[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59228-59238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23338]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD341
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marina Reconstruction Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the
Port of Friday Harbor, WA (Port) to incidentally harass, by Level B
harassment only, five species of marine mammals during construction
activities associated with a marina reconstruction project at Friday
Harbor, Washington.
DATES: This authorization is effective from September 3, 2014, through
February 15, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Laws, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
[[Page 59229]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the Port's application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of
an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must
either issue or deny the authorization. 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].''
Summary of Request
On August 12, 2013, we received a request from the Port for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and
removal associated with the reconstruction of a marina at Friday
Harbor, WA. The Port submitted revised versions of the request on
February 28, 2014, June 4, 2014, and June 11, 2014, the last of which
we deemed adequate and complete. The Port plans to conduct in-water
work that may incidentally harass marine mammals (i.e., pile driving
and removal) during a portion of the in-water work window established
to protect fish species. This IHA is valid from September 3, 2014,
through February 15, 2015. Hereafter, use of the generic term ``pile
driving'' may refer to both pile installation and removal unless
otherwise noted.
The use of vibratory pile driving is expected to produce underwater
sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral
harassment of marine mammals. Species with the expected potential to be
present during all or a portion of the in-water work window include the
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis), California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii),
Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli dalli), and harbor porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena vomerina). These species may occur year-round in the
vicinity of Friday Harbor, with the exception of the Steller and
California sea lions, which are generally absent during summer. The
Steller sea lion is present from fall to late spring (approximately
October to May), while the California sea lion is generally absent only
from approximately mid-June to August.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
The Port has determined that reconstruction of the marina is
necessary due to the increasing age of the existing structures. Repair
and replacement work is necessary in order to maintain the existing
purpose of the marina, which provides access, permanent and
short[hyphen]term moorage and berthing opportunities, and marina
support facilities to commercial and recreational boaters. A vibratory
hammer will be used to extract existing timber piles. Broken and
damaged pilings unable to be removed with the vibratory hammer may need
to be removed with a clamshell bucket. All new piles will be driven
with a vibratory hammer, to the extent possible. If vibratory driving
is not effective for any given pile (i.e., due to substrate
conditions), piles may be installed via confined drilling. No impact
pile driving is planned for this project. The Port does not plan to
operate multiple pile driving rigs concurrently.
Dates and Duration
The allowable season for in-water work, including pile driving, in
the vicinity of Friday Harbor is July 16 through February 15, a window
established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in
coordination with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
protect salmonid fish. The action will occur only during a portion of
that window, from approximately September 1, 2014, through February 15,
2015. The Port expects to require three days for pile removal and a
maximum of 26 days for pile installation, for a total of 29 days during
this period. Pile driving and removal may occur on any day during the
specified period, only during daylight hours.
Specific Geographic Region
The Port of Friday Harbor Marina is located at Friday Harbor, WA,
on the eastern shore of San Juan Island (see Figure 1-1 of the Port's
application). Friday Harbor is approximately 111 km north of Seattle,
WA and 52 km southeast of Victoria, BC. The Town of Friday Harbor is
located directly adjacent to the marina. Please refer to the U.S.
Navy's Marine Resource Assessment for the Pacific Northwest, which
documents and describes the marine resources that occur in Navy
operating areas of the Pacific Northwest, including Puget Sound (DoN,
2006), for additional information regarding physical and oceanographic
characteristics of the region. The document is publicly available at
www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html (accessed June 16,
2014).
Detailed Description of Activities
We provided a detailed description of the proposed action in our
Federal Register notice announcing the proposed authorization (79 FR
43402; July 25, 2014). Please refer to that document; we provide only
summary information here. The marina
[[Page 59230]]
reconstruction project will entail repair and replacement of portions
of the existing floats, piles, and walkways. Specifically, the Port
plans to replace existing dilapidated finger and main walkway floats,
treated timber walers (i.e., structural beams typically mounted to
floating docks), and a steel footbridge, and to repair certain existing
treated timber piles and bracing and install some new floats. In
addition, the Port plans to remove 95 creosoted timber piles (diameters
range from 12-20 inches) and replace these with 52 steel pipe piles
(twenty at 16-in diameter and 32 at 24-in diameter). Only the removal
and installation of piles carries the potential for incidental take of
marine mammals, and is considered further in this document. The Port
plans to remove existing treated timber piles using vibratory
extraction and to install new piles using a vibratory driver as well,
to the extent possible.
