[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25757-25772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11574]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-PR-A001
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project at
Colman Dock in Seattle, Washington
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed incidental harassment authorization (IHA); request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for authorization to take marine
mammals incidental to the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in
Seattle, Washington. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an
incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine
mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting
comments on a possible 1-year renewal that could be issued under
certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will
consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the
issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will
be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 5,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments
should be sent to [email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. 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 incidental take authorization may be 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) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and
``specified geographical region'' limitations indicated above and
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military
readiness activity.'' The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory
terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality
of the human environment and for which we have not identified any
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On February 7, 2019, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting
an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of marine mammal
species incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in
Seattle, Washington, from August 1, 2019 to July 31, 2020. After
receiving the revised project description and the revised IHA
application, NMFS determined that the IHA application is adequate and
[[Page 25758]]
complete on May 8, 2018. NMFS is proposing to authorize the take by
Level A and Level B harassments of the following marine mammal species:
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris); California sea lion (Zalophus californianus); Steller
sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); killer whale (Orcinus orca); long-beaked
common dolphin (Delphinus capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata);
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); and Dall's porpoise (P. dalli).
Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
This proposed IHA would cover one year of a larger project for
which WSDOT obtained prior IHAs (82 FR 21579; July 7, 2017; 83 FR
35226; July 25, 2018) and intends to request take authorization for
subsequent facets of the project. The larger 5-year project involves
reconfiguring the Colman Dock of the Seattle Ferry Terminal while
maintaining the same vehicle holding capacity as current conditions.
WSDOT complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their
monitoring results may be found in the Estimated Take section.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The purpose of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock is to
preserve the transportation function of an aging, deteriorating and
seismically deficient facility to continue providing safe and reliable
service. The project will also address existing safety concerns related
to conflicts between vehicles and pedestrian traffic and operational
inefficiencies.
Dates and Duration
Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water
work timing restrictions to protect ESA-listed salmonids, planned WSDOT
in-water construction is limited each year to July 16 through February
15. In-water pile driving work will be conducted in daylight hours
only. It is expected that a total of 146 pile driving days will be
needed for the 2019/2020 construction work.
Specific Geographic Region
The Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock, serving State Route 519,
is located on the downtown Seattle waterfront, in King County,
Washington. The terminal services vessels from the Bainbridge Island
and Bremerton routes, and is the most heavily used terminal in the
Washington State Ferry system. The Seattle terminal is located in
Section 6, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, and is adjacent to Elliott
Bay, tributary to Puget Sound (Figure 1-2 of the IHA application). Land
use in the area is highly urban, and includes business, industrial, the
Port of Seattle container loading facility, residential, the Pioneer
Square Historic District and local parks.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
The project will reconfigure the Colman Dock while maintaining
approximately the same vehicle holding capacity as current conditions.
The construction began in August 2017. In the 2017-2018 season, the
construction activities were focused on the South Trestle, Terminal
Building Foundation, and the temporary and permanent Passenger
Offloading Facility. In the 2018-2019 season, the construction
activities were focused on the North Trestle, and Slip 3 bridge seat,
overhead loading, wingwall, and inner dolphin.
In the 2019-2020 season, WSDOT plans to work on Slip 2 bridge seat,
Center Trestle, Slip 2 wingwall extension, and Slips 2 and 3 inner
dolphins. Both impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile
removal would be conducted. A total of 58 days are estimated for pile
driving and 88 days for pile removal.
In-water construction activities include:
[ssquf] Permanently install 36-inch (in) steel piles with a
vibratory hammer, and then proof with an impact hammer for the last 5-
10 feet.
[ssquf] Permanently install 24-in steel piles with a vibratory
hammer.
[ssquf] Removal of various piles with a vibratory hammer.
[ssquf] Install and removal of 24-in steel piles with a vibratory
hammer.
A list of pile driving and removal activities is provided in Table
1.
Table 1--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number Number piles/
Method Pile type and size piles day Work days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive *..................... Steel pipe (temp), 24''. 148 8 19
Vibratory drive....................... Steel pipe, 24''........ 2 2 1
Vibratory drive **.................... Steel pipe, 36''........ 148 8 19
Impact drive (proof) **............... Steel pipe, 36''........ 148 8 19
Vibratory removal..................... Timber, 14''............ 1,046 20 52
Vibratory removal..................... Steel pipe, 12''........ 108 11 10
Vibratory removal..................... Steel H, 14''........... 19 10 2
Vibratory removal..................... Steel pipe, 18''........ 15 10 2
Vibratory removal *................... Steel pipe (temp), 24''. 148 8 19
Vibratory removal..................... Steel pipe, 36''........ 3 1 3
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................. ........................ 1,489 .............. 146
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Same 24'' steel pipe piles.
** Same 36'' steel pipe piles.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://
[[Page 25759]]
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-
stock-assessments) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
lower Puget Sound area and summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and
other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's 2018 U.S. Pacific Draft Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta et al.,
2019). All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at
the time of publication and are available in the 2017 SARs (Carretta et
al., 2018); and draft 2018 SARs (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
Table 2--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/ MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific.. N 26,960................ 801 138
Family Balaenopteridae:
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaneagliae. California/Oregon/ Y 2,900................. 16.7 >38.6
Washington.
Minke whale..................... Balaenoptera California/Oregon/ N 636................... 3.5 >1.3
acutorostrata. Washington.
Family Delphinidae:
Killer whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Eastern N. Pacific Y 77.................... 0.13 0
Southern resident. .................. ...................... ......... .........
West coast transient... N 243................... 2.4 0
Long-beaked common dolphin...... Delphinus capensis..... California............. N 101,305............... 657 >35.4
Bottlenose dolphin.............. Tursiops truncatus..... California/Oregon/ N 1,924................. 198 >0.84
Washington offshore.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Washington inland N 11,233................ 66 7.2
waters.
