[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 18, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26015-26035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11189]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XE273]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Kingston Ferry Trestle Seismic
Retrofit Project in Kingston, WA
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to the Kingston Ferry Terminal Trestle Seismic Retrofit
Project in Kingston, WA. 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 one-time, 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 authorization and agency
responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 18,
2025.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service and should be submitted via email to [email protected].
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/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In
case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact
listed below.
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, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. 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: Austin Demarest, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) 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 the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below
and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and NMFS
regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
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 IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. This action
is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical
Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of
the Companion Manual for NAO 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
[[Page 26016]]
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 May 30, 2024, NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated
with the Kingston Ferry Terminal Trestle Seismic Retrofit Project in
Kingston, WA, e.g., conducting pile driving in the Puget Sound.
Following NMFS' review of the original application and multiple revised
versions, WSDOT submitted a revised version on July 22, 2024. The
application was deemed adequate and complete on August 20, 2024.
WSDOT's request is for take of 12 species of marine mammals, by Level B
harassment and, for 4 of these species, harbor porpoise, California sea
lion, Steller sea lion, and harbor seal, Level A harassment. Neither
WSDOT nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The WSDOT Ferries Division (WSF) operates and maintains 19 ferry
terminals and 1 maintenance facility, all of which are located in
either Puget Sound or the San Juan Islands. To improve, maintain, and
preserve the terminals, WSF conducts construction, repair, and
maintenance activities as part of its regular operations. One of these
projects is the Kingston Ferry Terminal Seismic Retrofit Project and is
the subject of this IHA request. The Kingston Ferry Terminal is in the
central area of Puget Sound located on the southeast end of Whidbey
Island, in Island County, Washington. This project's in-water work
window is scheduled between August and February.
This construction project will use both impact and vibratory pile
driving and removal. The purpose of this project is to construct a
seismic retrofit of a portion of the Slip 2 Trestle approach to reduce
the risk of failure due to a moderate to large earthquake; address
scour issues at the Slip 1 bridge seat and walkway between Slips 1 and
2; and replace a seismically vulnerable bulkhead wall with a new wall.
The impact from these actions is expected to result in behavioral
harassment of 12 species of marine mammals.
Dates and Duration
Due to in-water work timing restrictions established by NMFS and US
Fish and Wildlife Services to protect an ESA (Endangered Species Act)-
listed salmonids, construction in the project area is limited each year
from July 16 through February 15. In-water construction at the Kingston
Ferry Terminal is planned during the August 1 to February 15 in-water
work window. Construction is planned to begin July 15, 2025. The time
it will take to complete pile driving depends on the difficulty in
penetrating the substrate during pile installation. It is assumed that
only one vibratory or impact hammer will be in operation at a time.
Durations are conservative, and the actual amount of time to install
and remove piles will likely be less. The maximum estimated days of
pile driving is 85. The IHA would be valid for the statutory maximum of
one year from the date of effectiveness. The IHA would become effective
upon written notification from WSDOT to NMFS, but not beginning later
than one year from the date of issuance or extending beyond two years
from the date of issuance.
Specific Geographic Region
Construction will take place at the Kingston Ferry Terminal in
Kingston, WA. This terminal is located northwest of Seattle and
directly across from the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. The Puget Sound
borders the terminal and can have heavy boat traffic. Land use near
both ferry terminals is a mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
and open space and/or undeveloped lands.
Detailed Description of the Specified Activity
The proposed project will include vibratory hammer driving and
removal, and impact hammer installation to make the seismic updates to
the Kingston Ferry Terminal. Impact pile driving will use a standard
500 strikes per pile. There will be a total 342 piles related to pile
driving activity, but only 72 piles permanently installed. The
following construction activities are anticipated for the project.
(23) 18-inch concrete piles will be removed from the Slip 2
trestle
(26) 24-inch steel pipe piles will be added to the Slip 2
trestle
(16) 24-inch steel pipe piles will be added to the Slip 1
trestle to address scour issues
(2) 30-inch steel pipe piles will be added to the Slip 1
bridge seat to address scour issues
(14) 30-inch steel pipe piles
(13) sheet piles will be used to construct the new bulkhead
Up to (63) 24-inch diameter steel pipe piles may be required
to construct a temporary work trestle
A summary of the piles to be removed and installed, along with pile
driving information, can be found in table 1.