Comments and Responses
We published a notice of receipt of the Port's application and
proposed IHA in the Federal Register on July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43402).
During the 30-day public comment period, we received a letter from the
Marine Mammal Commission, which recommended that we require the Port to
re-estimate the number of harbor seal takes using an area-specific
haul-out correction factor rather than a pooled regional correction
factor (Huber et al., 2001). The Commission also referenced a prior
proposal to discuss appropriate use of available information for harbor
seals in Washington inland waters (see 79 FR 43432). After having that
discussion with the Commission, we determined it was appropriate for
this particular activity in this particular location to recalculate
harbor seal takes using an area-specific haul-out correction factor. We
also agreed that we would consider the most appropriate use of
available information for harbor seals (e.g., use of pooled regional
haul-out correction factors versus area-specific factors) in Washington
inland waters on a case-by-case basis in the future. See the
Commission's letter (available on the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm) for specific detail regarding
the recommendation and ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'',
later in this document, for specific detail regarding the revised take
estimate for harbor seals.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
There are eleven marine mammal species known to occur in the San
Juan Islands region of Washington inland waters, including seven
cetaceans and four pinnipeds. The harbor seal is a year-round resident
in Washington waters, while the Steller sea lion and California sea
lion are seasonally present. Dall's porpoises and harbor porpoises may
also occur with year-round regularity in the San Juan Islands.
Remaining species that could occur in the project area include the
killer whale (Orcinus orca; both transient and resident ecotypes),
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata scammoni), northern
elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), and the Pacific white-sided
dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens). While these latter six species
could occur in the project area, we do not believe that such occurrence
is sufficiently likely to present a reasonable likelihood of take
incidental to the specified activity. For more detail, please see the
``Monitoring and Reporting'' and ``Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment'' sections later in this document.
We have reviewed the Port's detailed species descriptions,
including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and
refer the reader to Section 3 of the Port's application instead of
reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts
and to the Navy's Marine Resource Assessment for the Pacific Northwest,
which provides information regarding the biology and behavior of the
marine resources that occur in Navy operating areas of the Pacific
Northwest, including the San Juan Islands (DoN, 2006). The document is
publicly available at www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html (accessed June 16,
2014). We provided additional information for the potentially affected
stocks, including details of stock-wide status, trends, and threats, in
our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (79 FR 43402;
July 25, 2014).
Table 1 lists the twelve marine mammal stocks that could occur in
the vicinity of Friday Harbor during the project timeframe and
summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance.
Taxonomically, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2014). Please see NMFS'
Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars,
for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance. All
stocks are addressed in the Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 2014), with
the exception of the Steller sea lion and transient killer whale, which
are treated in the Alaska SARs (Allen and Angliss, 2014).
Table 1--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of Friday Harbor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA
status; Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most Annual M/ Relative occurrence
Species Stock strategic recent abundance survey) \2\ PBR \3\ SI \4\ in San Juan Islands;
(Y/N) \1\ season of occurrence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale.................... Eastern North Pacific -; N 19,126 (0.071; 18,017; 2007) 558 \12\ 127 Seasonal to rare;
more likely winter
to spring.
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback whale................ California/Oregon/ E/D; Y 1,918 (0.03; 1,855; 2011) \10\ 22 >=5.5 Seasonal to rare with
Washington (CA/OR/ highest likelihood
WA). spring to fall.
[[Page 59231]]
Minke whale................... CA/OR/WA............. -; N 478 (1.36; 202; 2008) 2 0 Seasonal; more likely
spring to fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Pacific white-sided dolphin... CA/OR/WA............. -; N 26,930 (0.28; 21,406; 2008) 171 17.8 Rare but more likely
summer and fall.
Killer whale \5\.............. West coast transient -; N 243 (n/a; 2006) 2.4 0 Likely to rare.
\6\.
Eastern North Pacific E/D; Y 85 (n/a; 2012) 0.14 0 Likely to rare.
southern resident.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise............... Washington inland -; N 10,682 (0.38; 7,841; 2003) 63 >=2.2 Likely to rare.
waters \7\.