Dall's porpoise................. P. dali................ California/Oregon/ N 25,750................ 172 0.3
Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California sea lion............. Zalophus californianus. U.S.................... N 257,606............... 14,011 >319
Steller sea lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern U.S............ N 41,267................ 2,498 108
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Washington northern N 11,036 \4\............ 1,641 43
inland waters.
Northern elephant seal.......... Mirounga angustirostris California breeding.... N 179,000............... 4,882 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here (Jefferies et al., 2003;
Carretta et al., 2017).
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 2. Although the Southern Resident killer
whale (SRKW) could occur in the vicinity of the project area, WSDOT
proposes to implement strict monitoring and mitigation measures with
assistance from local marine mammal researchers and observers. Thus,
the take of this marine mammal stock can be avoided (see details in
Proposed Mitigation section).
In addition, the sea otter may be found in Puget Sound area.
However, this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and are not considered further in this document.
More detailed descriptions of marine mammals in the WSDOT's Seattle
Multimodal project area is provided below.
Gray Whale
Within Washington waters, gray whale sightings reported to Cascadia
Research and the Whale Museum between 1990 and 1993 totaled over 1,100
(Calambokidis et al. 1994b). Abundance estimates calculated for the
[[Page 25760]]
small regional area between Oregon and southern Vancouver Island,
including the San Juan Area and Puget Sound, suggest there were 137 to
153 individual gray whales from 2001 through 2003 (Calambokidis et al.
2004a). Forty-eight individual gray whales were observed in Puget Sound
and Hood Canal in 2004 and 2005 (Calambokidis 2007).
Although typically seen during their annual migrations on the outer
coast, a regular group of gray whales annually comes into the inland
waters at Saratoga Passage and Port Susan (south Whidbey Island area)
from March through May to feed on ghost shrimp (Weitkamp et al. 1992).
The size of the group is 10-12 individuals, with some arriving as early
as January and staying into July (Orca Network 2015b). During this time
frame they are also seen in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the San Juan
Islands and areas of Puget Sound, although the observations in Puget
Sound are highly variable between years (Calambokidis et al. 1994b).
The average tenure within Washington inland waters is 47 days and the
longest stay was 112 days (WSDOT 2019).
The occurrence of gray whale in the WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal
project area is rare. There was no sighting of gray whale during the 1-
day 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project (WSDOT 2012) or the 10-day
2016 Seattle Test Pile project (WSDOT 2016). During the 99-day marine
mammal monitoring of the previous Seattle Multimodal Project in 2017/
2018 season, no gray whale was sighted (WSDOT 2019).
Humpback Whale
Historically, humpback whales were common in inland waters of Puget
Sound and the San Juan Islands (Calambokidis et al. 2004b). The
California-Oregon-Washington stock of humpback whale calves and mates
in coastal Hawaii, Mexico and Central America and migrates to southern
British Columbia in the summer and fall to feed (NMFS 1991; Marine
Mammal Commission 2003; Carretta et al. 2007b). Humpback whales are
seen in Puget Sound, but more frequent sightings occur in the Strait of
Juan de Fuca and near the San Juan Islands. Most sightings are in
spring and summer.
Cascadia Research Collective has been studying humpback whales
along the U.S. West Coast since 1986. In the early 2000s, increasing
numbers of humpback whales were sighted in Washington inland waters,
and this trend increased in 2014 (CRC 2017).
The occurrence of humpback whale in the WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal
project area is rare. There was no sighting of humpback whale during
the 1-day 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project (WSDOT 2012) or the
10-day 2016 Seattle Test Pile project (WSDOT 2016). During the 99-day
marine mammal monitoring of the previous Seattle Multimodal Project in
2017/2018 season, no humpback whale was sighted (WSDOT 2019).
Minke Whale
The California-Oregon-Washington (CA-OR-WA) stock of Minke whale is
considered a resident stock (NMFS 2016), and includes Minke whales
within the inland Washington waters of Puget Sound and the San Juan
Islands.
Information on Minke whale population and abundance is limited due
to difficulty in detection. Over a 10-year period, 30 individuals were
photo-identified in the U.S./Canada trans-boundary area around the San
Juan Islands and demonstrated high site fidelity (Dorsey et al. 1990;
Calambokidis and Baird 1994).
Minke whales are reported in Washington inland waters year-round,
although few are reported in the winter (Calambokidis and Baird 1994).
Minke whales are relatively common in the San Juan Islands and Strait
of Juan de Fuca (especially around several of the banks in both the
central and eastern Strait), but are relatively rare in Puget Sound.
There was no sighting of minke whale during the 1-day 2012 Seattle
Slip 2 Batter Pile project (WSDOT 2012) or the 10-day 2016 Seattle Test
Pile project (WSDOT 2016). During the 99-day marine mammal monitoring
of the previous Seattle Multimodal Project in 2017/2018 season, no
minke whale was sighted (WSDOT 2019).
Killer Whale
The Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident (SRKW) and West Coast
Transient stocks of killer whale are both found within Washington
inland waters. Individuals of both stocks have long-ranging movements
and regularly leave the inland waters (Calambokidis and Baird 1994a).
Southern Resident Killer Whale
Southern Residents are documented in coastal waters ranging from
central California to the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia
(NMFS 2008a). They occur in all inland marine waters. SRKWs generally
spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water less
than 15 feet deep (Baird 2000). Distribution is strongly associated
with areas of greatest salmon abundance, with heaviest foraging
activity occurring over deep open water and in areas characterized by
high-relief underwater topography, such as subsurface canyons,
seamounts, ridges, and steep slopes (Wiles 2004).
