. The proposed lighting on the pier will be embedded on the west 
and east side of the decking separated approximately 7.6 m (25 ft) 
throughout the length of the pier. The lighting fixtures will have 
cages for protection matching the color of the railing. In addition, on 
the south side of the pier, lighting will be installed in the railing 
to provide lighting for the working area on the deck of the pier.
    Fish cleaning does not occur at the pier. This activity was 
formerly pursued by recreational users and was discontinued in 2006 due 
to water quality concerns.

Drainage

    There is currently no runoff collection system on the pier. Runoff 
drains from the existing pier directly into the ASBS. A storm water 
outfall for the City of Trinidad is located near the base of the pier.
    The pier decking shall be sloped to the west in order to direct 
runoff from the pier to the stormwater collection pipe. The runoff 
shall be routed along the west side of the pier and conveyed by gravity 
to a new upland manhole and storm chamber containing treatment media. 
All stormwater will be infiltrated within the storm chamber; there will 
be no discharge from the system. See Appendix C, drawings C-5 to C-8 of 
the IHA application, for details of the conveyance and treatment 
system. The pier-deck construction, utility replacement, and drainage 
improvements are not anticipated to result in significant effects to 
marine mammals.

BMPs

Pier Demolition Methods
     Waters shall be protected from incidental discharge of 
debris by providing a protective cover directly under the pier and 
above the water to capture any incidental loss of demolition or 
construction debris.
     A floating oil containment boom surrounding the work area 
will be used during the creosote-treated timber pile removal. The boom 
will also collect any floating debris. Oil-absorbent materials will be 
employed if a visible sheen is observed. The boom will remain in place 
until all oily material and floating debris has been collected and 
sheens have dissipated. Used oil-absorbent materials will be disposed 
at an approved upland disposal site.
     All removed piles shall be temporarily stored at the 
upland staging areas until all demolition activities are complete 
(approximately 6 months).
     Following the cessation of demolition activities, the 
creosote treated piles will be transported by the Contractor to an 
upland landfill approved to accept such materials.
     The pressure treated 2x4 in Douglas-fir decking will also 
be stored in the staging area until demolition is complete. The 
partially pressure treated decking and railing may be reused and will 
be kept by the Trinidad Rancheria for further use.
     The contractor shall also follow BMPs: NS-14--Material 
Over Water, NS-15--Demolition adjacent to Water, and WM-4--Spill 
Prevention and Control listed in the CASQA Handbook.
Pile Installation
     The sediment and cuttings excavated shall be temporarily 
stockpiled in 50 gallon (189 L) drums (or another authorized sealed 
waterproof container) at the staging area until all excavations are 
complete and then transferred for upland disposal at the Anderson 
Landfill or another approved upland sediment disposal site.
     The contractor shall implement BMPs WM-3--Stockpile 
Management, WM-4--Spill Prevention and Control, and WM-10--Liquid Waste 
Management listed in the CASQA Handbook.
     The contractor shall test the pH of the water in each 
casing one day following pouring of the tremie seal to insure that the 
pH of the water did not change by more than 0.2 units from the ambient 
pH. The water shall then be pumped into 50-gallon drums and transported 
to the staging areas for discharge through percolation to eliminate 
solids. Should the pH of the water change from ambient pH, then the 
contractor shall haul the water to the Eureka Wastewater Treatment 
Plant for treatment prior to discharge.
     The contractor shall implement BMP WM-10 Liquid Waste 
Management as listed in the CASQA Handbook. Liquid waste management 
procedures and practices are used to prevent discharge of pollutants to 
the storm drain system or to watercourses as a result of the creation, 
collection, and disposal of non-hazardous liquid wastes. WM-10 provides 
procedures for containing liquid waste, capturing liquid waste, 
disposing liquid waste, and inspection and maintenance.
     A concrete washout station shall be located in the staging 
area at the designated location. The contractor shall implement BMP, 
WM-8--Concrete Waste Management, as listed in the CASQA Handbook to 
prevent discharge of liquid or solid waste.
    Pier Construction:
     No concrete washing or water from concrete will be allowed 
to flow into the ASBS and no concrete will be poured within flowing 
water.
     Waters shall be protected from incidental discharge of 
debris by providing a protective cover directly under the pier and 
above the water to capture any incidental loss of demolition or 
construction debris.
Utilities
     Lighting will be embedded in the decking and railing of 
the pier to minimize light pollution from the pier. Lighting shall be 
designed to minimize light pollution by preventing the light

[[Page 28738]]

from going beyond the horizontal plain at which the fixture is directed 
so the light is directed upwards.
Drainage
     The pier decking shall be sloped to the west in order to 
direct runoff from the pier to the stormwater collection pipe. The 
runoff shall be routed along the west side of the pier and conveyed by 
gravity to a new upland manhole and storm chamber containing treatment 
media. Drainage from the storm chamber shall not be conveyed to 
Trinidad Bay, but will entirely be infiltrated within the storm 
chamber. See Appendix A, drawings C-5 to C-8, for details.
Construction Timing and Sequencing
     Noise-generating construction activities, including 
augering, pile removal, pile placement, and concrete pumping, will only 
be allowed from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. These hours shall be further 
restricted as necessary in order for protected species observers (PSOs) 
to perform required observations.
    Project Benefits:
    The existing pier has pole lighting that illuminates the water 
surface; the proposed pier has lighting designed to avoid such 
illumination. The existing pier has dark wood and over 200 piles. The 
proposed pier, with 205 piles to be removed and 115 piles to be 
installed and a white concrete construction, will result in less 
shading of nearshore habitat. The project may have benefits to 
environmental resources other than marine mammals. This notice 
describes in detail BMPs that will be implemented for the proposed 
project. The BMPs are focused almost exclusively on protecting water 
quality, and while they may have ancillary benefits to some marine 
resources such as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), they are not intended 
to serve as monitoring and mitigation measures for adverse effects to 
marine mammals. The only exception might be the ability to further 
modify noise timing restrictions to allow Protected Species Observers 
(PSOs) to perform their duties.
    Additional details regarding the proposed pile-driving and 
renovation operations for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project can 
be found in the Trinidad Rancheria's IHA application and BA, as well as 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Environmental Assessment (EA). 
The IHA application, BA, and ACOE EA can also be found online at: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

Proposed Dates, Duration, and Specific Geographic Area

    The Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project is located in the city of 
Trinidad, California, Humboldt County, at Township 8N, Range 1W, 
Section 26 (41.05597[deg] North, 124.14741[deg] West) (see Figure 2-1 
of the BA). The proposed construction schedule is from August 1, 2011 
to May 1, 2012, with noise and activity effects requiring an IHA, 
occurring from August 1, 2011 through January 31, 2012.
    Trinidad Bay is a commercial port located between Humboldt Bay and 
Crescent City. The bay contains numerous vessel moorings which include 
permanent commercial vessel anchors as well 100 moorings that are 
placed for recreational vessel owners (Donahue, 2007). The uplands have 
residential, commercial and recreational land use classifications. The 
Trinidad Pier parcel was owned by the State of California, but was 
granted to the City of Trinidad which leases the tidelands to the Cher-
Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria. The parcels to 
be used for the staging area are owned by Trinidad Rancheria, the City 
of Trinidad, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
    Trinidad Bay is a shallow, open bay about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) deep (in 
the southwest-northeast direction) and 1.6 km (1 mi) wide (in the 
northwest-southeast direction). Figure 1 of the IHA application shows 
the whole bay. Generally the bay shelves at a moderate slope to about 
9.1 m (30 ft) depth and then flattens out, with most of the outer bay 
between 9.1 to 15.2 m (30 to 50 ft) deep. Substrates in the bay include 
rock, cobble, gravel and sand. The floor of the bay is irregular with 
some areas of submerged rock. The project area comprises the 0.31 acre 
pier over marine habitats and a staging area (the gravel parking lot 
located west of the pier) covering 0.53 acres of upland area.

Construction Timing and Sequencing

    The project is expected to be completed within nine months 
(approximately six months of loud noise-producing activities). 
Reconstruction of the pier is proposed to commence on August 1, 2011 
and terminate on May 1, 2012. Excluding weekends and holidays, a total 
of 217 working days will be available for work during this period. 
During the winter months (November to March) severe weather conditions 
are expected to occur periodically at the project site. The contractor 
may have to halt the work during pile installation due to strong winds, 
large swells, and/or heavy precipitation. Construction during the 
remainder of the year should not be impeded by large swells, but may be 
halted due to strong winds or precipitation; however, Trinidad Harbor 
is a sheltered area and does not often experience severe weather that 
would preclude the proposed work. The contractor will work five days 
per week from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Should severe weather conditions cause 
delays in the construction schedule, the contractor will work up to 
seven days per week as needed to ensure completion by May 1, 2012.
    Removal of all existing piles and decking and construction of the 
new pier will occur simultaneously. The existing decking and piles will 
be removed and new piles installed from the reconstructed pier. Pile 
bents will be separated 7.6 m (25 ft) apart. Following the installation 
of two successive pile bents, a new precast concrete deck section shall 
be installed. The contractor shall continue in this manner from the 
north end (shore) to south end (water terminus) of the existing pier.
    The contractor is expected to spend approximately six months 
(August through January) on pile removal and installation and the 
remaining three months (February through April) on deck and utilities 
reconstruction. It is estimated that each boring can be lined with a 
pile and excavated within six to eight hours. Pouring of the concrete 
seals is expected to take approximately two hours for each pile. The 
contractor is expected to remove an existing pile and install one new 
steel shell and pour a concrete seal each day, with a total of six to 
eight hours required for the process (i.e., 115 piles to be placed [one 
per day] during 115 days of work or 23 weeks of five days each). The 
final pour of the concrete piles is expected to take approximately two 
hours to fill the steel shells and is expected to cure within one week.
    It is expected that reconstruction of one row of piles and bents 
will take one week. Piles and bents will be installed over a 
discontinuous period of approximately 23 weeks. A new pre-cast concrete 
section of decking will be installed following the installation of two 
successive rows of piles and associated bents. The last three months 
will be used for pouring of the top layer of the decking and utilities 
construction.

Proposed Action Area

    The action area is defined as all areas directly or indirectly 
affected by the proposed action. Direct effects of the action are 
potentially detectable in all lands and aquatic areas within the 
project area, including the staging area.