Dall's porpoise............... CA/OR/WA............. -; N 42,000 (0.33; 32,106; 2008) 257 >=0.4 Likely to rare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California sea lion........... U.S.................. -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 2008) 9,200 >=431 Seasonal/common; not
generally present in
Jul.
Steller sea lion.............. Eastern U.S.......... \8\ -; N \9\ 63,160-78,198 (n/a; 57,966; \11\ 1,552 65.1 Seasonal; not
2008-11) generally present
Jun-Sep.
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal................... Washington inland -; N 14,612 (0.15; 12,844; 1999) 771 13.4 Common; Year-round
waters \7\. resident.
Northern elephant seal........ California breeding.. -; N 124,000 (n/a; 74,913; 2005) 4,382 >=10.4 Likely to rare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species
or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For killer whales, the
abundance values represent direct counts of individually identifiable animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated
CV. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction
factor derived from knowledge of the specie's (or similar species') life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no
associated CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore.
\3\ Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
\4\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value.
\5\ Transient and resident killer whales are considered unnamed subspecies.
\6\ The abundance estimate for this stock includes only animals from the ``inner coast'' population occurring in inside waters of southeastern Alaska,
British Columbia, and Washington--excluding animals from the ``outer coast'' subpopulation, including animals from California--and therefore should be
considered a minimum count. For comparison, the previous abundance estimate for this stock, including counts of animals from California that are now
considered outdated, was 354.
\7\ Abundance estimates for these stocks are greater than eight years old and are therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for
these stocks, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates
and PBR values, as these represent the best available information for use in this document.
\8\ The eastern distinct population segment of the Steller sea lion, previously listed under the ESA as threatened, was delisted on December 4, 2013 (78
FR 66140; November 4, 2013). Because this stock is not below its OSP size and the level of direct human-caused mortality does not exceed PBR, this
delisting action implies that the stock is no longer designated as depleted or as a strategic stock under the MMPA.
\9\ Best abundance is calculated as the product of pup counts and a factor based on the birth rate, sex and age structure, and growth rate of the
population. A range is presented because the extrapolation factor varies depending on the vital rate parameter resulting in the growth rate (i.e.,
high fecundity or low juvenile mortality).
\10\ This stock is known to spend a portion of time outside the U.S. EEZ. Therefore, only a portion of the PBR presented here is allocated for U.S.
waters. U.S. PBR allocation is half the total for humpback whales (11).
\11\ PBR is calculated for the U.S. portion of the stock only (excluding animals in British Columbia) and assumes that the stock is not within its OSP.
If we assume that the stock is within its OSP, PBR for the U.S. portion increases to 2,069.
\12\ Includes annual Russian harvest of 123 whales.
[[Page 59232]]
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
Our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (79 FR 43402;
July 25, 2014), incorporated here by reference, provides a general
background on sound relevant to the specified activity as well as a
detailed description of marine mammal hearing and of the potential
effects of these construction activities on marine mammals.
Anticipated Effects on Habitat
We described potential impacts to marine mammal habitat in detail
in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (79 FR 43402;
July 25, 2014). In summary, we have determined that given the short
daily duration of sound associated with individual pile driving events,
the relatively small areas being affected, and the absence of impact
pile driving, pile driving activities associated with the proposed
action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish
habitat, or populations of fish species. The area around the Port,
including the adjacent ferry terminal and the marina, is subject to
significant levels recreational activity and ferry traffic, and is
unlikely to harbor significant amounts of forage fish. Thus, any
impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant
or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their
populations.
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, ``and other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking'' for certain
subsistence uses.
Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with
practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment''). ZOIs are often used to
establish a mitigation zone around each pile (when deemed practicable)
to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals, and also provide
estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur.
ZOIs may vary between different diameter piles and types of
installation methods. In addition to the measures described later in
this section, the Port will employ the following standard mitigation
measures:
(a) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews,
marine mammal monitoring team, and Port staff prior to the start of all
pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order
to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal
monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving
(using, e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or
clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine
mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall
reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and
safe working conditions. This type of work could include the following
activities: (1) Movement of the barge to the pile location; (2)
positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing
the pile); or (3) removal of the pile from the water column/substrate
via a crane (i.e., deadpull). For these activities, monitoring will
take place from fifteen minutes prior to initiation until the action is
complete.
Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving
The following measures apply to the Port's mitigation through
shutdown and disturbance zones:
Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities, the Port will
establish a shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are often used to bound the
area in which SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB root mean square
(rms) acoustic injury criteria, with the purpose being to define an
area within which shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a
marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined
area), thus preventing injury of marine mammals. However, the Port's
activities are not expected to produce sound at or above the 180 dB rms
injury criterion (see ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment''). The
Port will, however, implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius
for all marine mammals around all pile driving and removal activity.
These precautionary measures are intended to further reduce the
unlikely possibility of injury from direct physical interaction with
construction operations.
Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs
equal or exceed 120 dB rms for pile driving installation and removal,
corresponding to our current criterion for Level B harassment from
continuous sound sources. Disturbance zones provide utility for
monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone
monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to
the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers
to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the
project area but outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for
potential shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of
disturbance zone monitoring is for documenting incidents of Level B
harassment; disturbance zone monitoring is discussed in greater detail
later (see ``Monitoring and Reporting''). Nominal radial distances for
disturbance zones are shown in Table 2. Given the size of the
disturbance zone for vibratory pile driving, it is impossible to
guarantee that all animals would be observed or to make comprehensive
observations of fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound. We discuss
monitoring objectives and protocols in greater depth in ``Monitoring
and Reporting.''
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors
record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The
observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven,
is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a
distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from
the pile and the estimated ZOIs for relevant activities (i.e., pile
installation and removal). This information may then be used to
extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of
actual total takes.
Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring will be conducted before, during,
and after pile driving and removal activities. In addition, observers
shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of
distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being driven. Observations made
outside the shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile
segment would be completed without cessation, unless the animal
approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving
activities would be halted. Monitoring will take place from fifteen
minutes prior to initiation through thirty minutes post-completion of
pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to
remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed
between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty
minutes. Please see the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (available at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm), developed
[[Page 59233]]
by the Port with our approval, for full details of the monitoring
protocols.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable
by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers
are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
Advanced education in biological science or related field
(undergraduate degree or higher required);
Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience);
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone
will be monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure that it is clear of
marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have
declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be
allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own
volition) and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The
shutdown zone may only be declared clear, and pile driving started,
when the entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by
dark, rain, fog, etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise
during impact pile driving that is already underway, the activity would
be halted.
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone
during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted
and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been
visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have
passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted
throughout the time required to drive a pile.
Special Conditions
The Port did not request the authorization of incidental take for
any species of whale (as noted previously, gray whales, humpback
whales, minke whales, and transient or resident killer whales have the
potential to occur in the project vicinity--see discussion below in
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment''). Therefore, shutdown will
be implemented in the event that any of these species is observed in
the vicinity, prior to entering the defined disturbance zone. As
described later in this document, we believe that occurrence of these
species during the in-water work window would be uncommon and that the
occurrence of an individual or group would likely be highly noticeable
and would attract significant attention in local media and with local
whale watchers and interested citizens.
Prior to the start of pile driving on any day, the Port will
contact and/or review the latest sightings data from the Orca Network
and/or Center for Whale Research to determine the location of the
nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings Network consists of
a list of over 600 residents, scientists, and government agency
personnel in the U.S. and Canada, and includes passive acoustic
detections. The presence of whales typically draws public attention and
media scrutiny. With this level of coordination in the region of
activity, the Port should be able to effectively receive real-time
information on the presence or absence of whales, sufficient to inform
the day's activities. Pile driving will not occur if there was the risk
of incidental harassment of a species for which incidental take was not
authorized.
As described in the monitoring plan, a minimum of two shore-based
observers and two vessel-based monitoring platforms (each with two
observers aboard) will be deployed during pile driving activity. If any
species for which take is not authorized is detected, activity will not
begin or will shut down.
Timing Restrictions
In the San Juan Islands, designated timing restrictions exist for
pile driving activities to avoid in-water work when salmonids are
likely to be present. The in-water work window is July 16-February 15,
although work will not begin prior to September 1. In-water
construction activities will occur during daylight hours (sunrise to
sunset).