In fall, all three pods occur in areas where migrating salmon are
concentrated such as the mouth of the Fraser River. They may also enter
areas in Puget Sound where migrating chum and Chinook salmon are
concentrated (Osborne 1999). In the winter months, the K and L pods
spend progressively less time in inland marine waters and depart for
coastal waters in January or February. The pods spend will over 50
percent of the winter months on the outer coast (NMFS 2014). The J pod
is most likely to appear year-round near the San Juan Islands, and in
the fall/winter, in the lower Puget Sound and in Georgia Strait at the
mouth of the Fraser River. In 2017, the Southern Residents spent less
time in inland marine waters than previously recorded, which may be
related to lack of prey (Orca Network 2017).
On November 29, 2006, NMFS published a final rule designating
critical habitat for the SRKR. Both Puget Sound and the San Juan
Islands are designated as core areas of critical habitat under the ESA,
excluding areas less than 20 feet deep relative to extreme high water
(71 FR 69054).
The Southern Residents live in three pod groups known as the J, K
and L pods. As of January 2019, the stock collectively numbered 75
individuals (J Pod: 22, K Pod: 18, L Pod: 35) (Orca Network 2019),
though the NMFS latest SAR estimates the population to be 77.
There was no sighting of Southern Resident killer whale during the
1-day 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project (WSDOT 2012) or the 10-
day 2016 Seattle Test Pile project (WSDOT 2016). During the 99-day
marine mammal monitoring of the previous Seattle Multimodal Project in
2017/2018 season, 148 SRKW (multiple sightings of some members of the
population) were observed in the project area, with an average of 1.5/
day (WSDOT 2019).
West Coast Transient Killer Whale
The West Coast Transient stock occurs in California, Oregon,
Washington, British Columbia, and southeastern Alaskan waters. Within
the inland waters, they may frequent areas near seal rookeries when
pups are weaned (Baird and Dill 1995). West Coast Transients are
documented year-round in Washington inland waters.
Transient killer whales generally occur in smaller (less than 10
individuals), less structured pods, though pods as large as 12 have
occasionally been observed in Puget
[[Page 25761]]
Sound. According to the Center for Whale Research (CWR 2015), they tend
to travel in small groups of one to five individuals, staying close to
shorelines, often near seal rookeries when pups are being weaned.
Transient sightings have become more common since the mid-2000s (WSDOT
2019). Unlike the SRKW pods, Transients may be present in the area for
hours as they hunt pinnipeds. There was no sighting of Transient killer
whale during the 1-day 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project (WSDOT
2012) or the 10-day 2016 Seattle Test Pile project (WSDOT 2016). During
the 99-day marine mammal monitoring of the previous Seattle Multimodal
Project in 2017/2018 season, 19 Transients were observed in the project
area, an average of 0.09/day (WSDOT 2019).
Long-Beaked Common Dolphin and Bottlenose Dolphin
The California stock of Long-beaked common dolphins are present off
the California coast. The California-Oregon-Washington stock of
bottlenose dolphins are found off the coasts of California, Oregon, and
Washington, though they are more prevalent off the California coast
(NMFS 2017).
The occurrence of these two dolphin species in the WSDOT's Seattle
Multimodal project area is rare. There was no sighting of common and
bottlenose dolphins during the 1-day 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile
project (WSDOT 2012) or the 10-day 2016 Seattle Test Pile project
(WSDOT 2016). During the 99-day marine mammal monitoring of the
previous Seattle Multimodal Project in 2017/2018 season, 2 common
dolphins (an average of 0.02/day) and 4 bottlenose dolphins (an average
of 0.04/day) were observed in the project area (WSDOT 2019).
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are common in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and south
into Admiralty Inlet, especially during the winter, and are becoming
more common south of Admiralty Inlet. Little information exists on
harbor porpoise movements and stock structure near the Seattle area,
although it is suspected that in some areas harbor porpoises migrate
(based on seasonal shifts in distribution). Hall (2004) found harbor
porpoises off Canada's southern Vancouver Island to peak during late
summer, while the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's
(WDFW) Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) data show peaks
in Washington waters to occur during the winter. Hall (2004) found that
the frequency of sighting of harbor porpoises decreased with increasing
depth beyond 150 m with the highest numbers observed at water depths
ranging from 61 to 100 m. Although harbor porpoises have been spotted
in deep water, they tend to remain in shallower shelf waters (<150 m)
where they are most often observed in small groups of one to eight
animals (Baird 2003). Water depths within the Seattle Multimodal
project area range from 0 to 186 m/611 ft., with the majority of the
waters less than 150 m deep.
There was no sighting of harbor porpoise during the 1-day 2012
Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project (WSDOT 2012) or the 10-day 2016
Seattle Test Pile project (WSDOT 2016). During the 99-day marine mammal
monitoring of the previous Seattle Multimodal Project in 2017/2018
season, 288 harbor porpoise were observed in the project area, an
average of 3/day (WSDOT 2019).
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoises are migratory and appear to have predictable
seasonal movements driven by changes in oceanographic conditions (Green
et al., 1993), and are most abundant in Puget Sound during the winter
(Nysewander et al., 2005; WDFW 2008). Despite their migrations, Dall's
porpoises occur in all areas of inland Washington at all times of year
(WSDOT), but with different distributions throughout Puget Sound from
winter to summer. The average winter group size is three animals (WDFW
2008).
The occurrence of these Dall's porpoise in the WSDOT's Seattle
Multimodal project area is rare. There was no sighting of Dall's
porpoise during the 1-day 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project
(WSDOT 2012) or the 10-day 2016 Seattle Test Pile project (WSDOT 2016).
During the 99-day marine mammal monitoring of the previous Seattle
Multimodal Project in 2017/2018 season, no Dall's porpoise was observed
in the project area (WSDOT 2019).
California Sea Lion
California sea lions breed on islands off Baja Mexico and southern
California, with males (primarily) migrating north to feed in the
northern waters (Everitt et al., 1980). Females remain in the waters
near their breeding rookeries. All age classes of males are seasonally
present in Washington waters (WDFW 2000).
California sea lions were unknown in Puget Sound until
approximately 1979 (Steiger and Calambokidis 1986). Everitt et al.
