[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45897-45909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19592]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XG011
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental To Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Bremerton and Edmonds Ferry
Terminals Dolphin Relocation Project in Washington State
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
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to take small
numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to Bremerton and
Edmonds ferry terminals dolphin relocation project in Washington State.
DATES: This authorization is effective from October 1, 2018, through
September 30, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as the issued IHA, may be obtained
online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In
case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt,
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
Summary of Request
On October 4, 2017, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting an
IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of marine mammal
species incidental to the dolphin relocation project at the Bremerton
and Edmonds ferry terminals in Washington State, between October 1,
2018, to September 30, 2019. NMFS determined that the IHA application
is adequate and complete on December 4, 2017, with a few minor comments
and questions. WSDOT subsequently addressed all NMFS comments and
submitted a revised IHA application on March 1, 2018. NMFS is proposing
to authorize the take by Level B harassment of the following marine
mammal species: Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); northern elephant seal
(Mirounga angustirostris); California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus); Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); killer whale
(Orcinus orca); gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae); minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata);
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); Dall's
[[Page 45898]]
porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli); and long-beaked common dolphin
(Delphinus delphis).
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The WSDOT is proposing to relocate one dolphin to improve safety at
each of the Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals. The Olympic Class
ferries have an atypical shape, which at some terminals causes the
vessel to make contact with the inner dolphin prior to the stern
reaching the intermediate or outer dolphin. This tends to cause
rotation of the vessel away from the wingwalls and presents a safety
issue. The project will reduce the risk of landing issues for Olympic
Class ferries at the Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals.
Dates and Duration
Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water
work timing restrictions to protect ESA-listed salmonids, planned WSDOT
in-water construction is limited each year to July 16 through February
15.
In-water construction at the Bremerton Ferry Terminal will commence
after October 1, and is planned during the August 1, 2018, to February
15, 2019 in-water work window. In-water construction at the Edmonds
Ferry Terminal will commence October 1, and is planned during the July
15, 2018, to February 15, 2019 in-water work window.
Specified Geographic Region
The Bremerton Ferry Terminal is located in the city of Bremerton,
east of the Navy shipyard. Bremerton is on the shoreline of Sinclair
Inlet, south of Bainbridge Island. Located in Kitsap County,
Washington, the terminal is located in Section 24, Township 24 North,
Range 1 East. The Edmonds Ferry Terminal is located in the city of
Edmonds, along the downtown waterfront. Edmonds is in Snohomish County,
approximately 15 miles north of Seattle. The terminal is located in
Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 3 East (Figure 1-2 in the IHA
application). Land use near both ferry terminals is a mix of
residential, commercial, industrial, and open space and/or undeveloped
lands.
Detailed Description of In-Water Pile Driving and Removal Associated
With the Dolphin Relocation Project at Bremerton and Edmonds Ferry
Terminals
The proposed project includes vibratory hammer driving and removal
creating elevated in-water and in-air noise that may impact marine
mammals.
The following construction activities (in sequence) are anticipated
for the Bremerton Ferry Terminal.
Install one temporary 36-inch diameter steel indicator
pile with a vibratory hammer. The temporary indicator pile will be used
as a visual landing aid reference for vessel captains during
construction. It will be relocated to become a fender pile for the new
dolphin.
Remove the existing left outer dolphin that consists of
six 36-inch diameter steel pipe piles with a vibratory hammer and/or by
direct pull and clamshell removal.
Using a vibratory hammer, install three 30-inch steel pile
reaction piles. This is a back group of piles that provide stability to
the dolphin.
Install a concrete diaphragm (the diaphragm joins the
piles at their tops), then use a vibratory hammer to install the
remaining four 30-inch reaction piles.
Using a vibratory hammer, install three 36-inch diameter
steel pipe fender piles; install fenders and attach rub panels to the
fender piles. Fender piles absorb much of the energy as the ferry
vessel makes contact with the dolphin.
Using a vibratory hammer, remove the 36-inch temporary
indicator pile and install it as the last remaining fender pile along
with the fender and fender panel.