[[Page 28739]]

The project would also directly affect 7.9 m (26 ft) of the Trinidad 
Bay shoreline.
    In-air (i.e., sub-aerial) and underwater sound effects would be the 
most laterally extensive effects of the proposed action and thus 
demarcate the limits of the action area. Assuming that underwater sound 
attenuates at a rate of -4.5 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) for each doubling 
of distance, underwater sound from pile-driving (detailed in Section 6 
of the BA) would elevate noise above 120 dB (rms) up to 800 m (2,625 
ft) (the Port of Anchorage measured 168 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] at a 
distance of 20 m from a pile, application of the practical spreading 
model with 4.5 dB attenuation for doubling of distance yields 120 dB 
[rms] at 800 m) seaward in all areas on a line-of-sight to the pier 
(Illingworth & Rodkin, 2008). The rationale for use of 120 dB (rms) as 
a metric is detailed in Section 6.6.1 of the BA, but also has a 
practical value because 120 dB (rms) is the lowest threshold currently 
used to detect underwater sound effects to any of the animals discussed 
in this analysis. Actual ambient underwater sound levels are probably 
quite variable in response to sound sources such as wave action and 
fishing vessel traffic. The assumptions regarding in-air and underwater 
noise in the IHA application, BA, and in this notice are generally 
regarded as extremely conservative.
    In-air (or sub-aerial) sound would be generated by equipment used 
during construction; the loudest source of such sound would be 
vibratory pile-driving, which generates a sound intensity of 
approximately 104 dB at 15.2 m (50 ft) (FHWA, 2006). Assuming an 
ambient background noise level of 59 dB, typical of residential 
neighborhoods, and a sound attenuation rate of 7.5 dB (rms) for each 
doubling of distance, the action area for aerial sound would extend 
975.4 m (3,200 ft) in an unobstructed landward direction from the dock. 
The action area would extend farther in a seaward direction, because 
aerial sound attenuates with distance more slowly over water and also 
because ambient noise levels are potentially quieter in that direction. 
Assuming an attenuation rate of 6 dB (rms) for each doubling of 
distance and an ambient marine noise background of 50 dB, the action 
area for above-water effects would extend 7.7 km (4.8 mi) seaward from 
the pier.
    The seaward attenuation rate assumes no environmental damping or 
attenuation and thus is produced by a simple inversion square law. The 
landward attenuation rate assumes a low level of environmental damping 
due to non-forest vegetation, structures, topography, etc. and 
corresponds to the rate recommended by WSDOT (2006) for terrestrial in-
air in non-forest environments. The 59 dB and 50 dB estimates are based 
on EPA (1971), a standard source of data on typical background sound 
levels (in dBA) for various environments. These typical levels were 
revised upwards by approximately 3 dB because the dBA curve down-
weights sound intensity at the lower frequencies typical of vibratory 
pile-driving noise, which is the principal source of noise considered 
in demarcation of an action area for the proposed action. Thus the 59 
dB and 50 dB values represent unweighted estimates of background sound 
levels.
    The IHA application and BA provides a detailed explanation of the 
Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project location as well as project 
implementation.
Description of Marine Mammals and Habitat Affected in the Activity Area
    One cetacean species and two species of pinnipeds are known to or 
could occur in the proposed Trinidad Bay action area and off the 
Pacific coastline (see Table 1 below). Eastern Pacific gray whales, 
California sea lions, and Pacific harbor seals are likely to be found 
within the proposed activity area. Steller sea lions and transient 
killer whales could potentially be found in small numbers within the 
activity area, but authorization for ``take'' by incidental harassment 
is not requested for Steller sea lions and transient killer whales due 
to their rarity and the feasibility of avoiding impacts to these 
species by pausing work in the event that they are detected, as 
detailed in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan. NMFS, based on the best 
available science, agrees that transient killer whales and Steller sea 
lions are not likely to be present in the proposed action area during 
implementation of the specified activities and are thus unlikely to be 
exposed to effects of the specified activities. NMFS does not expect 
incidental take of these marine mammal species. The potential presence 
of Steller sea lions is detailed in Section 5.6 of the Trinidad 
Rancheria's BA. The potential presence of gray whales, killer whales, 
harbor seals, and California sea lions is detailed in Appendix C of the 
IHA application.
    A variety of other marine mammals have on occasion been reported 
from the coastal waters of northern California. These include 
bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoises, northern elephant seals, 
northern fur seals, and sea otters. However, none of these species has 
been reported to occur in the proposed action area, and in particular 
none were mentioned by the regional NMFS specialist in the 
identification of species to be addressed in the IHA application. The 
sea otter is managed under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and is not considered further in this 
analysis. The USFWS has informed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that 
a Section 7 consultation is not necessary for any of their 
jurisdictional species, including sea otters. Table 1 below outlines 
the cetacean and pinnipeds species, their habitat, and conservation 
status in the general region of the proposed project area.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 28740]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MY11.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Pacific Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals are widely distributed in the North Atlantic and North 
Pacific. The subspecies in the eastern North Pacific Ocean inhabits 
near-shore coastal and estuarine areas from Baja California, Mexico, to 
the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. These seals do not make extensive 
pelagic migrations, but do travel 300 to 500 km (186 to 311 mi) on 
occasion to find food or suitable breeding areas (Herder, 1986; D. 
Hanan unpublished data). Previous assessments of the status of harbor 
seals have recognized three stocks along the west coast of the 
continental U.S.: (1) California, (2) Oregon and Washington outer coast 
waters, and (3) inland waters of Washington. In California, 
approximately 400 to 600 harbor seal

[[Page 28741]]

haul-out sites are distributed along the mainland and on offshore 
islands, including intertidal sandbars, rocky shores, and beaches 
(Hanan, 1996; Lowery et al., 2005).
    Goley et al. (2007) detailed harbor seal abundance at varied sites 
in Humboldt County, including the haul-out at Indian Beach, which 
generally refers to beaches in Trinidad Bay. Seals haul-out on rocks 
and at small beaches at many locations that are widely dispersed within 
Trinidad Bay; the closes such haul-out is 70 m (229.7 ft) from the 
pier, while the most distant are over 1 km (0.6 mi) away near the south 
end of Trinidad Bay (Goley, pers. comm.). Seals haul-out at rocks in 
Trinidad Bay regularly throughout the year, so harbor seals approaching 
or departing these haul-outs would be subject to underwater and in-air 
noise from pile-driving and thus, potential behavioral modification.
    Table 7 in Goley et al. (2007) lists the sighting rates for harbor 
seals during nine years of monthly observations at Trinidad Bay. A 
sighting rate of zero occurred only three times in a total of 62 
observations, and the average number of animals observed per month 
ranged from a low of 25 in November to a maximum of 67 in July. On four 
occasions, over 120 seals were counted at the haul-out. The average 
sighting rate during the period when pile removal and placement would 
occur, in the months from August through January, was approximately 37 
seals per monthly observation. In contrast, the average detection rate 
in the months of February through July was 50.7 seals per monthly 
observation. In practice, seals can usually be seen and/or heard 
vocalizing from the existing pier (Goley, pers. comm.).
    No data were collected on how much time the seals spend in the 
water near the haul-out. Goley et al. (2007) note that they ``are 
typically less abundant during the winter months as seals tend to spend 
more time foraging at sea during this time. Seals are more abundant in 
the area in spring and summer. During this time both males and females 
increase their use of nearshore habitat for hauling-out and feeding'' 
(Thompson et al., 1994; Coltman et al., 1997; Van Parijs et al., 1997; 
Baechler et al., 2002). From early March to June harbor seals in 
Trinidad Bay bear and rear pups, and in June and July the seals molt; 
both activities tie them closely to land and correlate to intensive use 
of available haul-outs. The Trinidad Bay harbor seal population, which 
consists of approximately 200 seals, shows very little interchange with 
the nearby Humboldt Bay population (Goley, pers. comm.). Goley observed 
Humboldt Bay seals show high site fidelity for sandy beach haul-outs, 
whereas the Trinidad Bay and Patrick's Point seals have corresponding 
fidelity for rocky haul-outs (Goley, pers. comm.). However, there is 
also a much larger population over 1,000 seals at Patrick's Point, a 
few miles to the north. It is not known whether seals move back and 
forth between the Trinidad Bay and Patrick's Point populations. If not, 
the Trinidad Bay seals are highly dependent upon available haul-outs in 
Trinidad Bay (Goley, pers. comm.).
    Palmer's Point is a specific geographical feature within the 
Patrick's Point headland area. Seals also haul-out at other rocks in 
the area. Dr. Dawn Goley has stated that it is unknown whether there is 
interchange between the Patrick's Point and Trinidad Bay seals. Data 
that would allow a conclusive determination on this point, such as 
genetic or radio/acoustic tracking studies, have not been gathered. 
However, Goley et al. (2007) do state that ``harbor seals exhibit high 
site fidelity, utilizing one to two haul-out sites within their range 
(Sullivan, 1980; Pitcher et al., 1981; Stewart et al., 1994), rarely 
traveling more than 25 to 50 km (15.5 to 31.1 mi) from these haul-outs 
(Brown and Mate, 1983; Suryan and Harvey, 1998). Movements between and 
the use of alternate haul-out sites has been attributed to the use of 
alternative foraging areas near their new haul-out site (Thompson et 
al., 1996b; Lowry et al., 2001) and the seasonal use of certain haul-
out sites for pupping and molting (Herder, 1986; Thompson et al., 
1989).'' Based on the fact that the Palmer's Point and Trinidad Bay 
haul-outs are close to each other (9 km [5.6 mi]) compared to the 
foraging areas used by harbor seals, and that the Patrick's Point area 
is home to approximately 1,000 harbor seals (Goley, pers. comm.), a far 
larger grouping than the one found at Trinidad Bay, and given that 
observations of harbor seals at Trinidad Bay go through strong seasonal 
fluctuations, it is not appropriate to dismiss a hypothesis that there 
is interchange between the two areas. If the seals do seasonally vacate 
Trinidad Bay for alternative foraging grounds, then Patrick's Point is 
their most likely alternative haul-out.
    At the beginning of the construction period, in August, the average 
number of harbor seals observed at the haul-out is 63.5 (based on one 
observation of 121 animals and three observations of 33 to 52 animals). 
At this time, it is highly probable that harbor seals use this haul-out 
frequently for essential activities such as rearing pups and molting. 
After August and September, use of the haul-out by seals declines 
greatly (average of 30.3, 25.2, 32.5 and 27.6 animals recorded in 
September, October, November, December and January, respectively), and 
most foraging occurs in offshore areas unaffected by pile-driving 
noise. While harbor seals may be present and use the haul-out in 
Trinidad Bay at any time of the year, Goley et al. (2007) states that 
harbor seals ``are typically less abundant during the winter months as 
seals tend to spend more time foraging at sea during this time.''
    A complete count of all harbor seals in California is impossible 
because some are always away from the haul-out sites. A complete pup 
count (as is done for other pinnipeds in California) is also not 
possible because harbor seals are precocious, with pups entering the 
water almost immediately after birth. Based on the most recent harbor 
seal counts (2004 and 2005) and including a revised correction factor, 
the estimated population of harbor seals in California is 34,233 
(Carretta et al., 2005), with an estimated minimum population of 31,600 
for the California stock of harbor seals. Counts of harbor seals in 
California showed a rapid increase from approximately 1972 to 1990, but 
since 1990 there has been no net population growth along the mainland 
or the Channel Islands. Though no formal determination of Optimal 
Sustainable Population (OSP) has been made, the decrease in the growth 
rate may indicate that the population is approaching its environmental 
carrying capacity. The harbor seal is not listed under the ESA and the 
California stock is not considered depleted under the MMPA.