(1980) reported the initial occurrence of large numbers at Port
Gardner, Everett (northern Puget Sound) in the spring of 1979. The
number of California sea lions using the Everett haulout numbered
around 1,000. This haulout remains the largest in the state for sea
lions in general and for California sea lions specifically (WSDOT
2019). Similar sightings and increases in numbers were documented
throughout the region after the initial sighting in 1979 (Steiger and
Calambokidis 1986), including urbanized areas such as Elliott Bay
(Seattle) and heavily used areas of central Puget Sound (Gearin et al.,
1986).
California sea lions do not avoid areas with heavy or frequent
human activity, but rather may approach certain areas to investigate.
This species typically does not flush from a buoy or haulout if
approached. In Washington, California sea lions use haulout sites
within all inland water regions (WDFW 2000). The movement of California
sea lions into Puget Sound could be an expansion in range of a growing
population (Steiger and Calambokidis 1986).
The nearest documented California sea lion haulout sites are 3 km/2
miles southwest of the Seattle Ferry Terminal, although sea lions also
make use of docks and other buoys in the area.
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 15 California
sea lions were observed during this 1-day project (WSDOT 2012). During
the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 12 California sea lions were
observed over 10 days in the project area, with the maximum number
sighted in a single day being 4 (WSDOT 2016). During the 99 monitoring
days of the 2017/18 Seattle Multimodal Project, 1,047 California sea
lions were observed in the project area, an average of 11/day (WSDOT
2019).
Steller Sea Lion
Adult Eastern U.S. stock Steller sea lions congregate at rookeries
in Oregon, California, and British Columbia for pupping and breeding
from late May to early June (Gisiner 1985). Steller sea lion abundances
vary seasonally in Washington inland water, with a minimum estimate of
1,000 to 2,000 individuals present or passing through the Strait of
Juan de Fuca in fall and winter months (WSDOT 2019). The number of
haulout sites has increased in recent years. The nearest documented
Steller sea lion haulout sites are 15 km/9 miles southwest of the
Seattle Ferry Terminal.
There was no sighting of Steller sea lion during the 1-day 2012
Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project (WSDOT 2012) or the 10-day 2016
Seattle Test Pile project (WSDOT 2016). During the 99-day marine mammal
monitoring of the previous Seattle Multimodal Project in
[[Page 25762]]
2017/2018 season, 54 Steller sea lions were observed in the project
area, an average of 0.6/day (WSDOT 2019).
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are the most numerous marine mammal species in Puget
Sound. Harbor seals are non-migratory; their local movements are
associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food
availability and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952;
Bigg 1969, 1981).
They are not known to make extensive pelagic migrations, although
some long-distance movements of tagged animals in Alaska (108 miles)
and along the U.S. west coast (up to 342 miles) have been recorded
(Pitcher and McAllister 1981; Brown and Mate 1983; Herder 1983).
Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs and beaches and feed in
marine, estuarine and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals display
strong fidelity for haulout sites (Pitcher and Calkins 1979; Pitcher
and McAllister 1981).
The nearest documented harbor seal haulout to the Seattle Ferry
Terminal is 10.6 km/6.6 miles west on Blakely Rocks (outside of the
project Level B harassment zone), though harbor seals also make use of
docks, buoys and beaches in the area. The level of use of this haulout
during the fall and winter is unknown, but is expected to be much less
as air temperatures become colder than water temperatures, which
results in seals in general hauling out less (WSDOT 2019). Harbor seals
are known to haul out on docks and beaches throughout the project area.
During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 6 harbor seals
were observed during this one day project (WSDOT 2012). During the 2016
Seattle Test Pile project, 56 harbor seals were observed over 10 days
in the project area, with the maximum number sighted in a single day
being 13 (WSDOT 2016). During the 99-day marine mammal monitoring of
the previous Seattle Multimodal Project in the 2017/2018 season, 813
harbor seals were observed in the project area, an average of 8/day
(WSDOT 2019).
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern Elephant seals breed and give birth in California (U.S.)
and Baja California (Mexico), primarily on offshore islands, from
December to March. Males feed near the eastern Aleutian Islands and in
the Gulf of Alaska, and females feed further south. Adults return to
land between March and August to molt, with males returning later than
females. Adults return to their feeding areas again between their
spring/summer molting and their winter breeding seasons (NMFS 2015a).
The closest documented Northern Elephant seal haulout is Protection
Island (88.5 shoreline km/55 shoreline miles northwest of the Seattle
Ferry Terminal) (WDFW 2000). Northern Elephant seals also use area
beaches as haulouts, such as a female elephant seal who has been coming
to a south Whidbey Island beach to rest while molting each spring for
several years, and recently gave birth to a pup (Orca Network 2015a).
The occurrence of these northern elephant seal in the WSDOT's
Seattle Multimodal project area is rare. There was no sighting of
northern elephant seal during the 1-day 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile
project (WSDOT 2012) or the 10-day 2016 Seattle Test Pile project
(WSDOT 2016). During the 99-day marine mammal monitoring of the
previous Seattle Multimodal Project in 2017/2018 season, no elephant
seal was observed in the project area (WSDOT 2019).
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 (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 3.
Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales)........... 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
beaked whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals)........ 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
seals).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the
group), where individual species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen
based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
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).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Twelve marine mammal species (eight cetacean and four pinniped (two
otariid and two phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-
occur with the proposed construction activities. Please refer to
[[Page 25763]]
Table 2. Of the cetacean species that may be present, three are
classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species),
three are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid
species and the sperm whale), and two are classified as high-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., harbor and Dall's porpoises).
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 includes a quantitative analysis of the number
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive
success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
Potential impacts to marine mammals from the proposed Seattle
Multimodal project at Colman Dock are from noise generated during in-
water pile driving and pile removal activities.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal
hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
The WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal project using in-water pile driving
and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal species and
stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the
activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift
(TS)--an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise
(Finneran et al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold
shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal
pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of
hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following
cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of TS just after exposure
is the initial TS. If the TS eventually returns to zero (i.e., the
threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is a temporary
threshold shift (TTS) (Southall et al., 2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced TS. An animal
can experience TTS or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last
from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can
occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a
temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and
10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's
hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced
by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can
also occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above
for TTS.