The following construction activities (in sequence) are anticipated
for the Edmonds Ferry Terminal.
Install one temporary 36-inch diameter steel indicator
pile with a vibratory hammer. The temporary indicator pile will be used
as a visual landing aid reference for vessel captains during
construction.
Using a vibratory hammer, install one 30-inch reaction
pile.
Using a vibratory hammer, install the two remaining
reaction piles through the diaphragm.
Using a vibratory hammer, remove three 36-inch steel pipe
fender piles and reinstall them in their new locations.
Using a vibratory hammer, remove the 36-inch temporary
indicator pile (this portion of the project will not reuse the
indicator pile).
A summary of the piles to be installed and removed, along with pile
driving information, is provided in Table 1.
Table 1--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving and Removal Durations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration/ Number pile/ Duration
Location Pile element Method Pile type Size (inch) Pile No. pile (min) day (days)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bremerton...................... Indicator pile.... Vibratory install. Steel......... 36 1 20 1 1
Indicator pile.... Vibratory removal. Steel......... 36 1 15 1 1
Existing dolphin.. Vibratory removal. Steel......... 36 6 15 3 2
Relocate dolphin Vibratory install. Steel......... 36 4 20 3 2
install.
Relocated dolphin Vibratory install. Steel......... 30 7 20 3 3
install.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... .................. .................. .............. ........... 19 345 ........... 9
Edmond......................... Indicator pile.... Vibratory install. Steel......... 36 1 20 1 1
Indicator pile.... Vibratory removal. Steel......... 36 1 15 1 1
Existing dolphin Vibratory removal. Steel......... 36 3 15 3 1
removal.
Relocated dolphin. Vibratory install. Steel......... 36 3 20 3 1
Relocated dolphin. Vibratory install. Steel......... 30 3 20 3 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... .................. .................. .............. ........... 11 200 ........... 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................. .................. .................. .............. ........... 30 545 ........... 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see ``Mitigation''
and ``Monitoring and Reporting'' sections).
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
Federal Register on April 16, 2018 (83 FR
[[Page 45899]]
16330). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comment
letters from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and the Whale
and Dolphin Conservation (WDC). Specific comments and responses are
provided below.
Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS require WSDOT to
collect spectral data at the source to verify the spectrum of 36-in
piles and adjust the Level A harassment zones as necessary, rather than
continue to use the spectrum associated with 30-in piles.
Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission that if WSDOT plans to
conduct pile driving source level measurements, spectral data should be
required to calculate Level A harassment zones. However, WSDOT stated
that it does not plan to conduct source level measurements for the
Bremerton-Edmonds ferry terminal construction. Instead, WSDOT plans to
use broadband source level measurement on the 36-in piles collected at
Edmonds Ferry Terminal in 2017 and applies the 30-in pile spectrum to
model for Level A harassment zones. NMFS has determined that this is
acceptable for this activity, though we plan to continue evaluating
this determination as new information is collected. Therefore, since
WSDOT does not plan to conduct source measurements for the Bremerton-
Edmonds ferry terminal project, NMFS will not request it to acquire
spectral data.
Comment 2: The Commission commented that the method NMFS used to
estimate the numbers of takes during the proposed activities, which
summed fractions of takes for each species across project days, does
not account for and negates the intent of NMFS' 24-hour reset policy.
The Commission also recommends that NMFS develop and share guidance on
this issue.
Response: NMFS has provided the guidance to the Commission; and, as
described therein and discussed subsequently, we have determined that
the method used for rounding take estimates here is appropriate and
does not conflict with the methodology that the Commission refers to as
the ``24-hour reset policy.''