Soft Start
The use of a soft-start procedure is believed to provide additional
protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave
the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically
involves a requirement to initiate sound from vibratory hammers for
fifteen seconds at reduced energy followed by a thirty-second waiting
period. This procedure is repeated two additional times.
We have carefully evaluated the Port's proposed mitigation measures
and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine
whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the
affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our
evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the
following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which,
and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure
is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the
proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse
impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for
applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment
only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
[[Page 59234]]
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat
during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Port's proposed measures, including
information from monitoring of implementation of mitigation measures
very similar to those described here under previous IHAs for other
similar projects in Washington inland waters, including work conducted
at Friday Harbor by the Washington State Department of Transportation,
we have determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the
means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result
in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g.,
presence, abundance, distribution, density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population,
species, or stock.
Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to
marine mammals.
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Port submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the
IHA application for this project, which can be found on the Internet at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. Although this
plan was initially developed as part of the ESA consultation process
(with NMFS' West Coast Regional Office) to enable the Port to cease
activities in the event that ESA-listed species occur in the project
vicinity, the plan is applicable to all marine mammals that may occur
in the action area.
Visual Marine Mammal Observations
The Port will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to
construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of
activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained
in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have
no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The
Port will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before,
during, and after pile driving and removal, with observers located at
the best practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, the
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan will implement the following procedures
for pile driving:
MMOs will be located at the best vantage point(s) in order
to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance
zone as possible. During vibratory driving, a minimum of six MMOs will
be deployed, including two shore-based (with one of these located
appropriately to focus on the shutdown zone) and two vessel-based
monitoring platforms, each with two observers aboard. Please see Figure
2 of the Port's plan. During vibratory removal, a minimum of three
observers shall be deployed at the best vantage points to observe the
shutdown and disturbance zones.
During all observation periods, observers will use
binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.
If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting
conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until
that zone is visible.
The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be
monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after
any pile driving or removal activity.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its
effectiveness using an adaptive approach. Monitoring biologists will
use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek
improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any
modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the
Port.
Although we have determined that incidental take of multiple
species with recorded occurrence in the action area (e.g., killer
whales, humpback whales) is unlikely (see ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment''), the Port's monitoring plan will provide
additional protections against the unauthorized take of these species.
While it is difficult to say with certainty that smaller cetaceans or
pinnipeds would always be detected in an area as large as the typical
ZOI for vibratory driving (in this case estimated at 6.7 km\2\), we do
believe that there is a high degree of certainty that large whales
would be detected. Therefore, in the event that humpback whales, gray
whales, minke whales, or killer whales occurred in the project area,
the Port would be able to detect those animals and cease construction
activity as necessary to avoid unauthorized take. The Port will also
consult available sighting networks (e.g., Orca Network) on a daily
basis while pile installation and removal is occurring for situational
awareness of large whale occurrence in the general vicinity of Friday
Harbor, such that MMOs know when there is the increased possibility for
such species to be present.
Data Collection
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, the Port will record detailed information about
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to
the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting
behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Port will attempt to
distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the
number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the
[[Page 59235]]
following information be collected on the sighting forms:
Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
Other human activity in the area.
Reporting
A draft report must be submitted within ninety calendar days of the
completion of the in-water work window. The report will include marine
mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity
during pile driving days, and will also provide descriptions of any
problems encountered in deploying sound attenuating devices, any
behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a
complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of
those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the
number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A
final report must be submitted within thirty days following resolution
of comments on the draft report.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment];
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from
vibratory pile driving/removal and involving temporary changes in
behavior. Injurious or lethal takes are not expected due to the
expected source levels and sound source characteristics associated with
the activity, and the planned mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to further minimize the possibility of such take.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior
(e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed
or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute
taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or
the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged
period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially
be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given
the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts
of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many
animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a
given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound.
This practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine
mammals taken because it is often difficult to distinguish between the
individuals harassed and incidences of harassment. In particular, for
stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of
individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per
individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual,
especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or
site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of
foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by
the harassing activity.