Table 1--Summary of Pile Removal and Installation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration
Project element Diameter Install or Pile type Method Number of per pile Duration Rate per Duration
remove piles (minutes) (hours) day (days)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slip 2 Trestle Approach........ 18-in........... Remove...... Concrete....... Vibratory...... 23 30 12 8 3
Slip 2 Trestle Approach........ 24-in........... Install..... Steel.......... Vibratory...... 26 60 26 4 7
Impact......... 26 30 13 4 7
Slip 1 Trestle................. 24-in........... Install..... Steel.......... Vibratory...... 16 60 16 4 4
Impact......... 16 30 8 4 4
Temporary Work Trestle......... 24-in........... Install..... Steel.......... Vibratory...... 63 60 63 4 16
Remove...... ............... ............... 63 60 63 4 16
Temporary Work Trestle......... 24-in........... Install..... Steel.......... Impact......... 63 15 16 4 16
Slip 1 Bridge Seat/Bulkhead.... 30-in........... Install..... Steel.......... Vibratory...... 16 60 16 4 4
Impact......... 16 30 8 4 4
New Bulkhead Wall.............. Sheet Pile...... Install..... Steel.......... Vibratory...... 14 60 14 4 4
------------------------------------------------------
Totals..................... ................ ............ ............... ............... * 72 ......... 255 ......... 85
------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26017]]
Total Piling Activity ................ ............ ............... ............... 342 ......... ......... ......... .........
(including, vibratory,
impact, permanent, and
temporary) installation
and removal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Permanent installed.
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. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends and threats may be found in
NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://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' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known.
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' SARs). While no serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here,
PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources
are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or
stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs. All values presented in table 2 are
the most recent available at the time of publication (including from
the draft 2024 SARs) and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.
Table 2--Species \1\ With Estimated Take From the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\2\ abundance survey) \3\ SI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Artiodactyla--Cetacea--Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern N Pacific...... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 131
2016).
Minke Whale..................... Balaenoptera CA/OR/WA............... -, -, N 915 (0.792, 509, 2018) 4.1 >=0.19
acutorostrata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer Whale.................... Orcinus orca........... West Coast Transient... -, -, N 349 (N/A, 349, 2018).. 3.5 0.4
Bottlenose Dolphin.............. Tursiops truncatus..... CA/OR/WA offshore...... -, -, N 3,477 (0.696, 2,048, 19.70 >=0.82
2018).
Long Beaked Common Dolphin...... Delphinus capensis..... CA..................... -, -, N 83,379 (0.216, 69,636, 668 >=29.7
2018).
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin..... Lagenorhynchus CA/OR/WA............... -, -, N 34,999 (0.222, 29,090, 279 7
obliquidens. 2018).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dall's Porpoise................. Phocoenoides dalli..... CA/OR/WA............... -, -, N 16,498 (0.61, 10,286, 99 >=0.66
2018).
Harbor Porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Washington Inland -, -, N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 66 >=7.2
Waters. 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Sea Lion..................... Zalophus californianus. U.S.................... -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 14,011 >321
2014).
[[Page 26018]]
Steller Sea Lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern................ -, -, N 36,308 (N/A, 36,308, 2,178 93.2
2022).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Washington Inland -, -, N 2,529 (0.08, 2,202, 135 13.8
Southern Puget Sound. 2024) \5\.
Northern Elephant Seal.......... Mirounga angustirostris CA Breeding............ -, -, N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 5,122 13.7
2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy's Committee on Taxonomy
(https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/).
\2\ 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.
\3\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\4\ 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 (mortality/serious injury) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a
minimum value or range.
\5\ Stock Abundance and Nmin value are found in Pearson et al., 2024.
As indicated above, all twelve species (with twelve managed stocks)
in table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could
potentially occur in the proposed project area are included in table 3-
1 of the IHA application. While humpback whales and Southern Resident
killer whales have been documented in the area, the implemented
mitigation and monitoring and the temporal and spatial occurrence of
these species is such that take is not expected to occur. The
implemented shutdown zones for Southern Resident killer whales and
humpback whales are the same as their Level B zones, so that no take
will occur for these species with proper marine mammal monitoring
during activity. In addition, Whale Report Alert System, the Orca
Network, and NMFS will alert WSDOT as well as any other boats,
construction, etc. in the area of any killer whales, Southern Resident
or Transients that are spotted in the area. If killer whales are known
to be in the area, all activity will shut down in order to prevent
take.
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; Bigg 1969,
1981). They are not known to make extensive pelagic migrations,
although some long-distance movements of tagged animals in Alaska (174
kilometers) and along the U.S. west coast (up to 550 kilometers) have
been recorded (Pitcher and McAllister 1981; Brown and Mate 1983; Herder
1983).