Comment 3: The Commission requested clarification of certain issues
associated with NMFS's notice that one-year renewals could be issued in
certain limited circumstances and expressed concern that the process
would bypass the public notice and comment requirements. The Commission
also suggested that NMFS should discuss the possibility of renewals
through a more general route, such as a rulemaking, instead of notice
in a specific authorization. The Commission further recommended that if
NMFS did not pursue a more general route, that the agency provide the
Commission and the public with a legal analysis supporting our
conclusion that this process is consistent with the requirements of
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
Response: The process of issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass the
public notice and comment requirements of the MMPA. The notice of the
proposed IHA expressly notifies the public that under certain, limited
conditions an applicant could seek a renewal IHA for an additional
year. The notice describes the conditions under which such a renewal
request could be considered and expressly seeks public comment in the
event such a renewal is sought. Additional reference to this
solicitation of public comment has recently been added at the beginning
of FR notices that consider renewals. NMFS appreciates the streamlining
achieved by the use of abbreviated Federal Register notices and intends
to continue using them for proposed IHAs that include minor changes
from previously issued IHAs, but which do not satisfy the renewal
requirements. However, we believe our proposed method for issuing
renewals meets statutory requirements and maximizes efficiency.
Importantly, such renewals would be limited to where the activities are
identical or nearly identical to those analyzed in the proposed IHA,
monitoring does not indicate impacts that were not previously analyzed
and authorized, and the mitigation and monitoring requirements remain
the same, all of which allow the public to comment on the
appropriateness and effects of a renewal at the same time the public
provides comments on the initial IHA. NMFS has, however, modified the
language for future proposed IHAs to clarify that all IHAs, including
renewal IHAs, are valid for no more than one year and that the agency
would consider only one renewal for a project at this time. In
addition, notice of issuance or denial of a renewal IHA would be
published in the Federal Register, as are all IHAs. Last, NMFS will
publish on our website a description of the renewal process before any
renewal is issued utilizing the new process.
Comment 4: The WDC states that as part of the recently initiated
Washington State Southern Resident Recovery Task Force, WSDOT should
utilize locally available resources, including a hydrophone network and
well-informed local sightings network, to monitor the presence,
abundance, and movement of killer whales in the area during the
project. WDC further recommends that if a protected species observer
(PSO) is unable to differentiate between transient and resident killer
whales, any killer whale sighting near the shutdown zone should result
in shutdown measures. In addition, WDC recommends WSDOT employ soft-
start or ramp-up methods for pile driving activities to give any marine
mammal within hearing range time to respond to increased noise levels
and leave the area before work begins.
Response: NMFS agrees with WDC's recommendations. In fact, all the
recommended mitigation and monitoring measures in the WDC's comment
letter were already in the proposed IHA. These measures include, but
not limited to, (1) coordinating with the Orca Network on a daily basis
during pile driving to understand marine mammal presence near the
project areas and also sharing project sightings data with Orca
Network; (2) implementing shutdown measures if a killer whale is
sighted near the shutdown zone when the ecotype of the killer whale is
unknown, and (3) implementing ramp-up methods for pile driving
activities.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
We have reviewed the applicant's species information, which
summarizes available information regarding status and trends,
distribution and habitat preferences, behavior and life history, and
auditory capabilities of the potentially affected species--for accuracy
and completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the
applications, as well as to NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region#reports).
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminal project area and summarizes
information related to the population or stock, including potential
biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow
Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR, 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, is considered in
concert with known sources of ongoing anthropogenic mortality to assess
the population-level effects of the anticipated mortality from a
specific project (as described in
[[Page 45900]]
NMFS' SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR
and annual serious injury and mortality are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' 2017 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta et al., 2018). The
2017 SAR is available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region#reports.
Table 2--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.......................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific.. -; N 20,990 (0.05, 20,125). 624 132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale...................... Megaptera novaneagliae. California/Oregon/ E/D;Y 1,918 (0.03, 1,976)... 11.0 >6.5
Washington.
Minke whale......................... Balaenoptera California/Oregon/ -; N 636 (0.72, 369)....... 3.5 >1.3
acutorostrata. Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale........................ Orcinus orca........... Eastern N Pacific E/D; Y 83 (NA, 83)........... 0.14 0
Southern resident.