California Sea Lion

    The U.S. stock of California sea lions extends from the U.S. Mexico 
border north into Canada. Breeding areas of the sea lion are on islands 
located in southern California, western Baja California, and the Gulf 
of California and they primarily use the central California area to 
feed during the non-breeding season. California sea lions, although 
abundant in northern California waters, have seldom been recorded in 
Trinidad Bay during the surveys reported by Goley et al. (2007), but no 
records were kept of whether they were seldom observed in water or on 
haul-outs. This may be due to the presence of a large and active harbor 
seal population there.
    The entire population cannot be counted because all age and sex 
classes are never ashore at the same time. In lieu of counting all sea 
lions, pups are counted during the breeding season

[[Page 28742]]

(because this is the only age class that is ashore in its entirety), 
and the numbers of births is estimated from the pup count. The size of 
the population is then estimated from the number of births and the 
proportion of pups in the population. Population estimates for the U.S. 
stock of California sea lions, range from a minimum of 141,842 to an 
average of 238,000 animals. The California sea lion is not listed under 
the ESA and the U.S. stock is not considered depleted under the MMPA.

Eastern Pacific Gray Whale

    There are two recognized stocks of gray whales in the North 
Pacific, the Eastern North Pacific stock (or population), which lives 
along the west coast of North America, and the Western North Pacific or 
``Korean'' stock (or population), which lives along the coast of 
eastern Asia (Rice, 1981; Rice et al., 1984; Swartz et al., 2006). Most 
of the Eastern Pacific stock spends the summer feeding in the northern 
and western Bering and Chukchi Seas (Rice and Wolman, 1971; Berzin, 
1984; Nerini, 1984). However, gray whales have been reported feeding in 
the summer in waters near Kodiak Island, Southeast Alaska, British 
Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California (Rice and Wolman, 1971; 
Darling, 1984; Nerini, 1984; Rice et al., 1984; Moore et al., 2007). 
Each fall, the whales migrate south along the coast of North America 
from Alaska to Baja California in Mexico (Rice and Wolman, 1971), most 
of them starting in November or December (Rugh et al., 2001). The 
Eastern Pacific stock winters mainly along the west coast of Baja 
California, using certain shallow, nearly landlocked lagoons and bays, 
and calves are born from early January to mid-February (Rice et al., 
1981), often seen on the migrations well north of Mexico (Shelden et 
al., 2004). The northbound migration generally begins in mid-February 
and continues through May (Rice et al., 1981, 1984; Poole, 1984a), with 
cows and newborn calves migrating northward primarily between March and 
June along the U.S. West Coast.
    Goley et al. (2007) lists the sighting rates for gray whales during 
eight years of monthly observations at Trinidad Bay. Sighting rates 
varied from 0 to 1.38 whales per hour of observation time. The average 
detection rate during the period when pile removal and placement would 
occur, in months from August through January, was 0.21 whales per hour 
of observation time. In contrast, the average detection rate in the 
months of February through July was 0.48 whales per hour. The majority 
of these detections were within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the shorelines. 
Visibility conditions seldom allow detection of whales at greater 
distances.
    The population size of the Eastern Pacific gray whale stock has 
been increasing over the past several decades. Based on the most recent 
abundance estimates, the minimum population for this stock is 17,752 
animals. As of 1994, the Eastern Pacific stock of gray whales is no 
longer listed as endangered under the ESA and is not considered 
depleted under the MMPA. The Western Pacific stock of gray whales is 
listed as endangered under the ESA and is considered depleted under the 
MMPA.

Steller Sea Lions

    Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific rim from northern 
Japan to California (Loughlin et al., 1984), with centers of abundance 
and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, 
respectively. The species is not known to migrate, but individuals 
disperse widely outside of the breeding season (late May to early 
July), thus potentially intermixing with animals from other areas. 
Despite the wide-ranging movements of juveniles and adult males in 
particular, exchange between rookeries by breeding adult females and 
males (other than between adjoining rookeries) appears low, although 
males have a higher tendency to disperse than females (NMFS, 1995; 
Trujillo et al., 2004; Hoffman et al., 2006). A northward shift in the 
overall breeding distribution has occurred, with a contraction of the 
range in southern California and new rookeries established in 
southeastern Alaska (Pitcher et al., 2007).
    The eastern stock of Steller sea lions breeds on rookeries located 
in southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, and California; there 
are no rookeries located in Washington. Counts of pups on rookeries 
conducted near the end of the birthing season are nearly complete 
counts of pup production. Using the most recent 2002 to 2005 pup counts 
available by region from aerial surveys across the range of the eastern 
stock, the total population of the eastern stock of Steller sea lions 
is estimated to be within the range of 45,095 to 55,832 (NMFS, 2009).
    Steller sea lions are migratory and appear to be most abundant in 
Humboldt County area during spring and fall. The nearest documented 
haul-out site for Steller sea lions is Blank Rock, situated 
approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) due west of the Trinidad Pier, on the 
opposite side of Trinidad Head (see Figure 2 of IHA application). 
Surveys have documented absence of Steller sea lions at this haul-out 
between the months of October through April, and very few have been 
observed in the months of August and September (Sullivan, 1980). 
Furthermore, when leaving haul-outs, sea lions generally travel seaward 
to forage in deeper waters where their prey is more abundant (NMFS, 
2008). Steller sea lions have not been documented within Trinidad Bay 
over eight years of surveys conducted at the site (Goley, pers. comm.). 
The areas surrounding the project site could be used by non-breeding 
adults and juveniles and by sea lions after the breeding season (NMFS, 
2006). The applicant has not requested authorization for incidental 
take of Steller sea lions. Based on its assessment of the occurrence, 
distribution, and behavioral patterns of the Steller sea lion, NMFS 
does not expect that the proposed specified activities are likely to 
result in incidental take of the species.

Killer Whales

    Killer whales have been observed in all oceans and seas of the 
world (Leather wood and Dahlheim, 1978). Although reported from 
tropical and offshore waters, killer whales prefer the colder waters of 
both hemispheres, with greatest abundances found within 800 km (497.1 
mi) of major continents (Mitchell, 1975). Along the west coast of North 
America, killer whales occur along the entire Alaska coast (Braham and 
Dahlheim, 1982), in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways 
(Bigg et al., 1990), and along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, 
and California (Green et al., 1992; Barlow, 1995, 1997; Forney et al., 
1995). Seasonal and year-round occurrence has been noted for killer 
whales through Alaska (Braham and Dahlheim, 1982) and in the 
intracoastal waterways of British Columbia and Washington State, where 
pods have been labeled as `resident,' `transient,' and `offshore' (Bigg 
et al., 1990; Ford et al., 1994) based on aspects of morphology, 
ecology, genetics, and behavior (Ford and Fisher, 1982; Baird and 
Stacey, 1988; Baird et al., 1992; Hoelzel et al., 1998). Movements of 
killer whales between the waters of Southeast Alaska and central 
California have been documented (Goley and Straley, 1994).
    Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements, 
genetic differences and potential fishery interactions, five killer 
whale stocks are recognized within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic 
Zone: (1) The Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident stock--occurring 
from British Columbia through Alaska, (2) the Eastern North Pacific 
Southern Resident stock--

[[Page 28743]]

occurring mainly within the inland waters of Washing State and British 
Columbia, but also in coastal waters from British Columbia through 
California, (3) the Eastern North Pacific Transient stock--occurring 
from Alaska through California, (4) the Eastern North Pacific Offshore 
stock--occurring from Southeast Alaska though California, and (5) the 
Hawaiian stock (NMFS, 2000, 2004).
    Killer whales are rare visitors to Trinidad Bay, but there is 
currently a very high awareness of their potential presence due to an 
incident in May, 2008, when a transient killer whale was observed to 
take a seal on the beach at Trinidad Bay (Driscoll, 2008). The 
applicant has not requested authorization for incidental take of killer 
whales. Based on its assessment of data regarding the distribution, 
migratory patterns and occurrence of transient killer whales, NMFS does 
not expect that the proposed specified activities are likely to result 
in incidental take of the species.
    Further information on the biology and local distribution of these 
marine mammal species and others in the region can be found in the 
Trinidad Rancheria's application and BA, which is available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES), and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment 
Reports, which are available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.

Potential Effects of Activities on Marine Mammals

    The Trinidad Rancheria requests authorization for Level B 
harassment of three species of marine mammals (i.e., Pacific harbor 
seals, Eastern Pacific gray whales, and California sea lions) 
incidental to the use of heavy equipment and its propagation of 
underwater and in-air noise various acoustic mechanisms associated with 
the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project and the proposed specified 
activities discussed above. Marine mammals potentially occurring in 
Trinidad Harbor include Pacific harbor seals, Eastern Pacific gray 
whales, California sea lions, Steller sea lions, and killer whales 
(transient). Killer whale and Steller sea lion observations in the 
specific geographic area, as noted, are very rare (less than one per 
year) and thus not likely to be affected by the proposed action. But 
the gray whale and California sea lion are observed occasionally, and 
harbor seals are seldom absent from the harbor, and thus considered 
likely to be exposed to sound associated with the Trinidad Pier 
Reconstruction Project.
    Current NMFS practice, regarding exposure of marine mammals to 
high-level underwater sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to 
impulsive sounds of at or above 180 and 190 dB (rms) or above, 
respectively, have the potential to be injured (i.e., Level A 
harassment). NMFS considers the potential for behavioral (Level B) 
harassment to occur when marine mammals are exposed to sounds below 
injury thresholds but at or above the 160 dB (rms) threshold for 
impulse sounds (e.g., impact pile-driving) and the 120 dB (rms) 
threshold for continuous noise (e.g., vibratory pile-driving). No 
impact pile-driving is planned for the proposed activity in Trinidad 
Bay. Current NMFS practice, regarding exposure of marine mammals to 
high-level in-air sounds, as a threshold for potential Level B 
harassment, is at or above 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa for harbor seals and at 
or above 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa for all other pinniped species (Lawson et 
al., 2002; Southall et al., 2007).
    The acoustic mechanisms involved entail in-air and underwater non-
impulsive noise caused by the activities of vibratory pile removal, 
auger operation, and vibratory pile placement. Anticipated peak 
underwater noise levels may exceed the 120 dB (rms) threshold for Level 
B harassment for continuous noise sources, but are not anticipated to 
exceed the 180 and 190 dB (rms) Level A harassment thresholds for 
cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. Expected in-air noise levels are 
anticipated to result in elevated sound intensities within 152.4 m (500 
ft) of the proposed construction activities involving vibratory pile-
driving and augering. No other mechanisms are expected to affect marine 
mammal use of the area. The debris containment boom, for instance, 
would not affect any haul-out and would not entail noise, and activity 
in the water materially different from normal vessel operations at the 
pier, to which the animals are already habituated.