They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice
and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor
seals generally are non-migratory, with local movements associated with
such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and
reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981).
Within U.S. West Coast waters, five stocks of harbor seals are
recognized: (1) Southern Puget Sound (south of the Tacoma Narrows
Bridge); (2) Washington Northern Inland Waters (including Puget Sound
north of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the San Juan Islands, and the
Strait of Juan de Fuca); (3) Hood Canal; (4) Oregon/Washington Coast;
and (5) California. Harbor seals in the project areas would be from the
Washington Northern Inland Waters stock.
Harbor seals are the only pinniped species that occurs year-round
and breeds in Washington waters (Jeffries et al., 2000). Pupping
seasons vary by geographic region, with pups born in coastal estuaries
(Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor) from mid-April through
June; Olympic Peninsula coast from May through July; San Juan Islands
and eastern bays of Puget Sound from June through August; southern
Puget Sound from mid-July through September; and Hood Canal from August
through January (Jeffries et al., 2000). The most recent estimate for
the Washington Northern Inland Waters Stock is 16,451 based on surveys
conducted in 2019 (Carretta et al., 2023).
There are two documented haulout sites in the project area (WDFW
2000), one California sea lion haulout approximately 5 km SE, and one
California sea lion/harbor seal haulout approximately 8 km NE of the
project site (figure 3-1). Seals and sea lions also make use of
undocumented docks, buoys, and beaches in the area. In recent nearby
Puget Sound projects, Edmonds Ferry Terminal Project and Mukilteo
Multimodal Project, there were 3,557 sightings over 175 in-water
construction days with a maximum of 98 sightings in one day.
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California (U.S.)
and Baja California (Mexico), primarily on offshore islands (Stewart et
al., 1994), from December to March (NMFS 2015). Males migrate to the
Gulf of Alaska and western Aleutian Islands along the continental shelf
to feed on benthic prey, while females migrate to pelagic areas in the
Gulf of Alaska and the central North Pacific Ocean to feed on pelagic
prey (Le Boeuf et al., 2000). 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 (Carretta et al., 2015).
There were two sightings of elephant seals in the nearby Edmonds
Ferry Terminal and Mukilteo Multimodal Projects over the 175 day
construction period. Elephant seals are generally considered rare in
Puget Sound. However, a female elephant seal has been reported hauled
out in Mutiny Bay on Whidbey Island periodically since 2010. She was
observed alone for her first three visits to the area, but in
[[Page 26019]]
March 2015, she was seen with a pup. Since then, she has produced two
more pups, born in 2018 and 2020. Northern elephant seals generally
give birth in January but this individual has repeatedly given birth in
March. She typically returns to Mutiny Bay in April and May to molt.
Her pups have also repeatedly returned to haulout on nearby beaches
(Orca Network 2020).
California Sea Lion
The California sea lion is the most frequently sighted pinniped
found in Washington waters and uses haulout sites along the outer
coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in Puget Sound. Haulout sites are
located on jetties, offshore rocks and islands, log booms, marina
docks, and navigation buoys. This species also may be frequently seen
resting in the water, rafted together in groups in Puget Sound. Only
male California sea lions migrate into Pacific Northwest waters, with
females remaining in waters near their breeding rookeries off the coast
of California and Mexico. The California sea lion was considered rare
in Washington waters prior to the 1950s. More recently, peak numbers of
3,000 to 5,000 animals move into the Salish Sea during the fall and
remain until late spring, when most return to breeding rookeries in
California and Mexico (Jeffries et al., 2000).
There are two documented haulout sites in the project area (WDFW
2000), one California sea lion haulout approximately 5 km SE, and one
California sea lion/harbor seal haulout approximately 8 km NE of the
project site. Seals and sea lions also make use of undocumented docks,
buoys, and beaches in the area. In the Edmonds Terminal and Mukilteo
Multimodal Project there were 2,055 sightings over the 175 construction
period with a maximum of 114 sightings in one day.
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific Rim from northern
Japan to California (Loughlin et al., 1984). There are two separate
stocks of Steller sea lions, the Eastern U.S. stock, which occurs east
of Cape Suckling, Alaska (144[deg] W), and the Western U.S. stock,
which occurs west of that point. Only the Western stock of Steller sea
lions, which is designated as the Western DPS (distinct population
segment) of Steller sea lions, is listed as endangered under the ESA
(78 FR 66139, November 4, 2013). Unlike the Western U.S. stock of
Steller sea lions, there has been a sustained and robust increase in
abundance of the Eastern U.S. stock throughout its breeding range. The
eastern stock of Steller sea lions has historically bred on rookeries
located in Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, and California.