West coast transient... -; N 243 (NA, 243)......... 2.4 0
Long-beaked common dolphin.......... Delphinus delphis...... California............. -; N 101,305 (0.49, 68,432) 657 >35.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise..................... Phocoena phocoena...... Washington inland -; N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308).. 66 7.2
waters.
Dall's porpoise..................... Phocoenoides dali...... California/Oregon/ -; N 25,750 (0.45, 17,954). 172 0.3
Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion................. Zalophus californianus. U.S.................... -; N 296,750 (NA, 153,337). 9,200 389
Steller sea lion.................... Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern U.S............ -; N 41,638 (NA, 41,638)... 2,498 108
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal......................... Phoca vitulina......... Washington northern -; N 11,036 \4\ (unk, unk). 1,641 43
inland waters.
Northern elephant seal.............. Mirounga angustirostris California breeding.... -; N 179,000 (NA, 81,368).. 4,882 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region#reports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here.
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed
construction areas are included in Table 2. Although the SRKW could
occur in the vicinity of the project area, WSDOT proposes to implement
strict monitoring and mitigation measures with assistance from local
marine mammal researchers and observers. Thus, the take of this marine
mammal stock can be avoided (see details in Mitigation section).
In addition, sea otters may be found in Puget Sound area. However,
this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are
not considered further in this document.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described
generalized hearing ranges for
[[Page 45901]]
these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were
chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the
normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits
for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be
biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al.
(2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated frequencies
are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges correspond to the
range for the composite group, with the entire range not necessarily
reflecting the capabilities of every species within that group):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35
kilohertz (kHz);
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz;
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al.,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information.
Eleven marine mammal species (7 cetacean and 4 pinniped (2 otariid and
2 phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the
proposed construction activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present, one species is classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., gray, humpback, and minke whales), two are
classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (killer whale and long-beaked
common dolphin), and two are classified as high-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., harbor and Dall's porpoise).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section
later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity.
The ``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section will
consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment'' section, and the ``Mitigation'' section, to
draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on
the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Potential impacts to marine mammals from the Bremerton-Edmonds
ferry terminal construction project are from noise generated during in-
water pile driving and pile removal activities.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal
hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
The WSDOT's Bremerton-Edmond ferry terminal construction project
using in-water pile driving and pile removal could adversely affect
marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to elevated noise
levels in the vicinity of the activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift
(TS)--an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise
(Finneran et al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold
shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal
pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of
hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following
cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of TS just after exposure
is the initial TS. If the TS eventually returns to zero (i.e., the
threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is a temporary
threshold shift (TTS) (Southall et al., 2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced TS. An animal
can experience TTS or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last
from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can
occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a
temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and
10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's
hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced
by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can
also occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above
for TTS.
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise (Finneran, 2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to
measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California
sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b).
Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing
it to airgun noise with a received sound pressure level (SPL) at 200.2
dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 micropascal ([mu]Pa), which corresponds to a
sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa\2\ s after integrating
exposure. Because the airgun noise is a broadband impulse, one cannot
directly determine the equivalent of root mean square (rms) SPL from
the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative
conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys
(McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-to-
peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL
for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, and the received
levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher.
Therefore, based on these studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor
porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically tested
(Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and
Jennings, 2012).
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
[[Page 45902]]
time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is
experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from
discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that occurs during a time where ambient noise
is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained
during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf
interactions could have more serious impacts. Also, depending on the
degree and frequency range, the effects of PTS on an animal could range
in severity, although it is considered generally more serious because
it is a permanent condition. Of note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a
simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer that
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost.
In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-
intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions
(Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as
from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals
such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental
sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain
circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment
are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize.
Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly
concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high
frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However,
lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of
communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such
as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when
they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space
of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels
(e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects
both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent
science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased
by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the
world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases
are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). For WSDOT's Bremerton-
Edmonds ferry terminal project, noises from vibratory pile driving and
pile removal contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels in the
project area, thus increasing potential for or severity of masking.