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise (Finneran, 2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to
measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California
sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b).
Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing
it to airgun noise with a received sound pressure level (SPL) at 200.2
dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 micropascal ([mu]Pa), which corresponds to a
sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa\2\ s after integrating
exposure. Because the airgun noise is a broadband impulse, one cannot
directly determine the equivalent of root mean square (rms) SPL from
the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative
conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys
(McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-to-
peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL
for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, and the received
levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher.
Therefore, based on these studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor
porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically tested
(Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and
Jennings, 2012).
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note,
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall
et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-
intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions
(Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as
from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals
such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental
sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain
circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment
are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize.
Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly
concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high
frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However,
lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of
communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such
as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when
they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space
of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels
(e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual
[[Page 25764]]
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 dolphin relocation project, noises from vibratory pile
driving and pile removal contribute to the elevated ambient noise
levels in the project area, thus increasing potential for or severity
of masking. Baseline ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project
area are high due to ongoing shipping, construction and other
activities in the Puget Sound.
Finally, marine mammals' exposure to certain sounds could lead to
behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), such as changing
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g.,
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises
(such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for
continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the WSDOT's
Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Ferry Terminal, both 120-dB and
160-dB levels are considered for effects analysis because WSDOT plans
to use both impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile
removal.
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity,
duration, and context of the effects.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile
removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts
to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of
sound (such as noise from impact pile driving) rather than continuous
signals (such as noise from vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al.,
1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal
intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the
same level.
During the coastal construction, only a small fraction of the
available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to
fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the
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
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as noise
generated from in-water pile driving has the potential to result in
disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There
is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to
result, primarily for high-frequency cetacean species and phocids
because predicted auditory injury zones are larger than for mid-
frequency species and otariids, and because these species are much
smaller than mysticetes, thus they present challenges in implementing
monitoring and mitigation measures. Auditory injury is unlikely to
occur for low- and mid-frequency cetacean species and otariids. The
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize
the severity of such taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Generally speaking, 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. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take
estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be
[[Page 25765]]
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., 2012). 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.
WSDOT's proposed activity includes the use vibratory hammer, which
generates non-impulse noises, and impact hammer, which generates
impulse noises. Therefore, the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are
applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) 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). WSDOT's proposed activity includes the
use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory
pile driving and pile removal) sources.
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Table 4--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Non-Explosive Sound Underwater
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds Behavioral thresholds
Hearing group ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans. Lpk,flat: 219 LE,LF,24h: 199 Lrms,flat: 160 dB..... Lrms,flat: 120 dB
dB; LE,LF,24h: dB.
183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans. Lpk,flat: 230 LE,MF,24h: 198
dB; LE,MF,24h: dB.
185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans Lpk,flat: 202 LE,HF,24h: 173
dB; LE,HF,24h: dB.
155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Lpk,flat: 218 LE,PW,24h: 201
(Underwater). dB; LE,PW,24h: dB.
185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Lpk,flat: 232 LE,OW,24h: 219
(Underwater). dB; LE,OW,24h: dB.
203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
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, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
Source Levels
The source level for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 18-
and 24-in steel pile is based on vibratory pile driving of the 30-in
steel pile at Port Townsend. The unweighted SPLrms source
level at 10 m from the pile is 174 dB re 1 re 1 [micro]Pa.
The source level for vibratory pile driving of the 36-in steel
piles is based on vibratory test pile driving of 36-in steel piles at
Port Townsend in 2010. Recordings of vibratory pile driving were made
at a distance of 10 m from the pile. The results show that the
unweighted SPLrms for vibratory pile driving of 36-in steel
pile was 177 dB re 1 [micro]Pa.
The source level for impact pile driving of the 36-in steel pile is
based on the sound source verification (SSV) measurements at Colman
Dock in 2018. The source levels reported are: 174 dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\-
s for SELss, 188 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for SPLrms,
and 206 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for SPLpk. These levels were
recorded with the use of bubble curtains for noise attenuation. Since
WSDOT plans to use bubble curtain for all impact pile driving, NMFS
considers these measurements are appropriate for impact zone
calculation.
The source level for vibratory pile removal of 14-in timber pile is
based measurements conducted at the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal during
vibratory removal of a 12-inch timber pile by WSDOT. The recorded
source level is 152 dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa at 16 m from the
pile, with an adjusted source level of 155 dBrms re 1
[micro]Pa at 10 m.
The source levels for vibratory pile removal of 12-in steel and 14-
in steel H piles are based on vibratory pile driving of 12-in steel
pipe pile measured by CALTRANS. The unweighted source level is 155
dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa at 10 m.
A summary of source levels is presented in Table 5.
[[Page 25766]]
Table 5--Summary of Source Levels for the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman (Year 3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEL, dB re 1 SPLrms, dB re SPLpk, dB re 1
Method Pile type/size (inch) [micro]Pa\2\-s 1 [micro]Pa [micro]Pa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving/removal.......... Steel, 18- and 24''........ 174 174 ..............
Vibratory driving/removal.......... Steel, 36''................ 177 177 ..............
Impact pile driving (proof)........ Steel, 36''................ 174 188 206
Vibratory removal.................. Timber, 14''............... 155 155 ..............
Vibratory removal.................. Steel, 12''................ 155 155 ..............
Vibratory removal.................. Steel H, 14''.............. 155 155 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These source levels are used to compute the Level A injury zones
and to estimate the Level B harassment zones.