Underwater Noise

    Background--When a pile is vibrated, the vibration propagates 
through the pile and radiates sound into the water and the substrate as 
well as the air. Sound pressure pulse as a function of time is referred 
to as the waveform. The peak pressure is the highest absolute value of 
the measured waveform, and can be negative or positive pressure peak 
(see Table 1 of the IHA application for definitions of terms used in 
this analysis). The rms level is determined by analyzing the waveform 
and computing the average of the squared pressures over the time that 
comprise that portion of the waveform containing 90 percent of the 
sound energy (Richardson et al., 1995; Illingworth and Rodkin, 2008). 
This rms term is described as rms 90 percent in this document. In this 
analysis, underwater peak pressures and rms sound pressure levels are 
expressed in decibels (dB) re 1 [mu]Pa. The total sound energy in an 
impulse accumulates over the duration of that impulse.
    Baseline Underwater Noise Level--Currently, no data are available 
describing baseline levels of underwater sound in Trinidad Bay. Sound 
dissipates more rapidly in shallow waters and over soft bottoms (i.e., 
sand). Much of Trinidad Bay is characterized by its shallow depth (30 
to 50 ft), flat bottom, and floor substrate of rock, cobble, gravel, 
sand, and irregularly submerged rock in some areas, thereby making it a 
poor acoustic environment. Currents, tides, waves, winds, commercial 
and recreational vessels, and in-air noise may further increase 
background sound levels near the proposed action area. Relevant index 
information can be derived from underwater sound baselines in other 
areas. The quietest waters in the oceans of the world are at Sea State 
Zero, 90 dB (rms) at 100 Hz (National Research Council, 2003; Guedel, 
1992). Underwater sound levels in Elliott Bay near Seattle, Washington, 
representative of an area receiving moderately heavy vessel traffic, 
are about 130 dB (rms) (WSDOT, 2006). In Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, an 
area which, like Trinidad Bay, receives moderate to heavy traffic from 
smaller vessels, underwater sound levels of 140 dB (rms) are reached on 
summer weekends, dropping to 120 dB (rms) during quiet mid-week periods 
(Cummings, 1987). Since Trinidad Bay receives daily, year-round use by 
a variety of recreational and fishing vessels, a background underwater 
sound estimate of 120 dB (rms) is a conservative estimator for daytime 
underwater noise levels, and was used to calculate the action area for 
the proposed action. The rationale for using the background estimate of 
120 dB (rms) is based upon comparison with inland or protected marine 
waters (Puget Sound in Washington, and Lake Coeur d'Alene in Idaho) 
that are not subject to the severity of wave and storm activity that 
can occur in the Trinidad Bay area. It is likely that intermittent 
directional sound sources of higher intensity constitute a part of the 
normal acoustic background, to which seals in the area are habituated. 
Assuming that such intermittent background sound sources

[[Page 28744]]

may be twice as loud as the regionally averaged rms background sound 
level of 120 dB, then seals are unlikely to show a behavioral response 
to any sounds quieter than 126 dB (rms). A sound that is as loud as or 
below ambient/background levels is likely not discernable to marine 
mammals and therefore, is not likely to have the potential to harass a 
marine mammal.
    Noise Thresholds--There has been extensive effort directed towards 
the establishment of underwater sound thresholds for marine life. 
Various criteria for marine mammals have been established through 
precedent. Current NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine mammals 
to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to 
impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB (rms) or above, respectively, have 
the potential to be injured (i.e., Level A harassment). NMFS considers 
the potential for Level B harassment (behavioral) to occur when marine 
mammals are exposed to sounds below injury thresholds, but at or above 
160 dB (rms) for impulse sounds and/or above 120 dB (rms) for 
continuous noise (e.g., vibratory pile-driving). As noted above, 
current NMFS practice, regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-
level in-air sounds, as a potential threshold for Level B harassment, 
is at or above 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa for harbor seals and at or above 100 
dB re 20 [mu]Pa for all other pinniped species. Since, as noted above, 
background sound levels in Trinidad Bay are anticipated to frequently 
exceed the 120 dB (rms) threshold, this analysis evaluates potential 
effects relative to a background of 126 dB (rms).

Anticipated Extent of Underwater Project Noise

    Pile-Driving--There are several sources of measurement data for 
piles that have been driven with a vibratory hammer. Illingworth and 
Rodkin (2008) collected data at several different projects with pile 
sizes ranging from 33 to 183 cm (13 to 72 in). The most representative 
data from these measurements would be from the Ten Mile River Bridge 
Replacement Project and the Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal 
Redevelopment Project. At Ten Mile, 96 cm (30 in) CISS piles were 
measured in cofferdams filled with water in the Ten Mile River at 33 ft 
(m) and 330 ft (m) from the piles. The sound level in the water channel 
ranged from less than 150 to 166 dB (rms). Levels generally increase 
gradually with increasing pile size. These sound levels are, therefore 
considered a conservative (credible worst case) estimate of the 
expected levels given that the size of the piles proposed for this 
project are smaller in diameter (45.7 cm or 18 in) than the piles 
measured at Ten Mile.
    Illingworth and Rodkin (2008) gathered data at the Port of 
Anchorage (POA) during the vibratory driving of steel H piles. These 
data, and data gathered by others, were used as the basis for the 
Environmental Assessment that was prepared by NMFS for the issuance of 
an IHA at the POA. These data were summarized in this IHA. The POA IHA 
concluded that average sound levels of vibratory pile-driving sounds 
would be approximately 162 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at a distance of 20 m (65.6 
ft). Furthermore, for vibratory pile-driving, the 120 dB level would be 
exceeded out to about 800.1 m (2,625 ft) from the vibratory hammer.
    A selection of additional projects using vibratory hammers was made 
from the ``Compendium of Pile-Driving Sound Data'' (Illingworth and 
Rodkin, 2007). This includes all projects in the compendium that used a 
vibratory hammer to drive steel pipe piles or H-piles. Data from these 
projects, and the two project named above are summarized in Table 2 of 
the IHA application.

                                            Table 2--Sound Level Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Distance (m and
            Project                    ft)             Pile type        Water depth     dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Mile.......................  10 m (33 ft).....  76.2 cm (30 in)   Not stated......  166.
                                                    steel pipe.
10 Mile.......................  100.6 m (330 ft).  76.2 cm (30 in)   Not stated......  Less than 150.
                                                    steel pipe.
Port of Anchorage.............  20.1 m (66 ft)...  H-pile..........  Not stated......  162.
San Rafael Canal..............  10 m (33 ft).....  25.4 cm (10 in)   2.1 m (7 ft)....  147.
                                                    H-pile.
San Rafael Canal..............  20.1 m (66 ft)...  25.4 cm (10 in)   2.1 m (7 ft)....  137.
                                                    H-pile.
Mad River Slough..............  10 m (33 ft).....  33 cm (13 in)     4.9 m (16 ft)...  154 to 156.
                                                    steel pipe.
Richmond Inner Harbor.........  10 m (33 ft).....  1.8 m (6 ft)      Not stated......  167 to 180.
                                                    steel pipe.
Richmond Inner Harbor.........  29.9 m (98 ft)...  1.8 m (6 ft)      Not stated......  160.
                                                    steel pipe.
Stockton Wastewater Crossing..  10 m (33 ft).....  0.9 m (3 ft)      Not stated......  168 to 175.
                                                    steel pipe.
Stockton Wastewater Crossing..  20.1 (66 ft).....  0.9 m (3 ft)      Not stated......  166.
                                                    steel pipe.
San Rafael Sea Wall...........  10 m (33 ft).....  25.4 cm (10 in)   2.1 m (7 ft)....  147.
                                                    H-pile.
San Rafael Sea Wall...........  20.1 m (66 ft)...  25.4 cm (10 in)   2.1 m (7 ft)....  137.
                                                    H-pile.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Illingworth and Rodkin (2007, 2008).

    Based on these data, the results for 76.2 cm to 0.9 m (30 in to 3 
ft) steel pipe driven in water would appear to constitute a 
conservative representation of the potential effects of driving 45.7 cm 
(18 in) steel pipe at the Trinidad Pier. Those indicate an rms level of 
166 to 175 dB at 10 m (33 ft) from the pile. Calculations in this 
analysis assume the high end of this range. For this analysis, close to 
the pile, it is assumed that there would be a 4.5 dB (rms) decrease for 
every doubling of the distance (practical spreading loss model). 
Isopleth distances base on this inference are presented in Table 3 of 
Trinidad Rancheria's IHA application. Figure 1 of the IHA application 
shows both the area of effect and the relative exposure risk based on 
the presence of shielding features (headlands and sea stacks). Under no 
circumstances would the Level A harassment (injury) threshold for 
cetaceans or pinnipeds by exceeded, but the specified activities would 
likely exceed the Level B harassment threshold, which also corresponds 
to background sound level in the area, throughout Trinidad Harbor. 
Shielding by headlands flanking the harbor would, however, prevent 
acoustic impacts to waters outside the harbor that are not on a line-
of-sight to the sound source. This effect is shown in Figure 1 of the 
IHA application.
    Noise Levels from Augering--An auger is a device used for moving 
material or liquid by means of a rotating helical shaft into the earth. 
An attempt

[[Page 28745]]

was made to measure the noise from augering out the 76.2 cm (30 in) 
piles at the Ten Mile Bridge Replacement Project. The levels were below 
the peak director of the equipment, 160 dB peak, and so measurements 
were stopped. Augering is expected to generate noise levels at or below 
the lower end of this range (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2008). Using the 
uniform ``practical spreading model'' transmission loss rate of 4.5 dB 
(rms) per doubling of distance, background sound levels would exceed 
the Level B harassment threshold at distances of less than 2.4 km (1.5 
mi) (see Table 4 and Table 3 of the IHA application).