Baseline ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project area are high
due to ongoing shipping, construction and other activities in the Puget
Sound.
Finally, marine mammals' exposure to certain sounds could lead to
behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), such as changing
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g.,
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises
(such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for
continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the WSDOT's
Bremerton-Edmonds ferry terminal project, only 120-dB level is
considered for effects analysis because WSDOT plans to use only
vibratory pile driving and pile removal.
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity,
duration, and context of the effects.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile
removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts
to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of
sound (such as noise from impact pile driving) rather than continuous
signals (such as noise from vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al.,
1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal
intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the
same level.
During the coastal construction, only a small fraction of the
available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to
fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the
proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on marine
mammals' prey availability in the area where construction work is
planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid
the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the negligible impact
determination.
[[Page 45903]]
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to noise generated from vibratory pile driving
and removal. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated
effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown measures--
discussed in detail below in Mitigation section), Level A harassment is
neither anticipated nor authorized.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering:
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these
components in more detail and present the take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g.
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
Applicant's proposed activity includes the generation of non-
impulse (vibratory pile driving and removal) source; and, only the 120-
dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) is used.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
Applicant's proposed activity would generate and non-impulsive
(vibratory pile driving and pile removal) noises.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product and are
provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology
used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016
Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
Table 3--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Non-Explosive Sound Underwater
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds Behavioral thresholds
Hearing group -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.... Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. Lrms,flat: 160 dB. Lrms,flat: 120 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.... Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans... Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
(Underwater). LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
(Underwater). LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds.
Source Levels
The project includes vibratory removal and/or driving of 30-inch
and 36-inch diameter hollow steel piles. Based on in-water measurements
at
[[Page 45904]]
Edmonds Ferry Terminal in 2017 (WSDOT 2017), vibratory driving of 30-
inch steel piles generated 174 dB rms re 1 [micro]Pa at 10 meters and
vibratory pile driving of a 36-inch steel pile generated 177 dB rms re
1 [micro]Pa measured at 10 meters. As a conservative estimate,
vibratory pile removal source level of 36-in steel pile is based on 36-
in pile installation level of 177 dB re 1 [micro]Pa SEL.
A summary of source levels from different pile driving and pile
removal activities is provided in Table 4.
Table 4--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving Source Levels
[At 10 m from source]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEL (dB re 1 SPLrms (dB re 1
Method Pile type/size [micro]Pa\2\-s) [micro]Pa)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving/removal.................. 36-in steel pile............. 177 177
Vibratory driving.......................... 30-in steel pile............. 174 174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These source levels are used to compute the Level A harassment
zones and to estimate the Level B harassment zones. For Level A
harassment zones, since the peak source levels for both pile driving
are below the injury thresholds, cumulative SEL were used to do the
calculations using the NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016).
Estimating Harassment Zones
For Level B harassment, ensonified areas are based on WSDOT's
source measurements (see above) computed using 15 * log(R) for
transmission loss to derive the distances up to 120-dB isopleths.
For Level A harassment, calculation is based on duration of
installation/removal per pile and number of piles installed or removed
per day, using spectral modeling based on vibratory pile driving
recordings made at Edmonds Ferry Terminal for the same piles. One-
second sound exposure level (SEL) power spectral densities (PSDs) were
calculated and used as representative pile driving sources to assess
Level A harassment for marine mammals in different hearing groups.
Initial results showed that Level A harassment zones from the 3-in
piles were smaller than those from 30-in piles for high-frequency
cetaceans, despite the broadband noise level from the 36-in pile being
3 dB higher than that of 30-in pile. Close examination of the pile
driving spectra revealed some unusual high decay rate in the 36-in pile
driving sound above 2 kHz. This unusual decay was probably due to the
specific sediment in the pile driving location. Therefore, the spectrum
for the 30-in pile was used to model the 36-in pile and scaled up to
the 177 dB broadband level.
Transmission loss due to absorption was also incorporated based
using the equation
TL(f) = 15log(R) + a(f) * R/1000
where TL(f) is frequency dependent transmission loss, and a(f) is
frequency dependent transmission loss coefficient.