Estimating Harassment Zones
All distances to the Level B harassment zone except for 18-, 24-,
and 36-in vibratory pile driving are based on the above source levels
applying practical spreading loss, i.e., 15*log(R), where R is the
distance from the pile to where Level B harassment levels are. For
vibratory pile driving and pile removal, the Level B harassment level
is 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa; for impact pile driving, the Level B
harassment level is 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa.
For Level B harassment ensonified areas for vibratory pile driving
and removal of the 18-in, 24-in, and 36-in steel piles, the distance is
based on measurements conducted during the year 1 Seattle multimodal
project at Colman. The result showed that pile driving noise of two 36-
in steel piles being concurrently driven was no longer detectable at a
range of 5.4 miles (8.69 km). Therefore, the distance of 8,690 m is
selected as the Level B harassment distance for vibratory pile driving
and removal of the 18-in, 24-in, and 36-in steel piles.
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 2018).
When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources (such as in-water
pile driving), NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at
which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration
of the activity, it would not incur PTS. When calculate Level A
harassment distances using NMFS' User Spreadsheet, input parameters
pile driving or removal duration (for vibratory hammer) or number of
strikes (for impact hammer) of each pile and the number of piles
installed or removed per day.
Distances of ensonified area for different pile driving/removal
activities for different marine mammal hearing groups is present in
Table 6.
Table 6--Distances to Harassment Zones and Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury zone (m)/Area (km\2\)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level B ZOI
Pile type, size & pile driving method High- (m)/Area
Low- frequency Mid- frequency frequency Phocid Otariid (km\2\)
cetacean cetacean cetacean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive/removal, 24'' steel piles, 8 piles/day, 96.7/0.029 8.6/0.000 143.0/0.064 58.8/0.011 4.1/0.000 8,690/74.291
20 min/pile............................................
Vibratory drive 24'' steel pile, 2 piles/day, 20 min/ 38.3/0.005 3.4/0.000 56.7/0.010 23.3/0.002 1.6/0.000 8,690/74.291
pile...................................................
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile, 8 piles/day, 20 min/ 153.3/0.074 13.6/0.001 226.6/0.161 93.2/0.027 6.5/0.000 8,960/74.291
pile...................................................
Impact drive (proof) 36'' steel pile, 8 piles/day, 200 343.2/0.370 12.2/0.000 408.7/0.524 183.6/0.106 13.4/0.000 736/1.701
strikes/pile...........................................
Vibratory remove 14'' timber pile, 20 piles/day, 15 min/ 8.0/0.000 0.7/0.000 11.8/0.000 4.8/0.000 0.3/0.000 2,175/14.854
pile...................................................
Vibratory remove 12'' steel pile, 11 piles/day, 20 min/ 6.5/0.000 0.6/0.000 9.6/0.000 3.9/0.000 0.3/0.000 2,175/14.854
pile...................................................
Vibratory remove 14'' steel H pile, 10 piles/day, 20 min/ 6.1/0.000 0.5/0.000 9.0/0.000 3.7/0.000 0.3/0.000 2,175/14.854
pile...................................................
Vibratory removal 18'' steel pile, 10 piles/day, 20 min/ 112.1/0.039 9.9/0.000 165.8/0.086 68.1/0.015 4.8/0.000 8,960/74.291
pile...................................................
Vibratory removal 36'' steel pile, 1 pile/day, 20 min/ 38.3/0.005 3.4/0.000 56.6/0.010 23.3/0.002 1.6/0.000 8,960/74.291
pile...................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimates
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations.
Marine mammal take calculation are based on marine mammal
monitoring during the 2017/2018 season Seattle Multimodal project at
Colman Dock when observation data are available, then adjusted to
account for possible missed observations. These species are harbor
seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion, and harbor porpoise.
For marine mammals that were not observed, density data from the
U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Report were used for take calculation.
For bottlenose dolphin and long-beaked common dolphin, no density
estimate is available. Therefore, take numbers for these two species
are based on prior anecdotal observations and strandings in the action
area.
A summary of marine mammal abundance and density is provided in
Table 7.
[[Page 25767]]
Table 7--Marine Mammal Abundance and/or Density Used for Take Calculation
[Numbers in parenthesis indicate adjustments made to account for possible missed observations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abundance based on
observation at WSDOT Navy Marine Species
Species Seattle Multimodal Density Report (animals/
project (animals/day) km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale................................................ ....................... 0.0007
Minke whale................................................... ....................... 0.00003
Gray whale.................................................... ....................... 0.00051
Killer whale (west coast transient)........................... ....................... 0.002
Harbor porpoise............................................... 3 .......................
Dall's porpoise............................................... ....................... 0.048
Harbor seal................................................... 8 (11) .......................
Northern elephant seal........................................ ....................... 0.00001
California sea lion........................................... 11 (14) .......................
Steller sea lion.............................................. 0.6 (1.2) .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For marine mammals with observation data during WSDOT's 2017/2018
Seattle Multimodal project, take numbers were calculated as:
Total Take = animal abundance x pile driving days
To determine the portion of total take that would result from Level
A harassment, the proportion of Level A and Level B harassment was used
to apportion the total takes. Furthermore, an additional 20 takes of
harbor seals by Level A harassment is added to account for the higher
numbers historically sighted during monitoring and the smaller shutdown
zones (see below).
For marine mammals that were not observed during the 2017/2018
season but with known densities in the general area (i.e., gray,
humpback, and minke whales and Dall's porpoise), take numbers were
calculated as:
Take = ensonified area (Level A or Level B) x animal density x pile
driving days
For long-beaked common dolphin and bottlenose dolphin, an average
of 7 animals per group is determined based on sighting data from
Cascadia Research (CRC 2012, 2017). Assuming that an average of one
group could be encountered per month in the project area, a total of 49
takes of each species is assessed for the duration of 7 months in-water
work window.
For calculated take number less than 15, such as northern elephant
seals, transient killer whales, humpback whales, gray whales, and minke
whales, Level B take numbers were adjusted to account for group size
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, take of 30 animals is estimated based on the group size
and the likelihood of encountering in the area. For gray, humpback, and
minke whale, 30, 30, and 10 animals each area estimated, respectively.