     Table 3--Predicted Distances to Acoustic Threshold Levels for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Distance from activity to isopleths
      Construction activity      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     190 dB (rms)        180 dB (rms)        160 dB (rms)        126 dB (rms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45.7 cm (18 in) Pile Vibratory    0.9 m (3 ft)......  4.9 m (16 ft).....  101.5 m (333 ft)..  23.3 km (14.5 mi).
 Installation.
Augering........................  0 m (0 ft)........  0.3 m (1 ft)......  10.1 m (33 ft)....  2.4 km (1.5 mi).
Wood Pile Removal...............  0 m (0 ft)........  0.9 m (3 ft)......  21.6 m (71 ft)....  5 km (3.1 mi).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noise Levels from Removal of Wood Piles--Removal of the existing 
wood piles would be accomplished with the use of a vibratory hammer. 
Typically the noise levels for installing and removing a pile are 
approximately the same when a vibratory hammer is used. The noise 
generated by installing wood piles is generally lower than steel shell 
piles. Illingworth and Rodkin (2007, 2008) have had only one 
opportunity to measure the installation of woodpiles and this was with 
a 1,360.8 kg (3,000 lb) impact hammer. The levels measured at a 
distance of 10 m (32.8 ft) were as follows: 172 to 182 dB peak, 163 to 
168 dB (rms). For a comparable CISS pile, using a 1,360.8 kg (3,000 lb) 
drop hammer, the levels measured were 188 to 192 dB peak, 172 to 177 dB 
(rms). The noise generated during the installation of the wood pile was 
approximately 10 dB lower than the CISS piles. Following this logic, 
the sound produced when removing the wood piles would be about 10 dB 
lower than when installing the CISS piles.
    Levels of 180 dB (rms) and 190 dB (rms) are expected to occur in 
the water at very small distances as a result of pile removal (see 
Table 4). Peak sound pressures would not be expected to exceed 190 dB 
in water. The average sound level of vibratory woodpile removal would 
be approximately 152 dB (rms) at a distance of 20.1 m (66 ft). Using 
the uniform practical spreading loss model transmission loss rate of 
4.5 dB (rms) per doubling of distance, the Level B harassment threshold 
distance would be 5 km (3.1 miles) (see Table 3 in the IHA 
application).
    Potential for Biological Effects--Based on the foregoing analysis, 
the proposed action could result in underwater acoustic effects to 
marine mammals. The injury thresholds for pinnipeds and cetaceans would 
not be attained, but the acoustic background level in the area, 126 dB 
(rms) would be attained during use of the vibratory pile driver (for 
wood piling removal and for CISS pile placement), and during augering 
of the CISS pile placements. Effects distances for these activities are 
shown in Table 3 of the IHA application, and range up to 23.3 km (14.5 
mi). The duration of exposure varies between activities.

                                      Table 4--Noise Generating Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number of days     126 dB (rms)
    Construction activity         Number of     Time per pile    Duration of   when  activity       isopleth
                                    piles                         activity         occurs           distance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45.7 cm (18 in) pile                      115            0:15           28:45              58  23.3 km (14.5
 vibratory installation.                                                                        mi).
Augering.....................             115            1:00          115:00              58  2.4 km (1.5 mi).
Wood pile removal............             205            0:40          136:40              58  5 km (3.1 mi).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pile installation would occur for approximately 30 min (up to two 
piles would be driven each day at up to 15 min drive time per pile) on 
each of 58 days (see Table 4 above and Table 4 of the IHA application), 
resulting in sound levels exceeding the behavioral effect threshold 
within 23.3 km (14.5 mi) of the activity.
    Pile removal is a quieter activity performed for a longer time: 
approximately 136:67 hours distributed evenly over 58 days, or about 
2.5 hours on each day when the activity occurs. Sound levels would 
exceed the behavioral effect threshold within 5 km (3.1 mi) of the 
activity.
    Augering the least-noisy activity, is estimated to require 1 hour 
for each of 115 piles with activity occurring on each of 58 days evenly 
distributed during a 180 day period, or about 2.0 hours on each day 
when the activity occurs. Sound levels would exceed the behavioral 
effect threshold within 2.4 km (1.5 mi) of the activity.
    These activities could be performed on the same day, but are 
expected to normally occur on consecutive days, with a cycle of pile 
removal--pile installation--augering--grouting occurring as each of 25 
successive bents is placed.
    As shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the IHA application, Trinidad Bay is 
protected from waves coming from the north and west, but open to 
coastline on the south. The coast extending to the south, and the rocky 
headland to the west of the pier, would shield waters from the acoustic 
effects described above except within the bay itself. These topographic 
considerations result in a situation such that underwater noise-
generating activities would produce elevated underwater sound within 
most of the bay itself, but would have a minor effect on underwater 
sound levels outside the bay.

[[Page 28746]]

    Seals outside of Trinidad Harbor and more than 1.6 to 3.2 km (1 to 
2 mi) offshore are likely already exposed to and habituated to loud 
machinery noise in the form of deep-draft vessel traffic along the 
coast; such vessels may produce noise levels of the order of 170 to 180 
dB (rms) at 10 m and thus have areas of effect comparable to the 23.3 
km (14.5 mi) radius of effect calculated for vibratory pile-driving 
noise. In this context, the 23.3 km (14.5 mi) radius of effect is 
likely unrealistic, just as it is likely unrealistic to think that 
these seals alter their behavior in response to the passage of a large 
vessel 23.3 km (14.5 mi) away. Behavioral considerations suggest that 
the seals would be able to determine that a noise source does not 
constitute a threat if it is more than a couple of miles away, and the 
sound levels involved are not high enough to result in injury (Level A 
harassment). Nonetheless, these data suggest that pile-driving may 
affect seal behavior throughout Trinidad harbor, i.e., within 
approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) of the proposed activity. The nature of 
that effect is unpredictable, but logical responses on the part of the 
seals include tolerance (noise levels would not be loud enough to 
induce temporary threshold shift in harbor seals), or avoidance by 
using haul-outs or by foraging outside the harbor.
    With regard to noises other than pile-driving (i.e., pile removal, 
augering, and construction noise), estimation of biological effects 
depends on the characteristics of the noise and the behavior of the 
seals. The noise is qualitatively similar to that produced by the 
engines of fishing vessels or the operations of winches, noises to 
which the seals are habituated and which they in fact regard as an 
acoustic indicator signaling good foraging opportunities near the pier. 
There are no data about the magnitude of this acoustic indicator, but 
the noise produced by the fishing vessel engines entering or leaving 
the harbor is likely not less than 150 dB (rms) at 10 m, though it will 
be quieter as vessels ``throttle back'' near the pier. This level (150 
dB [rms]) is the same as the estimated noise level from augering, and 
15 dB less than the estimated noise level from pile removal. In this 
context, behavioral responses due to augering are not likely, except 
that initially seals might approach the work area in anticipation of 
foraging opportunities. Such behavior would likely cease once the seals 
learned the difference between the sound auger and that of a fishing 
vessel. Behavioral responses in the form of avoidance due to pile 
removal might occur within a distance of about 50 m (164 ft) from the 
proposed activity, but the area so affected constitutes a small 
fraction of Trinidad Harbor and has no haul-outs; thus very few seals 
would be expected to be affected.
    In-Air Noise--The principal source of in-air noise would be the 
vibratory pile driver used to extract old wood piles and to place the 
new CISS piles. Laughlin (2010) has recently reported unweighted sound 
measurements from vibratory pile drivers used to place steel piles at 
two projects involving dock renovation for the Washington State 
Ferries. In both projects, noise levels were measured in terms of the 5 
min average continuous sound level (Leq). Frequency-domain spectra for 
the maximum sound level (Lmax) were also measured. The Leq measurements 
in this case were equivalent to the unweighted rms sound level, 
measured over a 5 min period.
    At the Wahkiakum County Ferry Terminal, one measurement station was 
used to take measurements of the vibratory placement (APE hammer) of 
one 45.7 cm (18 in) steel in-water pile, the same size that would be 
placed during the Trinidad Pier renovation. At the Keystone Ferry Dock 
renovation, four measurement stations were used to take measurements of 
the vibratory placement (APE hammer) of one 76.2 cm (30 in) steel in-
water pile. At both sites, piles were placed in alluvial sediments, 
whereas the Trinidad Pier piles would be placed in pre-bored holes in 
sandstone. Results from the Wahkiakum and Keystone piles (Laughlin, 
2010) are shown in Table 5 of the IHA application.
    Based on these data (Laughlin, 2010), in-air noise production 
during pile-driving at the Trinidad Pier will likely be between 87.5 
and 96.5 dB re 20 [micro]Pa unweighted at 50 ft. For the purpose of the 
analysis presented below, it is assumed that in-air noise from 
vibratory pile-driving would produce 96 dB (rms) unweighted. This noise 
would be produced during both pile removal and pile placement 
activities. The augering equipment produces slightly less noise, 92 dB 
(rms) unweighted (WSDOT, 2006). All other power equipment that would be 
used as part of the proposed action (e.g., trucks, pumps, compressors) 
produces at least 10 dB less noise and thus has much less potential to 
affect wildlife in the area.
    In contrast, background noise levels near the Trinidad Pier are 
already elevated due to normal pier activities. Marine mammals at 
Trinidad Bay haul-outs are presumably habituated to the daily coming 
and going of fishing and recreational vessels, and to existing 
activities at the pier such as operation of the hoists and the loading 
and unloading of commercial crab boats. These activities may occur at 
any time of the day and may produce noise levels up to approximately 82 
to 86 dB (unweighted) at 15.2 m (50 ft) for periods of up to several 
hours at a time. Accordingly 82 dB (unweighted) is chosen as the 
background level for noise near the pier.
    Effects on Pacific Harbor Seals--In-air sound attenuates at the 
rate of approximately 5 dB/km for a frequency of 1 kHz, air temperature 
of 10[deg] C (50[deg] F), and relative humidity of 80 percent (Kaye and 
Laby, 2010). These conditions approximate winter weather in Trinidad. 
Under these conditions, the noise of the vibratory pile-driver would 
attenuate to approximately 82 dB at approximately 2.8 km (1.7 mi) from 
the pier. Attenuation, which is proportional to frequency, would be 
reduced at lower frequencies, and would be much greater at higher 
frequencies. Attenuation would also be greater at locations where 
headlands or sea stacks interfere with sound transmission, as shown in 
Figure 1 of the IHA application. Accordingly, the sounds produced by 
pile extraction, augering, and pile replacement would exceed background 
levels within almost all of Trinidad Harbor.
    Driving of CISS piles would occur for a total of approximately 0.5 
hours per day on each of 58 days within a 180 day period (August 1 to 
January 31, 2010) (see Table 4 of the IHA application). Pile-driving 
would occur during daylight hours, at which time harbor seals would be 
periodically coming to or leaving from haul-outs, and possibly foraging 
within the radius of effect around the pile-driving activity. Harbor 
seals haul-out on rocks and at small beaches at many locations that are 
widely dispersed within Trinidad Bay; the closest such haul-out is 70 m 
(229.7 ft) from the pier, while the most distant is over 1 km (0.6 mi) 
away near the south end of Trinidad Bay.
    Behavioral effects could result to all seals that were in the water 
within the area of effect during the portion of the day when piles were 
being driven (typically two piles per day). For instance, if seals 
spent 10 percent of the day in the water within the radius of effect, 
and assuming that the number of seals present that day was 
approximately 37 (as discussed above in the context of data presented 
by Goley et al. [2007]), then about 3.66 seals would be affected by 
each of two pile drives. Because the drives occurred during different 
parts of the day, different seals would likely be affected, resulting 
in a total impact on that day to seven or eight seals.