Distances of ensonified area for different pile driving/removal
activities for different marine mammal hearing groups is present in
Table 5.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations.
In most cases, marine mammal density data are from the U.S. Navy
Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015) except California sea
lion and harbor porpoise. California sea lion density at Bremerton area
is based on survey data of California sea lions at the Navy Shipyard at
Bremerton from 2012-2016 (Navy 2017). Survey results indicate as many
as 144 animals hauled out each day during this time period, with the
majority of animals observed August through May and the greatest
numbers observed in November. The average of the monthly maximum counts
during the in-water work window provides an estimate of 69 sea lions
per day. For harbor porpoise, because Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife has better local distribution data based on recent survey in
the area, local animal abundance are used to calculate the take numbers
(Evenson, 2016).
[[Page 45905]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11SE18.000
A summary of marine mammal density and local occurrence used for
take estimates is provided in Table 6.
Table 6--Marine Mammal Density and Local Occurrence in the WSDOT Project
Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species (#/km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale................................................... 0.0051
Humpback whale............................................... 0.0007
Minke whale.................................................. 0.00003
Killer whale (West coast transient).......................... 0.002
Long-beaked common dolphin................................... 0.002
Harbor porpoise.............................................. 0.58
Dall's porpoise.............................................. 0.048
California sea lion.......................................... * 0.03
Steller sea lion............................................. 0.04
Harbor seal.................................................. 1.22
Northern elephant seal....................................... 0.00001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This density is only used for Edmonds Ferry Terminal area. For animals
at Bremerton Ferry Terminal, a daily sighting of 69 animals is used
for take estimates.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. For all marine
mammals except California sea lion at Bremerton Ferry Terminal area,
takes were calculated as: Take = ensonified area x average animal
abundance in the area x pile driving days and rounded up to the nearest
integer. For California sea lion at Bremerton, take estimate is based
on the average daily sighting of 69 animals within the area multiplied
by the nine project days, which yield a total of 621 estimated takes.
For calculated take number less than 10, such as northern elephant
seals, transient killer whales, humpback whales, minke whales, and
long-beaked common dolphins, takes numbers were adjusted to account for
group encounter and the likelihood of encountering. Specifically, for
northern elephant seal, take of 15 animals is estimated based on the
likelihood of encountering this species during the project period. For
transient killer whale, takes of 30 animals is estimated based on the
group size and the likelihood of encountering in the area. For humpback
and minke whales, takes of eight animals each are estimated based on
the likelihood of encountering. For long-beaked common dolphin, take of
50 animals is estimated based on the group size and the likelihood of
encountering in the area.
No Level A harassment take is calculated using the aforementioned
estimation method because of the small injury zones and relatively low
average animal density in the area. Since the largest Level A
harassment distance is only 35 m from the source for high-frequency
cetaceans (harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise), NMFS considers that
WSDOT can effectively monitor such small zones to implement shutdown
measures and avoid Level A harassment takes. Therefore, no Level A
harassment take of marine mammal is anticipated for the dolphin
replacement project at the Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals.
A summary of estimated takes based on the above analysis is listed
in Table 7.
[[Page 45906]]
Table 7--Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals That May Be Exposed to Received Noise Levels That Cause Level B
Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Level B
Species harassment Abundance Percentage
take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale...................................................... 10 20,990 0
Humpback whale.................................................. 8 1,918 0
Minke whale..................................................... 8 636 2
Killer whale (West coast transient)............................. 30 243 12
Killer whale (Southern resident)................................ 0 83 0
Long-beaked common dolphin...................................... 50 101,305 0
Harbor porpoise................................................. 1,087 11,233 10
Dall's porpoise................................................. 90 25,750 0
California sea lion............................................. 1,149 296,750 0
Steller sea lion................................................ 75 41,638 0
Harbor seal..................................................... 2,286 11,036 21
Northern elephant seal.......................................... 15 179,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
1. Time Restriction
In-water work must occur only during daylight hours, when visual
monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.
2. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, and
Shutdown Zones
Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, which
include vibratory pile driving and pile removal, WSDOT must establish
Level A harassment zones where received underwater SELcum
could cause PTS (see above).
WSDOT must also establish Level B harassment zones where received
underwater SPLs are higher than 120 dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa for
non-impulsive noise sources (vibratory pile driving and pile removal).
WSDOT must establish shutdown zones within which marine mammals
could be taken by Level A harassment. For Level A harassment zones that
is less than 10 m from the source, a minimum of 10 m distance should be
established as a shutdown zone.
A summary of shutdown zones is provided in Table 8.
Table 8--Shutdown Distances for Various Pile Driving Activities and Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown distance (m)
Pile type, size & pile driving -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
method LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36'' indicate pile install (1 10 10 25 10 10
pile/day)......................
36'' indicate pile removal (1 10 10 10 10 10
pile/day)......................
36'' steel pile (existing 25 10 35 10 10
dolphin) removal (3 piles/day).
36'' steel pile (relocated 25 10 35 10 10
dolphin) install (3 piles/day).
30'' steel pile (relocated 25 10 25 10 10
dolphin) install (3 piles/day).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSO) shall conduct an
initial 30-minute survey of the shutdown zones to ensure that no marine
mammals are seen within the zones before pile driving and pile removal
of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within the
shutdown zone, pile driving of the
[[Page 45907]]
segment must be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine
mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor must
wait 15 minutes. If no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that
time it can be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the shutdown
zone.
If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a
marine mammal is sighted within the designated shutdown zone prior to
commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the pile
driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and
continue to monitor the shutdown zone. Operations may not resume until
the marine mammal has exited the shutdown zone or 30 minutes have
elapsed since the last sighting.
To verify the required monitoring distance, the shutdown zones and
ZOIs will be determined by using a range finder or hand-held global
positioning system device.
3. Shutdown Measures
WSDOT must implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is
detected within or to be approaching the shutdown zones provided in
Table 8 of this notice.
WSDOT must implement shutdown measures if Southern Resident killer
whales (SRKWs) are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and
are approaching the Level B harassment zone (zone of influence, or ZOI)
during in-water construction activities.
If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or
removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer
whale, it must be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the
shutdown measure described above.
If a SRKW enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile
removal must be suspended until the SRKW exits the ZOI to avoid further
level B harassment.
WSDOT must implement shutdown measures if the number of any
allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA or if a
marine mammal observed is not authorized for take under this IHA, if
such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area
and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during pile removal
activities.
Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has
determined that the prescribed mitigation measures provide the means
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Monitoring Measures
WSDOT must employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal
monitoring for its dolphin relocation project at Bremerton and Edmonds
ferry terminals. The purposes of marine mammal monitoring are to
implement mitigation measures and learn more about impacts to marine
mammals from WSDOT's construction activities. The PSOs must observe and
collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30
minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and
pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs must meet the following
requirements:
1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required;
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer;
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree
in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one
observer must be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator.
The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer;
and
5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be
conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power).
Due to the different sizes of zones of influence (ZOI) from different
pile types, two different ZOIs and different monitoring protocols
corresponding to a specific pile type must be established.
For all vibratory driving/removal at the Bremerton Ferry
Terminal, two land-based PSOs and one monitoring boat with one PSO and
boat operator must monitor the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
For all vibratory driving/removal at the Edmonds Ferry
Terminal, five land-based PSOs and two ferry-based PSOs must monitor
the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
If the in-situ measurement showed that the Level B
harassment zone at the Edmonds Ferry Terminal is under 15 km from the
source, three land-based PSOs and one ferry-based PSO must be
monitoring the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
Locations of the land-based PSOs and routes of monitoring vessels
are shown in WSDOT's Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, which is available
online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
6. PSOs must collect the following information during marine mammal
monitoring:
Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for
each day conducted (monitoring period);
[[Page 45908]]
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile
types, average driving times;
Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea
state, tide state);
For each marine mammal sighting, the following information
shall be collected:
[cir] Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
[cir] Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
[cir] Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
and
[cir] Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the
Level B harassment zone;
[cir] Description of implementation of mitigation measures within
each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay); and
[cir] Other human activity in the area within each monitoring
period.