However, within the last several years a new rookery has become
established on the outer Washington coast (at the Carroll Island and
Sea Lion Rock complex), with more than 100 pups born there in 2015
(Muto et al., 2020).
There are no documented Steller sea lion haulouts in the project
area, but there were 48 sightings reported in the Edmonds and Mukilteo
Projects with a maximum of 6 in one day.
Killer Whale (Transient)
There are three distinct ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales
recognized in the north Pacific: resident, transient, and offshore. The
three ecotypes differ morphologically, ecologically, behaviorally, and
genetically. Resident killer whales exclusively prey upon fish, with a
clear preference for salmon (Ford and Ellis 2006; Hanson et al., 2021;
Ford et al., 2016), while transient killer whales exclusively prey upon
marine mammals (Caretta et al., 2019). Less is known about offshore
killer whales, but they are believed to consume primarily fish,
including several species of shark (Dahlheim et al., 2008). Currently,
there are eight killer whale stocks recognized in the U.S. Pacific
(Carretta et al., 2021; Muto et al., 2021). Of those, individuals from
the West Coast Transient stock may occur in the project areas and be
taken incidental to WSDOT's proposed activities.
Within Puget Sound, transient killer whales primarily hunt
pinnipeds and porpoises, though some groups will occasionally target
larger whales. The West Coast Transient stock of killer whales occurs
from California through southeast Alaska (Muto et al., 2021). The
seasonal movements of transients are largely unpredictable, although
there is a tendency to investigate harbor seal haulouts off Vancouver
Island more frequently during the pupping season in August and
September (Baird 1995; Ford 2013). Transient killer whales have been
observed in central Puget Sound in all months (Orca Network 2021).
During WSDOTs Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects there were 44 sightings of
Transients reported with a maximum of 15 in one day.
Gray Whale
Generally, the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales feed in
the Arctic in summer and fall months and then breed during winter and
spring months off the coast of Mexico (Carretta et al. 2022,
Calambokidis et al. 2024). During migration from Mexico to the Arctic,
a subpopulation of the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales,
commonly referred to as the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG), stop
and feed along the coasts of Oregon and Washington including the
northern Puget Sound (Calambokidis et al. 2024). A subgroup of the PCFG
that feed in the Puget Sound, recently termed as ``Sounders'' gray
whales, are the most abundant from February through May. The highest
concentrations of Sounders gray whales occur on the Southern ends of
Whidbey and Camano Islands in the North Puget Sound (Calambokidis et
al. 2024). Although Sounders gray whale observations are the highest in
the Northern Puget Sound, observations also occur in the Southern Puget
Sound and Elliott Bay, which is in the proposed action area (Orca
Network, 2021).
There are Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for migrating gray
whales in the inland waters of the Northern Puget Sound from January
through July and October through December and for feeding gray whales
between February and June (Calambokidis et al., 2015; Calambokidis et
al., 2024). There were two gray whale sightings in the Edmonds and
Mukilteo Projects with a maxim of one per day.
The NMFS declared an unusual mortality event (UME) for gray whales
on May 30, 2019 after elevated numbers of strandings occurred along the
Pacific coast of North America, The UME started December 17, 2018 and
was closed on November 9, 2023, with peak strandings occurring from
December 17, 2018 through December 31, 2020. The UME included 690 gray
whale standings, 347 in the United States, 316 in Mexico, and 27 in
Canada. Necropsies were performed on a subset of the dead whales and
malnutrition was common followed by evidence of killer whale predation,
entanglement, vessel strikes, and biotoxins were found in some
carcasses as in years without UMEs. NMFS concluded that the nutritional
conditions of live gray whales was lower prior to and during the UME.
Gray whale abundance declined and calf production declined following
the UME but calf production has begun to rebound. Additional
information about this UME can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2023-eastern-north-pacific-gray-whale-ume-closed.