[[Page 28747]]

    The 10 percent estimate given above for the time seals spend within 
the radius of effect is a representative figure for the purposes of 
illustration. There are no data available on relative seal use of the 
haul-outs in Trinidad Bay, versus their use of waters in Trinidad Bay, 
versus their use of waters or haul-outs elsewhere. The radius of effect 
is only a small fraction of Trinidad Bay, and only a fraction of the 
rocks that comprise the Indian Beach haul-out described in Goley et al. 
(2007) are within that radius of effect. However, it is known that 
during winter months (when the proposed construction is scheduled to 
occur), seal use of the haul-outs in Trinidad Bay likely declines 
because the seals spend a larger fraction of their time at sea, 
foraging in offshore waters (Goley, 2007). Figure 1 of the IHA 
application shows that topographic shielding by headlands blocks a 
large area of offshore habitat from potential underwater construction 
noise effects.
    Impacts attributable to pile removal would be similar to those of 
pile-driving, but pile removal would occur for a total of approximately 
2.5 hours per day on each of 58 days (see Table 4 of the IHA 
application). Subject to the same assumptions as described above, but 
this time with the activity being performed on an average of 3.5 piles 
per day, about 3.66 seals would be affected by each of 3.5 pile removal 
events for a total daily impact to 13 seals.
    Impacts attributable to augering would also be similar, but 
augering would occur for a total of approximately two hours per day on 
each of 58 days. Subject to the same assumptions as described above, 
but this time with the activity being performed on an average of two 
piles per day, about seven or eight seals would be affected by each of 
two augering events for a total daily impact to seven or eight seals. 
These numbers would vary if more or fewer seals were present in the 
area of effect, and if seals spent more or less of their time in the 
water rather than on the haul-out.
    Although harbor seals could also be affected by in-air noise and 
activity associated with construction at the pier, seals at Trinidad 
Bay haul-outs are presumably habituated to human activity to some 
extent due to the daily coming and going of fishing and recreational 
vessels, and to existing activities at the pier such as operation of 
the hoists and the loading and unloading of commercial crab boats. 
These activities may occur at any time of the day and may produce noise 
levels up to approximately 82 dB at 15.2 m (50 ft) for periods of up to 
several hours at a time. The operation of loud equipment, including the 
vibratory pile-driving rig and the auger, are above and outside of the 
range of normal activity at the pier and have the potential to could 
cause seals to leave a haul-out in Trinidad Bay. This would constitute 
Level B harassment (behavioral). To date, such behavior by harbor seals 
has not been documented in Trinidad Bay in response to current levels 
of in-air noise and activity in the harbor, but does have the potential 
to occur. On the contrary, seals have been documented often approaching 
the pier during normal fishing boat activities in anticipation of 
feeding opportunities associated with the unloading of fish and 
shellfish. This circumstance suggests seal habituation to existing 
noise levels encountered near the pier.
    Based on these examples it appears likely that few harbor seals at 
haul-outs would show a behavioral response to noise at the pier, 
particularly in view of their existing habituation to noise activities 
at the pier. The great majority of haul-out locations in Trinidad Bay 
are at least 304.8 m (1,000 ft) from the pier, but one minor haul-out 
is 70.1 m (230 ft) from the pier (Goley, pers. comm.). In view of the 
relatively large area that would be affected by elevated in-air noise, 
it appears probable that some seals could show a behavioral response, 
despite their habituation to current levels of human-generated noise; 
incidental take by this mechanism may amount to an average of one seal 
harassed per day, when the activities of pile removal, augering, or 
pile placement are occurring (in addition to the seals harassed by 
underwater noise).
    Harbor seal presence in the activity area is perennial, with daily 
presence of an average of approximately 37 seals at a nearby haul-out 
during the months when the activity would occur. The fraction of these 
seals that would be in the activity area is difficult to estimate. 
Traditionally the seals have regarded the pier as a prime foraging area 
due to the recreational fishing activity and the unloading of fishing 
boats that occur there. During the construction period, however, these 
activities would cease, and it is plausible that the seals would modify 
their foraging behavior accordingly. Based on the analysis in the IHA 
application and here in this notice, seals would be affected once per 
day on each of 116 days when pile-driving or augering occurred, 13 
seals would be affected per day on each of 58 days when pile removal 
occurred, and one seal would be affected by in-air sound on each of 174 
days when pile removal, installation, or augering occurred. The 
potentially affected seals include adults of both sexes. Goley et al. 
(2007) states that the seals are year-round residents; that they are 
non-migratory, dispersing from a centralized location to forage; and 
that they exhibit high site fidelity, utilizing one to two haul-out 
sites within their range and rarely traveling more than 25 to 50 km 
(15.5 to 31.1mi) from these haul-outs. The winter population of seals 
in Trinidad Bay seems to consist mostly of resident seals (Goley et 
al., 2007), so it is likely that most seals in the population would be 
affected more than once over the course of the proposed construction 
period. It is therefore possible that some measure of adaptation or 
habituation would occur on the part of the seals, whereby they would 
tolerate elevated noise levels and/or utilize haul-outs relatively 
distant from construction activities. There are a large but inventoried 
number of haul-outs within Trinidad Bay, so such a strategy is 
possible, but it is difficult to predict whether the seals would show 
such a response.
    Project scheduling avoids sensitive life history phases of harbor 
seals. Project activities producing underwater noise would commence in 
August. This is after the end of the annual molt, which normally occurs 
in June and July. Project activities producing underwater noise are 
scheduled to terminate at the end of January, which is a full month 
before female seals begin to seek sites suitable for pupping.
    Effects on California Sea Lions--California sea lions, although 
abundant in northern California waters, have seldom been recorded in 
Trinidad Bay (i.e, there is little published information or data with 
which to determine how they use Trinidad Bay). There low abundance in 
the area may be due to the presence of a large and active harbor seal 
population there, which likely competes with the sea lions for foraging 
resources. Any sea lions that did visit the action area during 
construction activities would be subject to the same type of impacts 
described above for harbor seals. Observed use of the area by 
California sea lions amounts to less than one percent of the number of 
harbor seals (Goley, pers. comm.); assuming a one percent utilization 
rate, total impacts to California sea lions amount to one percent of 
the effects of harbor seals, described above.
    There is a possibility of behavioral effects related to project 
acoustic impacts, in the event of California sea lion presence in the 
activity area. Based on an interview with Dr. Dawn Goley (pers. comm.), 
California sea lions have been seen in the activity area, albeit

[[Page 28748]]

infrequently, and there are no quantitative estimates of the frequency 
of their occurrence. Assuming that they are present with one percent of 
the frequency of harbor seals, it is possible California sea lions 
might be subject to behavioral harassment up to one percent of the 
levels described for harbor seals. The potentially affected sea lions 
include adults of both sexes
    Effects on Eastern Pacific Gray Whales--Goley et al. (2007) list 
the sighting rates for gray whales during eight years of monthly 
observations at Trinidad Bay. Sighting rates varied from 0 to 1.38 
whales per hour of observation time. The average detection rate during 
the period when pile removal and placement would occur, in the months 
from August through January, was 0.21 whales per hour of observation 
time. In contrast, the average detection rate in the months of February 
through July was 0.48 whales per hour. The majority of these detections 
were within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the shoreline (Goley et al., 2007). These 
data suggest that the effect rate for gray whales would be 
approximately 0.21 whales per hour. Since vibratory pile-driving of 
CISS piles would occur for a total of approximately 28.75 hours (115 
piles at 15 min drive time apiece; see Table 4 of the IHA application), 
vibratory pile-driving activities would be expected to affect 0.21 x 
28.75 = 6.04 or approximately six gray whales.
    Acoustic effects would be expected to result from pile removal, 
which is a quieter activity performed for a longer time. Approximately 
205 piles will be removed, with 40 min of vibratory pile driver noise 
for each pile, resulting in a total exposure of 136.67 hours (see Table 
4 of the IHA application). Thus this activity would be expected to 
affect 6.04 x 136.7/28.75 = 28.7 or approximately 29 gray whales.
    Acoustic effects would also be expected to result from pile 
augering, which is an even quieter activity. There will be 115 holes 
augered, with one hour of noise for each hole, resulting in a total 
exposure of 115 hours (see Table 4 of the IHA application). Thus, this 
activity would be expected to affect 6.04 x 115/28.75 = 24.2 or 
approximately 24 gray whales. No mechanism other than underwater sound 
generation is expected to affect gray whales in the action area.
    The most likely number of gray whales that would be taken is 59. 
Based on the low detection rate of 0.21 whales per hour (Goley et al., 
2007), most of these take events would likely be independent. Based on 
past observations of gray whales in the harbor (Goley et al., 2007), 
most of these takes events would likely be independent. Based on past 
observations of gray whales in the harbor (Goley et al., 2007), whales 
would likely be adults of both sexes.
    The potential effects to marine mammals described in this section 
of the document do not take into consideration the proposed monitoring 
and mitigation measures described later in this document (see the 
``Proposed Mitigation'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting'' 
sections) which, as noted are designed to effect the least practicable 
adverse impact on affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Possible Effects of Activities on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The anticipated adverse impacts upon habitat consist of temporary 
changes to water quality and the acoustic environment, as detailed in 
the IHA application and Appendix B of the BA. These changes are minor, 
temporary, and limited duration to the period of construction. No 
restoration is needed because, as detailed in Section 6.1.6 of the BA, 
the project would have a net beneficial effect on habitat in the 
activity area by removing an existing source of stormwater discharge 
and creosote-treated wood. No aspect of the proposed project is 
anticipated to have any permanent effect on the location of seal and 
sea lion haul-outs in the area, and no permanent change in seal or sea 
lion use of haul-outs and related habitat features is anticipated to 
occur as a result of the proposed project.
    The temporary impacts on water quality and acoustic environment and 
the beneficial long-term effects are not expected to have any permanent 
effects on the populations of marine mammals occurring in Trinidad Bay. 
The area of habitat affected is small and the effects are temporary, 
thus there is no reason to expect any significant reduction in habitat 
available for foraging and other habitat uses.
    Although artificial, the pier functions as a habitat feature. There 
would probably be a temporary cessation of seal activity in the 
immediate vicinity of the pier. It is not clear at this time how this 
would affect seal behavior. The fishing vessels that normally use the 
pier during the months when construction would occur have two options; 
they can either transfer their cargoes to smaller vessels capable of 
landing at the existing boat ramp (which is on the east side of the 
rocky headland just east of the pier, a few hundred feet away), or they 
can make temporary use of pier facilities approximately 32.2 km (20 mi) 
to the south, in Eureka. Vessels opting to travel to Eureka would 
likely represent a lost foraging opportunity for seals using Trinidad 
Bay.
    NMFS anticipates that the action will result in no impacts to 
marine mammal habitat beyond rendering the areas immediately around the 
Trinidad Pier less desirable during pile-driving and pier renovation 
operations as the impacts will be localized. Impacts to marine mammal, 
invertebrate, and fish species are not expected to be detrimental.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization under Section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods 
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species 
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
    The activity proposed by the applicant includes a variety of 
measures calculated to minimize potential impacts on marine mammals, 
including:
     Timing the activity to occur during seasonal lows in 
marine mammal use of the activity area;
     Limiting activity to the hours of daylight (approximately 
7 a.m. to 7 p.m., with noise generating activities only authorized from 
one-half hour after sunrise until one-half hour before sunset);
     Use of a vibratory hammer to minimalize the noise of 
piling and removal and installation; and
     Use of trained PSOs to detect, document, and minimize 
impacts (i.e., start-up procedures [short periods of driver use with 
intervening pauses of comparable duration, performed two or three 
times, before beginning continuous driver use], possible shut-down of 
noise-generating operations [turning off the vibratory driver or auger 
so that in-air and/or underwater sounds associated with construction no 
longer exceed levels that are potentially harmful to marine mammals]) 
to marine mammals, as detailed in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan 
(see Appendix C of the IHA application) and in paragraphs (1)-(8) of 
the monitoring and reporting provisions below.