WSDOT may conduct noise field measurement at the Edmonds Ferry
Terminal to determine the actual Level B harassment distance from the
source during vibratory pile driving of 36'' piles.
Reporting Measures
WSDOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90
days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the
IHA, whichever comes earlier. In the case if WSDOT intends to renew the
IHA in a subsequent year, a monitoring report should be submitted 60
days before the expiration of the current IHA (if issued). This report
would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded
during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may
have been harassed. NMFS would have an opportunity to provide comments
on the report, and if NMFS has comments, WSDOT would address the
comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days.
In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS' Office of
Protected Resources and NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within
48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the
construction site. WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the Stranding Network
with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the
animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and
photo or video (if available).
In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that
is not in the construction area, WSDOT must report the same information
as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses
applies to all the species listed in Table 7, given that the
anticipated effects of WSDOT's Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals
dolphin relocation project involving pile driving and pile removal on
marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There
is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the
size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a
different analysis by species for this activity, or else species-
specific factors would be identified and analyzed.
For all marine mammal species, takes that are anticipated and
authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment,
because of the small scale (only a total of 30 piles to be installed
and removed) and short durations (maximum nine days pile driving/
removal at Bremerton Ferry Terminal and five days pile driving/removal
at Edmonds Ferry Terminal).
Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken
by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance
(startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels
during pile driving and pile removal. For these reasons, these
behavioral impacts are not expected to affect marine mammals' growth,
survival, and reproduction, especially considering the limited
geographic area that would be affected in comparison to the much larger
habitat for marine mammals in the Pacific Northwest.
Take calculation based on marine mammal densities within the
ensonified areas did not predict a Level A harassment take. In
addition, the estimated Level A harassment zones are small (less than
35 m from the source) and can be effectively monitored to implement a
shutdown measure if a marine mammal is detected to be moving towards
that zone. The impacts are not expected to affect survival, and
reproduction of the marine mammal population in the project vicinity.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in
the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section. There is
no ESA designated critical area in the vicinity of the Bremerton and
Edmonds ferry terminal areas. The project activities would not
permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may
kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus
impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion
of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the
activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be
affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given
the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species
and their physical environment, WSDOT's proposed construction activity
at Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals
[[Page 45909]]
would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
All harassment is Level B harassment in the form of short-
term behavioral modification; and
No areas of specific importance to affected species are
impacted.
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 prescribed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total take from the proposed
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal
species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of
individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of
the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
The estimated takes are below 21 percent of the population for all
marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the
affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
NMFS has determined the issuance of the IHA is consistent with
categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4
(issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section
101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or
mortality is anticipated) of NOAA's Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A,
and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in
Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude
this categorical exclusion under NEPA.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally, in this case with NMFS West Coast Region
Protected Resources Division, whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
The humpback whale and the killer whale (southern resident distinct
population segment (DPS)) are the only marine mammal species listed
under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity of WSDOT's proposed
construction project. Two DPSs of the humpback whale stock, the Mexico
DPS and the Central America DPS, are listed as threatened and
endangered under the ESA, respectively. NMFS Office of Protected
Resources has initiated consultation with NMFS West Coast Regional
Office under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to WSDOT
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. NMFS is
authorizing take of California/Oregon/Washington stock of humpback
whale, which are listed under the ESA.
In March 2018, NMFS finished conducting its section 7 consultation
and issued a Biological Opinion concluding that the issuance of the IHA
associated with WSDOT's Bremerton-Edmonds ferry terminals construction
project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
endangered humpback and the Southern Resident killer whales.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the
Washington State Department of Transportation for the Bremerton and
Edmonds ferry terminals dolphin relocation project in Washington State,
provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: September 5, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19592 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P