Harbor Porpoise
In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, harbor porpoises are found in
coastal and inland waters from Point Barrow,
[[Page 26020]]
along the Alaskan coast, and down the west coast of North America to
Point Conception, California (Gaskin 1984). Harbor porpoises are known
to occur year-round in the inland trans-boundary waters of Washington
and British Columbia, Canada (Osborne et al., 1988), and along the
Oregon/Washington coast (Barlow 1988, Green et al., 1992). There was a
significant decline in harbor porpoise sightings within southern Puget
Sound between the 1940s and 1990s but sightings have increased
seasonally in the last 10 years (Carretta et al., 2019). Annual winter
aerial surveys conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife from 1995 to 2015 revealed an increasing trend in harbor
porpoise in Washington inland waters, including the return of harbor
porpoise to Puget Sound. The data suggest that harbor porpoise were
already present in Juan de Fuca, Georgia Straits, and the San Juan
Islands from the mid-1990s to mid-2000s, and then expanded into Puget
Sound and Hood Canal from the mid-2000s to 2015, areas they had used
historically but abandoned. Changes in fishery-related entanglement was
suspected as the cause of their previous decline and more recent
recovery, including a return to Puget Sound (Evenson et al., 2016).
Seasonal surveys conducted in spring, summer, and fall 2013-2015 in
Puget Sound and Hood Canal documented substantial numbers of harbor
porpoise in Puget Sound. Observed porpoise numbers were twice as high
in spring as in fall or summer, indicating a seasonal shift in
distribution of harbor porpoise (Smultea 2015). There were 210
sightings of harbor porpoise in the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects with
a maximum of 18 sightings in one day.
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoises are endemic to temperate waters of the North
Pacific Ocean. Off the U.S. West Coast, they are commonly seen in
shelf, slope, and offshore waters (Morejohn 1979). Sighting patterns
from aerial and shipboard surveys conducted in California, Oregon, and
Washington (Green et al., 1992, 1993; Forney and Barlow 1998; Barlow
2016) suggest that north-south movement between these states occurs as
oceanographic conditions change, both on seasonal and inter-annual time
scales. Dall's porpoise are considered rare in Puget Sound. During
construction for the Washington State Ferries Multimodal Project at
Colman Dock in Seattle, only eight Dall's porpoises were observed, with
a maximum of five individuals observed on a single day during the 377
construction days from 2017 through 2021 (WSDOT 2022). During the
Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects there were three total sightings of
Dall's porpoise with a maximum of two in one day.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
The Pacific white-sided dolphin is found in cool temperate waters
of the North Pacific from the southern Gulf of California to Alaska.
Across the North Pacific, it appears to have a relatively narrow
distribution between 38[deg] N and 47[deg] N (Brownell et al., 1999).
In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, the Pacific white-sided dolphin is
one of the most common cetacean species, occurring primarily in shelf
and slope waters (Green et al., 1993; Barlow 2003, 2010). It is known
to occur close to shore in certain regions, including (seasonally)
southern California (Brownell et al., 1999). Results of aerial and
shipboard surveys strongly suggest seasonal north-south movements of
the species between California and Oregon/Washington; the movements
apparently are related to oceanographic influences, particularly water
temperature (Green et al., 1993; Forney and Barlow 1998; Buchanan et
al., 2001). During winter, this species is most abundant in California
slope and offshore areas; as northern waters begin to warm in the
spring, it appears to move north to slope and offshore waters off
Oregon/Washington (Green et al., 1992, 1993; Forney 1994; Forney et
al., 1995; Buchanan et al., 2001; Barlow 2003).
The highest encounter rates off Oregon and Washington have been
reported during March-May in slope and offshore waters (Green et al.,
1993). Large groups of Pacific white-sided dolphins have been observed
in San Juan Channel (Orca Network 2012), north of Puget Sound, and may
rarely occur in the central Puget Sound. During construction of the
Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects, there were no Pacific White-Sided
dolphin sightings.
Long-Beaked Common Dolphin
Long-beaked common dolphins are commonly found along the U.S. West
Coast, from Baja California, Mexico (including the Gulf of California),
northward to about central California (Carretta et al., 2021). The
Salish Sea is not considered part of their typical range (Carretta et
al., 2021), but there have been reports of long-beaked common dolphins
in inland waters. Two individual common dolphins were observed in
August and September of 2011 (Whale Museum, 2015). The first record of
a pod of long-beaked common dolphins in this area came in the summer of
2016. Beginning on June 16, 2016 long-beaked common dolphins were
observed near Victoria, B.C. Over the following weeks, a pod of 15 to
20 (including a calf) was observed in central and southern Puget Sound.
They were positively identified as long-beaked common dolphins (Orca
Network 2016). There were no long-beaked common dolphins sighted at the
Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects.
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. 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, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Subsequently, NMFS (2024) updated
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the ~65 decibel (dB)
threshold from composite audiograms, previous analyses in NMFS (2018),
and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et al. (2019).
Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are
provided in table 3. For more information see the Estimated Take of
Marine Mammals section.