Timing Constraints for Underwater Noise

    To minimize noise impacts on marine mammals and fish, underwater 
construction activities shall be limited to the period when the species 
of concern will be least likely to be in the

[[Page 28749]]

project area. The construction window for underwater construction 
activities shall be August 1, 2011 to May 1, 2012. Avoiding periods 
when marine mammals are in the action area is another mitigation 
measure to protect marine mammals from pile-driving and renovation 
operations.
    Implementation Assurance: Provide NMFS advance notification of the 
start dates and end dates of underwater construction activities.
    More information regarding the Trinidad Rancheria's monitoring and 
mitigation measures, as well as research conducted, (i.e., noise study 
for potential impacts to marine mammals and fish; potential impacts to 
historical, archeological and human remains; potential impacts to water 
quality during reconstruction activities; potential impacts to 
substrate and water quality during tremie concrete seal pouring; and 
potential temporary impacts to public access to the pier during 
construction operations) for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction Project 
can be found in Appendix B of the IHA application. NMFS has carefully 
evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a 
range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes 
the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the 
affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. NMFS's 
evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the 
following factors in relation in one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned;
    Based on NMFS's evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, 
NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures 
provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on 
marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implanting 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs 
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary 
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the 
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine 
mammals that are expected to be present.
    Consistent with NMFS procedures, the following marine mammal 
monitoring and reporting shall be performed for the proposed action:
    (1) A NMFS-approved or -qualified Protected Species Observer (PSO) 
shall attend the project site one hour prior until one hour after 
construction activities cease each day throughout the construction 
window.
    (2) The PSO shall be approved by NMFS prior to reconstruction 
operations.
    (3) The PSO shall search for marine mammals within behavioral 
harassment threshold areas as identified within the acoustic effect 
thresholds in Section 6 of Trinidad Rancheria's IHA application. The 
area observed shall depend upon the type of underwater sound being 
produced (e.g., pile extraction, augering, or pile installation). No 
practicable technology exists to allow for monitoring beyond the visual 
range at which seals and sea lions can be detected using binoculars 
(approximately 0.8 km [0.5 mi]), depending on visibility and sea state. 
The estimated maximum distance at which PSOs will be able to visually 
detect gray whales is about 1.6 km (1 mi).
    (4) The PSO shall be present on the pier during pile-extraction, 
pile-driving and augering to observe for the presence of marine mammals 
in the vicinity of the proposed specified activity. All such activity 
will occur during daylight hours (i.e., 30 min after sunrise and 30 min 
before sunset). If inclement weather limits visibility within the area 
of effect, the PSO will perform visual scans to the extent conditions 
allow, but activity will be stopped at any time that the observer 
cannot clearly see the water surface out to a distance of at least 30.5 
m (100 ft) from the proposed activity. In conditions of good 
visibility, PSOs will likely be able to detect pinnipeds out to a range 
of approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from the pier, and to detect whales 
out to a range of approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) from the pier. Animals 
at greater distances likely would not be detected.
    (5) Visibility is a limiting factor during much of the winter in 
Trinidad Bay. As discussed in the BA, shut-downs during times of fog 
could well result in prolonging the construction period into the 
beginning of the pupping season for harbor seals. The estimated 
distances for Level A harassment do not exceed 4.9 m (16 ft) from the 
activity. The proposed activities could shut-down if visibility is so 
poor that seals cannot be detected when they are at risk of injury 
(i.e., if visibility precludes observation of the area within 30.5 m 
[100 ft] of the pier). During the 30 min prior to the start of noise-
generating activities and the quiet periods between individual noise-
generating activities, auditory monitoring may be highly effective for 
detecting gray whales, but probably less effective for harbor seals and 
California sea lions.
    (6) The PSO will also perform auditory monitoring, and will report 
any auditory evidence of marine mammal activity. Auditory detection 
will be based only on the use of the human ear (without technological 
assistance). Auditory monitoring is effective for detecting the 
presence of gray whales in close proximity to the proposed action area 
(e.g., blows, splashes, etc.). Close proximity varied depending on how 
loud the sound produced by the gray whale is, and on the in-air 
transmission loss rate. Auditory monitoring prior to the start of the 
noise-generating activity occurs in the absence of masking noise and 
thus helps to ensure that the auditory monitoring is effective. 
Auditory monitoring is only likely more effective than visual 
monitoring under conditions of low visibility (i.e., fog) since work 
would only occur during daylight hours), at which times the 
transmission loss rate is very low. Note that there will also be many 
quiet periods between individual noisy activities, during which whales 
can be detected. Most of the work day is spent in preparing for a few 
noisy intervals. Auditory monitoring is less effective for detecting 
the presence of pinnipeds.
    (7) The PSO will scan the area of effect for at least 30 min 
continuously prior to any episode of pile-driving to determine whether 
marine mammals are present, and will continue to scan the area during 
the period of pile-driving. The scan will continue for at least 30 min 
after each in-water work episode has ceased. The scan will involve two 
visual ``sweeps'' of the area using the naked eye and binoculars. 
Typically, the sweep would be conducted slowly as follows: one sweep 
going from left to right and the other returning from right to left. 
The length of time it takes to do the sweep will depend on the amount 
of area that needs to be covered, weather conditions, and the time it 
takes the monitor to thoroughly survey the area.
    (8) Pile-driving will not be curtailed if the only marine mammals 
detected within the area of effect (i.e., Level B

[[Page 28750]]

harassment zones) are harbor seals. The area of effect varies depending 
on the proposed activity undertaken (i.e., pile removal, augering, pile 
placement). Since the proposed activities would produce sound levels 
that have the unlikely potential to result in Level A harassment (due 
to the very small radii of effect), a measure such as a shut-down may 
be unnecessary, but it would be appropriate for the Trinidad Rancheria 
to shut-down and consult with NMFS if measurements indicate that any 
activities attain sound levels that reach the Level A harassment 
threshold. If any other marine mammals besides harbor seals are 
observed within the area of effect, pile-driving will not commence. If 
a marine mammal swims into the area of effect during pile-driving, the 
PSO will identify the animal and, if it is not a harbor seal, will 
notify the Project Engineer who will notify the Contractor, and pile-
driving will stop (i.e., shut-down). If the animal has been observed to 
leave the area of effect, or 15 min have passed since the last 
observation of the animal, pile-driving will proceed. Visual 
observation of the area of effect is limited to the area that can be 
practicably observable for animals to be detected, which is 
approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) for pinnipeds and 1.6 km (1 mi) for gray 
whales.
    (9) Whenever a construction halt is called due to marine mammals 
presence in the area, the Project Engineer (or their representative) 
shall immediately notify the designated NMFS representative.
    (10) If marine mammals are sighted by the PSO within the acoustic 
thresholds areas, the PSO shall record the number of marine mammals 
within the area of effect and the duration of their presence while the 
noise-generating activity is occurring. The PSO will also note whether 
the marine mammals appeared to respond to the noise and if so, the 
nature of that response. The PSO shall record the following 
information: Date and time of initial sighting, tidal stage, weather, 
conditions, Beaufort sea state, species, behavior (activity, group 
cohesiveness, direction and speed of travel, etc.), number, group 
composition, distance to sound source, number of animals impacted, 
construction activities occurring at time of sighting, and monitoring 
and mitigation measures implemented (or not implemented). The 
observations will be reported to NMFS in a letter report to be 
submitted on each Monday, describing the previous week's observations.
    (11) A final report will be submitted summarizing all in-water 
construction activities and marine mammal monitoring during the time of 
the authorization, and any long term impacts from the project.
    A written log of dates and times of monitoring activity will be 
kept. The log shall report the following information:
     Time of observer arrival on site;
     Time of the commencement of underwater noise generating 
activities, and description of the activities (e.g., pile removal, 
augering, or pile installation);
     Distances to all marine mammals relative to the sound 
source;
     For harbor seal observations, notes on seal behavior 
during noise-generating activity, as described above, and on the number 
and distribution of seals observed in the project vicinity;
     For observations of all marine mammals other than harbor 
seals, the time and duration of each animal's presence in the project 
vicinity; the number of animals observed; the behavior of each animal, 
including any response to noise-generating activities; whether 
activities were halted in response to the animal's presence; and 
whether, and if so, the time of NMFS notification;
     Time of the cessation of underwater noise generating 
activities; and
     Time of observer departure from site.

All monitoring data collected during construction will be included in 
the biological monitoring notes to be submitted weekly be electronic 
mail. Monthly summary reports will be submitted to NMFS. A final report 
summarizing the construction monitoring and any general trends observed 
will also be submitted to NMFS within 30 days after monitoring has 
ended during the period of pier construction.