WSDOT will implement strict monitoring and mitigation measures and
to suspend pile driving activities when SRKWs are detected in the
vicinity of the action to avoid takes of this population.
A summary of marine mammal take numbers is provided in Table 8.
Table 8--Estimated Take Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Estimated Percent
Species Level A take Level B take total take population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale...................................... 0 30 30 0.11
Humpback whale.................................. 0 30 30 1.03
Minke whale..................................... 0 10 10 1.57
Killer whale, transient......................... 0 30 30 12.35
Harbor porpoise................................. 103 335 438 3.90
Dall's porpoise................................. 71 200 271 1.05
Long-beaked common dolphin...................... 0 49 49 0.05
Bottlenose dolphin.............................. 0 49 49 2.55
California sea lion............................. 0 2044 2044 0.79
Steller sea lion................................ 0 175 175 0.42
Pacific harbor seal............................. 114 1492 1606 14.55
Northern elephant seal.......................... 0 15 15 0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, 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
[[Page 25768]]
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.
Specific mitigation measures are proposed as follows.
1. Time Restriction.
Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring
of marine mammals can be conducted.
2. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones,
and Shutdown Zones.
WSDOT shall establish shutdown zones that encompass the distances
within which marine mammals could be taken by Level A harassment (see
Table 7 above) except for harbor seal. For Level A harassment zones
that is less than 10 m from the source, a minimum of 10 m distance
should be established as a shutdown zone. For harbor seal, a maximum of
60 m shutdown zone would be implemented if the actual Level A
harassment zone exceeds 60 m. This is because there are a few
habituated harbor seals that repeated occur within the larger Level A
zone, which makes implementing a shutdown zone larger than 60 m
infeasible.
A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 9.
Table 9--Shutdown Zones for Various Pile Driving Activities and Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zone (m)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile type, size & pile driving High-
method Low- frequency Mid- frequency frequency Phocid Otariid
cetacean cetacean cetacean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive/removal, 24'' 100 10 150 60 10
steel piles, 8 piles/day.......
Vibratory drive 24'' steel pile, 40 10 60 25 10
2 piles/day; or vibratory
removal 36'' steel pile, 1 pile/
day............................
Vibratory drive 36'' steel pile, 160 15 230 60 10
8 piles/day....................
Impact drive (proof) 36'' steel 350 15 410 60 15
pile, 8 piles/day..............
Vibratory remove 14'' timber 10 10 15 10 10
pile, 20 piles/day; or
vibratory removal 12'' steel
pile, 11 piles/day; or
vibratory removal 14'' steel
pile, 10 piles/day.............
Vibratory removal 18'' steel 120 10 170 60 10
pile, 10 piles/day, 20 min/pile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSDOT shall also establish a Zone of Influence (ZOI) based on the
Level B harassment zones for take monitoring where received underwater
SPLs are higher than 160 dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa for impulsive
noise sources (impact pile driving) and 120 dBrms re 1
[micro]Pa for non-impulsive noise sources (vibratory pile driving and
pile removal).
NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSO) shall conduct an
initial 30-minute survey of the exclusion zones to ensure that no
marine mammals are seen within the zones before pile driving and pile
removal of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within
the exclusion zone, pile driving of the segment would be delayed until
they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and
then dives below, the contractor would wait 15 minutes. If no marine
mammals are seen by the observer in that time it can be assumed that
the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a
marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to
commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the pile
driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and
continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until
the marine mammal has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have
elapsed since the last sighting.
3. Soft-start.
A ``soft-start'' technique is intended to allow marine mammals to
vacate the area before the impact pile driver reaches full power.
Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact
pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up
procedures described below.
Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an
initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent
three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at
the beginning of impact pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for
more than 30 minutes.
4. Shutdown Measures.
WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is
detected within an exclusion zone or is about to enter an exclusion
zone listed in Tables 8.
WSDOT shall also implement shutdown measures if SRKWs are sighted
within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B
harassment zone during in-water construction activities.
If a killer whale approaches the Level B harassment zone during
pile driving or removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a
transient killer whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT
shall implement the shutdown measure.
If a SRKW or an unidentified killer whale enters the Level B
harassment zone undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall
be suspended until the whale exits the Level B harassment zone to avoid
further level B harassment.
Further, WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of
authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the
IHA and if such marine mammals are sighted
[[Page 25769]]
within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B
harassment zone during in-water construction activities.
5. Coordination with Local Marine Mammal Research Network.
Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the Orca Network
and/or Center for Whale Research will be contacted by WSDOT to find out
the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings
Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents,
scientists, and government agency personnel in the United States and
Canada. Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and
immediately distributed to other sighting networks including: The NMFS
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the Center for Whale Research,
Cascadia Research, the Whale Museum Hotline and the British Columbia
Sightings Network.
Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes
detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a
system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine
environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca
communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology and local climatic
conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center
measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects
unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to
hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic
network, combined with the volunteer (incidental) visual sighting
network allows researchers to document presence and location of various
marine mammal species.
With this level of coordination in the region of activity, WSDOT
will be able to get real-time information on the presence or absence of
whales before starting any pile driving.
Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the prescribed mitigation measures
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal
monitoring for its dolphin relocation project at Bremerton and Edmonds
ferry terminals. The purposes of marine mammal monitoring are to
implement mitigation measures and learn more about impacts to marine
mammals from WSDOT's construction activities. The PSOs will observe and
collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30
minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and
pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required;
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer;
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree
in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an
observer; and
5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be
conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power).
Due to the different sizes of ZOI from different pile types, three
different ZOIs and different monitoring protocols corresponding to a
specific pile type will be established.
For Level B harassment zones with radii less than 1,000 m,
3 PSOs will be monitoring from land.
For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 1,000
m but smaller than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land.