The project area is not believed to be particularly important
habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by
marine mammals. Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result
from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are expected
to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine mammals,
although those effects could be recurring over the life of the project
if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity. Specifically,
at Friday Harbor marina there is a known individual harbor seal that
the Port believes is unlikely to respond to harassing stimuli in
aversive manner, meaning the seal is believed likely to simply remain
in the immediate vicinity of the marina and be exposed to sound (either
airborne or underwater) at or above levels that we consider to incur
incidental take. This is accounted for in estimating incidental take
for harbor seals below.
The Port has requested authorization for the incidental taking of
small numbers of Steller sea lions, California sea lions, harbor seals,
Dall's porpoises, and harbor porpoises near Friday Harbor that may
result from pile driving during construction activities associated with
the marina reconstruction project described previously in this
document. In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may
occur incidental to the specified activity, we first estimated the
extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then
considered that in combination with information about marine mammal
density or abundance in the project area. We provided detailed
information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to
marine mammals as well as describing the information used in estimating
the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance
information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take,
in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (79 FR 43402;
July 25, 2014). With the exception of our revision to the harbor seal
take estimate (described below; see also ``Comments and Responses''
above), that information is unchanged, and our take estimates were
calculated in the same manner and on the basis of the same information
as what was described in the Federal Register notice. Modeled distances
to relevant thresholds are shown in Table 2 and total estimated
incidents of take are shown in Table 3. Please see our Federal Register
notice of proposed authorization (79 FR 43402; July 25, 2014) for full
details of the process and information used in estimating potential
incidents of take.
Table 2--Calculated Distance(s) to and Area Encompassed by Underwater
Marine Mammal Sound Thresholds During Pile Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold Distance \1\ Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving, disturbance 6.3 km............. 6.7 km\2\
(120 dB).
Vibratory removal, disturbance 1.6 km............. 1.8 km\2\
(120 dB).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Radial distances presented for reference only. Maximum line of sight
distance from Friday Harbor before encountering land is approximately
4 km. Please refer to Figure 1-3 in the Port's application.
All calculated distances to and the total area encompassed by the
120-dB marine mammal sound threshold for the two activities are
provided in Table 2.
[[Page 59236]]
The Port used source values of 177 dB rms for vibratory driving and 168
dB rms for vibratory removal. Because these values are below the 180/
190 dB rms injury criteria, there are no zones within which injury
would be expected to occur as a result of exposure to underwater sound.
Please see also Figure 1-3 of the Port's application for a spatial
representation of these zones in relation to local topography, which
constrains the actual sound field from reaching the estimated radial
distance to threshold for vibratory driving, and in certain directions
for vibratory removal. The maximum line of sight distance that may be
reached from the Friday Harbor marina before encountering land is
approximately 4 km. Distances shown in Table 2 are estimated for free-
field conditions, but areas are calculated per the actual conditions of
the action area.
Harbor Seal--The Port's methodology for harbor seals--as described
in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (79 FR 43402;
July 25, 2014)--follows that described in Jeffries et al. (2003). The
authors conducted aerial surveys of harbor seals in 1999 for the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, dividing the survey areas
into seven strata (including five in inland waters and two in coastal
waters). To account for animals in the water and not observed during
survey counts, a correction factor of 1.53 was applied (Huber et al.,
2001) to derive a total population for each stratum (including the San
Juan Islands). The correction factor (1.53) was based on the proportion
of time seals spend on land versus in the water over the course of a
day, and was derived by dividing one by the percentage of time harbor
seals spent on land. These data came from tags (VHF transmitters)
applied to harbor seals at six areas (Grays Harbor, Tillamook Bay,
Umpqua River, Gertrude Island, Protection/Smith Islands, and Boundary
Bay, BC) within two different harbor seal stocks (the coastal stock and
the Washington inland waters stock) over four survey years. Although
the sampling areas included both coastal and inland waters, with pooled
correction factors of 1.50 and 1.57, respectively, Huber et al. (2001)
found no significant difference in the proportion of seals ashore among
the six sites and no interannual variation at one site studied across
years. In our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (79 FR
43402; July 25, 2014), we retained the total pooled correction factor
of 1.53 in determining a non-seasonal density estimate for the San Juan
Islands stratum.
However, the Marine Mammal Commission recommended that we require
the Port to re-estimate the number of harbor seal takes using an area-
specific haul-out correction factor rather than a pooled regional
correction factor (Huber et al., 2001). As noted above, Huber et al.