Underwater Noise Monitoring

    Underwater noise monitoring and reporting shall be performed 
consistent with conditions of Coastal Development Permit 1-07-046. 
Those conditions are here summarized:
    Prior to commencement of demolition and construction authorized by 
coastal development permit No. 1-07-046, the applicant shall submit a 
Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan, containing all supporting information 
and analysis deemed necessary by the Executive Director for the 
Executive Director's review and approval. Prior to submitting the plan, 
to the Executive Director, the applicant shall also submit copies of 
the Plan to the reviewing marine biologists of the California 
Department of Fish & Game and the NMFS for their review and 
consideration.
    At a minimum, the Plan shall:
    (1) Establish the field locations of hydroacoustic monitoring 
stations that will be used to document the extent of the hydroacoustic 
hazard footprint during vibratory extrication or placement of piles or 
rotary augering activities, and provisions to adjust the location of 
the acoustic monitoring stations based on data acquired during 
monitoring, to ensure that the sound pressure field is adequately 
characterized;
    (2) Describe the method of hydroacoustic monitoring necessary to 
assess the actual conformance of the proposed vibratory extrication or 
placement of piles or rotary augering with the dual metric exposure 
criteria in the vicinity of the vibratory extrication or placement of 
piles or rotary augering locations on a real-time basis, including 
relevant details such as the number, location, distances, and depths of 
hydrophones and associated monitoring equipment.
    (3) Include provisions to continuously record noise generated by 
the vibratory extrication or placement of piles or rotary augering in a 
manner that enables continuous and peak sound pressure and other 
measures of sound energy per strike, or other information required by 
the Executive Director in the consultation with marine biologists of 
the California Department of Fish & Game and NMFS, as well as 
provisions to supply all monitoring data that is recorded, regardless 
of whether the data is deemed ``representative'' or ``valid'' by the 
monitor (accompanying estimates of data significance, confounding 
factors, etc. may be supplied by the acoustician where deemed 
applicable). The permit also specifies reporting protocols, to be 
developed in cooperation with and approved by representatives of the 
California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Fish & 
Game, and NMFS.
    The Trinidad Rancheria would notify NMFS Headquarters and the NMFS 
Southwest Regional Office prior to initiation of the pier 
reconstruction activities. A draft final report must be submitted to 
NMFS within 90 days after the conclusion of the Trinidad Pier 
Reconstruction Project. The report would include a summary of the 
information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth 
in the IHA, including dates and times of operations, and all marine 
mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, species, behavioral 
observations [activity, group cohesiveness, direction and speed of 
travel, etc.], tidal stage, weather conditions, sea state, activities, 
associated pier reconstruction activities). A final report must be

[[Page 28751]]

submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days after receiving 
comments from NMFS on the draft final report. If no comments are 
received from NMFS, the draft final report would be considered to be 
the final report.
    While the proposed IHA would not authorize injury, serious injury, 
or mortality (i.e., Level A harassment), should the applicant, 
contractor, monitor or any other individual associated with the pier 
reconstruction project observe an injured or dead marine mammal, the 
incident (regardless of cause) will be reported to NMFS as soon as 
practicable. The report should include species or description of 
animal, condition of animal, location, time first found, observed 
behaviors (if alive) and photo or video, if available.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].''
    Based on the information in the ``Anticipated Extent of Underwater 
Project Noise'' section, incidental harassment of Pacific harbor seals, 
California sea lions, and Eastern Pacific gray whales is anticipated to 
occur for the following reasons:
    (1) Surveys have demonstrated that harbor seals are almost always 
present within the area that would be affected by underwater sound. 
Thus, it is not possible to avoid affecting harbor seals at an exposure 
level below the Level B harassment threshold. Potential effects to 
harbor seals have been minimized by constructing during a period when 
sensitive life history stages (pupping and molting) do not occur, and 
by using construction methods that generate the lowest practicable 
levels of underwater sound.
    (2) California sea lions are found among the harbor seals, at about 
one percent of the harbor seal abundance; thus there is a substantial 
risk of incidentally affecting California sea lions at the same times 
and by the same mechanisms at an exposure level above the Level B 
harassment threshold that harbor seals are affected.
    (3) Gray whales have a high likelihood of occurring in Trinidad Bay 
during the proposed construction period. They may not be detected by 
PSOs if they occur near the outer limits of the area of Level B 
harassment impact zone.
    (4) The area has a high incidence of harbor fog, which complicates 
successful detection of animals when they enter waters where they may 
be exposed to sound levels in excess of the Level B harassment 
threshold. Dense fog is a common occurrence in this area in all seasons 
of the year. In 2008, for instance, the NOAA weather station in nearby 
Eureka reported 63 days of fog with visibility less than 0.4 km (0.25 
mi), and 176 cloudy days. Local anecdotal reports indicate that the 
incidence of fog is much higher on the harbor waters than on the 
adjacent uplands. Attempting to only perform underwater sound 
generating activities during periods of high visibility is therefore 
impracticable, as it would greatly prolong the time required for 
construction. For this reason it is possible that marine mammals may 
enter waters where they may be exposed to sound levels in excess of the 
Level B harassment threshold without being detected by PSOs. This is 
why the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (see Appendix C of the IHA 
application) provides for work stoppage when visibility is less than 
30.5 m (100 ft), and provides for auditory detection (for both cetacean 
and pinniped monitoring) in conditions of reduced visibility and 
assumes that any auditory direction represents an animal that is within 
the area with sound levels in excess of the Level B harassment 
threshold.
    Incidental take estimates are based on estimates of use of Trinidad 
Bay by various species as reported by Goley (2007 and pers. comm.). All 
activities generating underwater sound exceed background sound levels 
through Trinidad Bay.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 28752]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MY11.001

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Encouraging and Coordinating Research

    Existing knowledge gaps regarding the Trinidad Bay harbor seals 
were identified in discussions with Dr. Dawn Goley, professor, HSU. Dr. 
Goley noted that the timing and movements of the Trinidad Bay harbor 
seals are not well understood, and could be better understood by radio 
tracking studies of a representative group of seals. Dr. Goley also 
noted the uncertain relationship between Trinidad Bay and Patrick's 
Point seals, and noted that the radio tracking study might help to 
elucidate that relationship.

[[Page 28753]]

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers Analysis and Determination

    The Secretary, in accordance with paragraph 101(a)(5)(D) of the 
MMPA, shall authorize the take of small numbers of marine mammal 
incidental to specified activities other than commercial fishing within 
a specific geographic region if, among other things, determines that 
the authorized incidental take will have a ``negligible impact'' on 
species or stocks affected by the authorization. NMFS implementing 
regulations codified at 50 CFR 216.103 states that ``negligible impact 
is an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    Based on the analysis contained herein, including the supporting 
documents upon which it relies, of the likely effects of the specified 
activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, preliminarily finds that 
the Trinidad Rancheria would result in the incidental take of small 
numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the 
total taking from the pile-driving and renovation operations would have 
a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine 
mammals. As a basis for its small numbers determination, NMFS evaluated 
the number of individuals taken by Level B harassment relative to the 
size of the stock or population. The number of potential Level B 
incidental harassment takings is estimated to be small (i.e., 1,798 
harbor seals [5.7 percent], 21 California sea lions [0.02 percent], and 
65 gray whales [0.4 percent]), less than a few percent of any of the 
estimated populations sizes based on data in this notice, and has been 
mitigated to the lowest level practicable through the incorporation of 
the monitoring and mitigation measures mentioned previously in this 
document.
    The activity is not expected to result in injury (Level A 
harassment), serious injury, or death, or alteration of reproductive 
behaviors, and the potentially affected species would be subjected only 
to temporary and minor behavioral impacts. Project scheduling avoids 
sensitive life history phases for harbor seals. Project activities 
producing underwater noise would commence in August. This is after the 
end of the annual molt, which normally occurs in June and July. Project 
activities producing underwater noise are scheduled to terminate at the 
end of January, which is a full month before female seals commence to 
seek sites suitable for pupping. It is possible that severe winter 
storms or other unforeseen events could delay the conclusion of 
activities producing underwater noise, but the scheduled one month 
buffer between underwater construction and the start of pupping-related 
activity provides assurance that a reasonable level of project delays 
could occur without adverse consequences for the harbor seals.
    In making a negligible impact determination NMFS evaluated factors 
such as: no anticipated injury, serious injury, or mortality; the 
number, nature, intensity and duration of harassment (all relatively 
limited); the low probability that take will likely result in effects 
to annual rates of recruitment or survival; the context in which take 
occurs (i.e., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local 
populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account 
successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data); the 
status of stock or species of marine mammal(s) (i.e., depleted, not 
depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to size of 
the population); impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment or 
survival; and the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures; 
in making a negligible impact determination.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    There is no subsistence hunting for marine mammals in the waters 
off of the coast of California that implicates MMPA Section 
101(a)(5)(D) and thus no potential for an unmitigable adverse effect on 
the availability of marine mammals for subsistence.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    On July 13, 2009, NMFS Southwest Regional Office (SWRO) received 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) July 9, 2009, letter and 
Biological Assessment (BA), requesting initiation of informal 
consultation on the issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit to 
the Trinidad Rancheria to allow in-water work associated with the 
proposed action. The BA and informal consultation request were 
submitted for compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 
402). On October 27, 2009, NMFS SWRO issued a Letter of Concurrence, 
concurring with the ACOE's determination that the proposed action is 
not likely to adversely affect Federally threatened Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), 
California Coastal (CC) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and 
Northern California (NC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). On November 
30, 2009, the NMFS SWRO issued a separate letter assessing project 
effects relative to marine mammals protected under the Federal ESA. 
NMFS's letter concurred with the ACOE's determination that the proposed 
action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Federally 
threatened Steller sea lion. The USFWS has informed the ACOE that a 
Section 7 consultation is not necessary for any of their jurisdictional 
species (i.e., no listed species are likely to be adversely affected).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), San Francisco District has 
prepared a permit evaluation and decision document that constitutes an 
Environmental Assessment (EA), Statement of Findings, and review and 
compliance determination for the proposed action, which analyzed the 
project's purpose and need, alternatives, affected environment, and 
environmental effects for the proposed action. NMFS has reviewed the 
ACOE EA for consistency with the regulations published by the Council 
of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, 
Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, and will conduct a separate NEPA analysis to 
evaluate the effects of authorizing the proposed take of marine mammals 
prior to making a final determination on the issuance of the IHA. A 
copy of the ACOE EA is available upon request (see ADDRESSES). This 
notice, and referenced documents, including the BA, ACOE EA, and IHA 
application provide the environmental issues and information relevant 
to the construction activities as well as those specific to NMFS's 
issuance of the IHA. NMFS will review that information and any public 
comment provided in response to this notice when conducting its 
environmental review under NEPA and determining whether or not to issue 
a FONSI.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

    The ACOE requested consultation on EFH, pursuant to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-267,

[[Page 28754]]

16 U.S.C 1801 et seq.) and its implementing regulations 50 CFR 
600.920(a). The ACOE determined that the proposed action would 
adversely affect EFH for species managed under the Pacific Coast 
Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagics Fishery 
Management Plans. NMFS SWRO determined that the proposed action would 
adversely affect EFH for species managed under the Pacific Coast 
Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagics Fishery 
Management Plans. Habitat will be lost during removal of wooden 
pilings; however, NMFS expected recolonization of the new pilings 
within a year. NMFS believes the proposed action has been designed to 
minimize and reduce the magnitude of potential effects during 
implementation of the proposed action. Therefore, NMFS provides no 
additional conservation recommendations. In addition, NMFS expects EFH 
will improve in the vicinity of the pier due to the following:
    (1) Removal and replacement of creosote-treated wooden piles with 
CISS concrete pilings;
    (2) A stormwater collection and treatment system where all 
stormwater will be collected and routed by gravity feed to an upland 
treatment cell that will provide detention, settling, and active 
filtering prior to complete infiltration;
    (3) Reduced artificial lighting effects; and
    (4) The HSU marine lab water intake associated with the pier will 
be fitted with NMFS-approved screens, minimizing the risk of 
entrainment of small prey fish species.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to the Trinidad Rancheria for the harassment of small 
numbers (based on populations of the species and stock) of three 
species of marine mammals incidental to specified activities related to 
renovation of the Trinidad Pier, provided the previously mentioned 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

Information Solicited

    NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information 
concerning this proposed project and NMFS' preliminary determination of 
issuing an IHA (see ADDRESSES). Concurrent with the publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this 
application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of 
Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: May 11, 2011.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-12067 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P