For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 2,500
m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land with an additional 1 PSO
monitoring from a ferry.
6. PSOs shall collect the following information during marine
mammal monitoring:
Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for
each day conducted (monitoring period);
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile
types, average driving times, etc.;
Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea
state, tide state);
For each marine mammal sighting:
[cir] Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
[cir] Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
[cir] Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
and
[cir] Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the
Level B zone;
Description of implementation of mitigation measures
within each
[[Page 25770]]
monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay); and
Other human activity in the area within each monitoring
period.
To verify the required monitoring distance, the exclusion zones and
Level B harassment zones will be determined by using a range finder or
hand-held global positioning system device.
WSDOT will conduct noise field measurement to determine the actual
Level B harassment distance from the source during vibratory pile
driving. If the actual Level B harassment distance is less than
modelled, the number of PSOs will be adjusted based on the criteria
listed above.
Reporting Measures
WSDOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90
days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the
IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. In the case if WSDOT intends
to renew the IHA (if issued) in a subsequent year, a monitoring report
should be submitted 60 days before the expiration of the current IHA
(if issued). This report would detail the monitoring protocol,
summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number
of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would have an
opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if NMFS has
comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a final report to
NMFS within 30 days.
In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS' Office of
Protected Resources and NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within
48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the
construction site. WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the Stranding Network
with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the
animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and
photo or video (if available).
In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that
is not in the construction area, WSDOT would report the same
information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses
applies to all the species listed in Table 8, given that the
anticipated effects of WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal at Colman Dock
project involving pile driving and pile removal on marine mammals are
expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information
about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or
structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different
analysis by species for this activity, or else species-specific factors
would be identified and analyzed.
Although some marine mammals could experience, and are authorized
for Level A harassment in the form of PTS if they stay within the Level
A harassment zone during the entire pile driving for the day (114
harbor seals, 103 harbor porpoises, and 71 Dall's porpoise), the degree
of injury is expected to be mild and is not likely to affect the
reproduction or survival of the individual animals. It is expected
that, if hearing impairments occurs, most likely the affected animal
would lose a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is
not likely to affect its survival and recruitment. Hearing impairment
that occur for these individual animals would be limited to the
dominant frequency of the noise sources, i.e., in the low-frequency
region below 2 kHz. Therefore, the degree of PTS is not likely to
affect the echolocation performance of the two porpoise species, which
use frequencies mostly above 100 kHz. Nevertheless, for all marine
mammal species, it is known that in general animals avoid areas where
sound levels could cause hearing impairment. Nonetheless, we evaluate
the estimated take in this negligible impact analysis.
For these species except harbor seal, harbor porpoise and Dall's
porpoise, takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be
limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral and TTS). Marine
mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B
harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle
reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during
pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise. A few marine
mammals could experience TTS if they occur within the Level B TTS ZOI.
However, as discussed earlier in this document, TTS is a temporary loss
of hearing sensitivity when exposed to loud sound, and the hearing
threshold is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours.
Portions of the SRKW range is within the proposed action area. In
addition, the entire Puget Sound is designated as the SRKW critical
habitat under the ESA. However, WSDOT would be required to implement
strict mitigation measures to suspend pile driving or pile removal
activities when this stock is detected in the vicinity of the project
area. We anticipate that take of SRKW would be avoided. There are no
other known important areas for other marine mammals, such as feeding
or pupping, areas.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in
the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' subsection. There
is no ESA designated critical habitat in the vicinity of the Seattle
Multimodal Project at Colman Dock area. The project activities would
not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities
may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily,
thus impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited
portion of the foraging range. However, because of the short duration
of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may
be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given
the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species
and their
[[Page 25771]]
physical environment, WSDOT's proposed construction activity at Colman
Dock would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary 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:
Injury--only a relatively small number of marine mammals
(of three stocks) would experience Level A harassment in the form of
mild PTS, which is expected to be of small degree;
Behavioral disturbance--eleven species/stocks of marine
mammals would experience behavioral disturbance and TTS from the
WSDOT's Seattle Colman Dock project. However, as discussed earlier, the
area to be affected is small and the duration of the project is short.
In addition, the nature of the take would involve mild behavioral
modification; and
Although portion of the SWKR critical habitat is within
the project area, strict mitigation measures such as implementing
shutdown measures and suspending pile drivingare expected to avoid take
of SRKW, and impacts to prey species and the habitat itself are
expected to be minimal. No other important habitat for marine mammals
exist in the vicinity of the project area.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or
spatial scale of the activities.
The estimated takes are below 15 percent of the population for all
marine mammals (Table 8).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
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 Office, whenever we propose to authorize
take for endangered or threatened species.
The California-Oregon-Washington stock of humpback whale and the
Southern Resident stock of killer whale are the only marine mammal
species listed under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity of
WSDOT's proposed construction projects. NMFS worked with WSDOT to
implement shutdown measures in the IHA that will avoid takes of
Southern Resident killer whale. NMFS is proposing to authorize take of
California/Oregon/Washington stock of humpback whale.
The effects of this proposed Federal action were adequately
analyzed in NMFS' Reinitiation of Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section
7(a)(2) Consultation (Humpback Whales) for the Seattle Multimodal
Terminal at Colman Dock Project, King County, Washington in October
2018, which concluded that the take NMFS proposes to authorize through
this IHA would not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify any designated
critical habitat.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to the Washington State Department of Transportation for
conducting Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle,
Washington, from August 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed
issuance of an IHA to the Washington State Department of Transportation
to take marine mammals incidental to its Seattle Multimodal Project at
Colman Dock. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of
this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include
with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help
inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second 1-year IHA without
additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly
identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section
is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section,
provided all of the following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to expiration of the current IHA;
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size)
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates,
or mitigation and monitoring requirements; and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized; and
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate,
and the original findings remain valid.
[[Page 25772]]
Dated: May 29, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-11574 Filed 6-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P