(2001) provide correction factors from each of six locations, including
three each from coastal and inland sites, which the authors combined
into a single regional correction factor of 1.53 (1.50 and 1.57 for
coastal and inland sites, respectively). However, the correction factor
for the Protection/Smith Islands site--located within the San Juan
Islands--was 1.85. The Commission holds that, if site- or area-specific
correction factors are available, those factors should be used rather
than pooled correction factors. Following discussion with the
Commission, we determined that in this particular instance it would be
appropriate to accept the recommendation and have revised the density
estimate used in the take estimation process accordingly. The revised
density estimate is shown in Table 3 below.
As described in our Federal Register notice of proposed
authorization (79 FR 43402; July 25, 2014), we evaluate the potential
for incidental take to occur by first multiplying the most appropriate
species- and season-specific density estimate by the relevant area of
effect (ZOI). Those areas are estimated as 1.8 and 6.7 km\2\ for
vibratory pile removal and vibratory pile installation, respectively.
The product of that calculation is then rounded to the nearest whole
number to estimate an instantaneous abundance within the relevant ZOI,
which is then multiplied by the number of days of the relevant activity
(three and 26 for pile removal and installation, respectively) to
arrive at an activity-specific estimate of potential incidents of
incidental take. For all species, we have used the highest available
density estimate (for either fall or winter when seasonal estimates are
available) to evaluate the potential for incidental take. Table 3
summarizes the density estimates described above, the interim products
of the calculation, and sums to the total take authorization for each
species. We have provided information for all species that may occur in
the San Juan Islands, but take authorization is authorized for only a
subset of these (i.e., California and Steller sea lions, harbor seal,
and harbor and Dall's porpoises). For the remaining species, the take
estimation process indicates that incidental take is unlikely. While we
recognize that these species may nevertheless occur in the project
area, we believe that the Port's monitoring plan further reduces the
potential for any of these species (especially the large whales, which
are relatively easy to detect and whose occurrence in the region may be
noted on a daily basis through consultation with sighting networks such
as Orca Network). Finally, we note that there is a single, known
individual harbor seal that is not expected to react to stimuli with
avoidance behavior. Therefore, we expect that there is the potential
for this individual animal to remain present through each day of
construction and have added 29 takes (one for each anticipated day of
construction) to the total estimate for harbor seals. For reasons
described previously in this document, no Level A takes would be
expected (nor indicated through the take estimation process) and no
takes occurring solely via exposure to airborne sound (with the
potential exception of the known individual described here and
previously). No take is authorized for those species with a zero value
in the right-hand column of Table 3, and no Level A takes or takes
solely via airborne sound are authorized.
Table 3--Calculations for Incidental Take Estimation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated n * ZOI Estimated Total proposed
n (animals/ n * ZOI Level B takes; (vibratory Level B takes; authorized
Species km\2\)\1\ (vibratory vibratory pile vibratory takes (% of
pile removal) removal installation) installation total stock)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion..................................... 0.676 1.2 3 4.5 130 133 (0.04)
Steller sea lion........................................ 0.935 1.7 6 6.2 156 162 (0.3)
Harbor seal............................................. 3.8448 6.9 21 25.8 676 \2\ 726 (5.0)
Harbor porpoise......................................... 2.11226 3.9 12 14.1 364 376 (3.5)
Dall's porpoise......................................... 0.39 0.7 3 2.6 78 81 (0.2)
[[Page 59237]]
Killer whale (transient)................................ 0.00306 (fall) 0.01 0 0.02 0 0
Killer whale (resident)................................. 0.02024 (fall) 0.04 0 0.1 0 0
Minke whale............................................. 0.02 0.04 0 0.1 0 0
Humpback whale.......................................... 0.00014 (fall) 0.0003 0 0.001 0 0
Gray whale.............................................. 0.0051 0.01 0 0.03 0 0
(winter)
Pacific white-sided dolphin............................. 0.00248 (fall) 0.005 0 0.02 0 0
Northern elephant seal.................................. 0.0063 0.01 0 0.04 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Best available species- and season-specific density estimate, with season noted in parentheses where applicable.
\2\ This value includes 29 additional incidents of take to account for the known individual seal expected to remain present at Friday Harbor during
construction. See explanation above.
Analyses and Determinations
Negligible Impact Analysis
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . .
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.'' A negligible impact finding is based on the
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of
Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to
base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of
the number of marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral
harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as
the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number
of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
Pile driving activities associated with the marina reconstruction
project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or
displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral
disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving.
Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present
in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the
methods of construction. Measures designed to minimize the possibility
of injury to marine mammals (e.g., exclusion zones) further reduce any
possibility of injury. Specifically, vibratory hammers are the sole
method of installation, and this activity does not have significant
potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low
source levels produced (expected to be less than 180 dB rms) and the
lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile
driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much
sharper rise time to reach those peaks than does vibratory driving or
removal. The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained
observers is high under the general environmental conditions expected
for Friday Harbor, in concert with the very small shutdown zones--which
are defined as a precautionary measure only, as expected source levels
are below the relevant injury criteria--further enables the
implementation of shutdowns to avoid any potential for injury.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from similar
past projects, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased
swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if
such activity were occurring). Most likely, individuals will simply
move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the
areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed
primarily only in association with impact pile driving. In response to
vibratory driving, harbor seals (which may be somewhat habituated to
human activity along the Friday Harbor waterfront) have been observed
to orient towards and sometimes move towards the sound. Repeated
exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B
harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to
significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B
harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to
result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those
individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the
stock as a whole. Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of
least practicable impact through use of mitigation measures described
herein and, if sound produced by project activities is sufficiently
disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the project area while
the activity is occurring.
For pinnipeds, no rookeries are present in the project area, and
there are few haul-outs other than rocks used by harbor seals at the
distant edge of the Level B ZOI for pile installation and opportunistic
haul-outs provided by man-made objects. The project area is not known
to provide foraging habitat of any special importance. The pile driving
activities analyzed here are similar to other nearby construction
activities In Washington inland waters, including recent projects
conducted by WSDOT at the same location (Friday Harbor and Orcas Island
Ferry Terminals), which have taken place with no reported injuries or
mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse
consequences from behavioral harassment.
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the
following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or
mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the
anticipated incidences of Level B harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any major
rookeries and only a few isolated and opportunistic haul-out areas near
or adjacent to the project site; (4) the absence of any other known
areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction
within the project area; and (6) the likely efficacy of the planned
mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity
to the level of least practicable impact. In addition, none of
[[Page 59238]]
the stocks for which take is authorized are listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. All of the stocks for which take
is authorized are thought to be increasing or to be within OSP size. In
combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available
body of evidence from other similar activities, including those
conducted at the same time of year and in the same location,
demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will
have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is
not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will
therefore not result in population-level impacts. Based on the analysis
contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on
marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the
implementation of the planned monitoring and mitigation measures, we
find that the total marine mammal take from the Port's marina
reconstruction activities will have a negligible impact on the affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
The numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would
be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations
(ranging from less than one percent for sea lions and Dall's porpoise
to five percent for harbor seals) even if each estimated taking
occurred to a new individual--an extremely unlikely scenario. For
pinnipeds occurring in the vicinity of the Friday Harbor waterfront,
there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-
to-day, and these takes are likely to occur only within some small
portion of the overall regional stock, such as the number of harbor
seals that regularly use nearby haul-out rocks. For migratory species,
the segment of the overall stock to which take would accrue is likely
much smaller. For example, of the estimated 296,500 California sea
lions, only certain adult and subadult males--believed to number
approximately 3,000-5,000 by Jeffries et al. (2000)--travel north
during the non-breeding season. That number has almost certainly
increased with the population of California sea lions--the 2000 SAR for
California sea lions reported an estimated population size of 204,000-
214,000 animals--but likely remains a relatively small portion of the
overall population.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures, we find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken
relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated
by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of
affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be
affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that a
section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, we prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative effects
to the human environment resulting from issuance of an IHA to the Port
for the specified activities and found that it would not result in any
significant impacts to the human environment. We signed a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) on August 29, 2014.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to the
Port for conducting the described activities at Friday Harbor,
Washington, from September 3, 2014 through February 15, 2015, provided
the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: September 24, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23338 Filed 9-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P