[[Page 26021]]
Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2024]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 36 kHz.
whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (dolphins, 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose
whales).
Very High-frequency (VHF) cetaceans (true 200 Hz to 165 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger
& L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true 40 Hz to 90 kHz.
seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea 60 Hz to 68 kHz.
lions and fur 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 may not be as broad. Generalized hearing range
chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from composite audiogram, previous
analysis in NMFS 2018, and/or data from Southall et al. 2007; Southall
et al. 2019. Additionally, animals are able to detect very loud sounds
above and below that ``generalized'' hearing range.
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components
of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat.
The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 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 of Marine Mammals 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 whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activities
can occur from impact pile driving and vibratory driving and removal.
The effects of underwater noise from WSDOT's proposed activities are
expected to result in Level A and Level B harassment of marine mammals
in the action areas.
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many
sources both near and far (ANSI 1995). The sound level of an area is
defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activities may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile
removal. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two
general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds
(e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are
typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist
of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI,
1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2014). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g.,
aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or
tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically
do not have the high peak sound pressure with rapid rise/decay time
that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2024). The
distinction between these two sound types is important because they
have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Southall et al., 2007).
Two types of pile hammers would be used on this project: impact and
vibratory. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston
onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by
impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak
levels. Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing
the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory
hammers produce non-impulsive continuous sounds and produce
significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak sound pressure
levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB
lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized
pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the
probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed
over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson, et
al., 2005).
Potential or likely impacts on marine mammals from WSDOT's proposed
construction include both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Non-
acoustic stressors include the physical presence of equipment, vessels,
and personnel. However, impacts from WSDOT's proposed construction is
expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Expected stressors from
WSDOT's proposed activities are expected to be a result of heavy
equipment operation for impact driving and vibratory driving and
removal.
Potential Effects of Underwater Sound on Marine Mammals
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic
environment from
[[Page 26022]]
pile driving equipment is the primary means by which marine mammals may
be harassed from WSDOT's specified activities. In general, animals
exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and
psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe
(Southall et al., 2007). Generally, exposure to pile driving and
removal and other construction noise has the potential to result in
auditory threshold shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance,
temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive
behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-
observable physiological responses such as an increase in stress
hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask
acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such
as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile
driving and demolition noise on marine mammals are dependent on several
factors, including, but not limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive vs.
non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class (e.g., adult male vs.
mother with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile
and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and
previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al.,
2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts)
followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat. No
physiological effects other than auditory injury are anticipated or
proposed to be authorized, and therefore are not discussed further.
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change,
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent
or temporary. As described in NMFS (2024), there are numerous factors
to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-
impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough
duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the
TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and
spectral).
Auditory Injury (AUD INJ)--AUD INJ is damage to the inner ear that
can result in destruction of tissue, such as the loss of cochlear
neuron synapses or auditory neuropathy (Houser 2021; Finneran 2024).
Auditory injury may or may not result in a permanent threshold shift
(PTS).
Permanent threshold shift--PTS is a permanent, irreversible
increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established
reference level (ANSI 1995; Yost 2007). Available data from humans and
other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift
approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al. 1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter
et al. 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; Henderson et al. 2008).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--TTS is a temporary, reversible
increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established
reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS
measurements (see Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered
the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or
session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability
(Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As described in
Finneran (2016), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS
increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in
an accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum,
the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow
slopes. At exposures with higher SELcum, the growth curves
become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.
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 takes place during a time when the animal
is traveling through the open ocean, 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. We note that 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 we can infer that
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis))
and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound
sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory
settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted
(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to impulsive
noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth
et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a
lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species
(Finneran, 2015). The potential for TTS from impact pile driving
exists. After exposure to playbacks of impact pile driving sounds (rate
2,760 strikes/hour) in captivity, mean TTS increased from 0 dB after 15
minute exposure to 5 dB after 360 minute exposure; recovery occurred
within 60 minutes (Kastelein et al., 2016). Additionally, the existing
marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within
these species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for
mysticetes. Nonetheless, what we considered is the best available
science. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further
discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007),
Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and table 4 in NMFS
(2024).
WSDOT proposes to use impact pile driving to install piles for this
project. There would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound
(e.g., impact pile driving) during each day. Given these pauses and the
fact that many marine mammals are likely moving through the project
areas and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for
TS declines.
Behavioral Harassment--Exposure to noise from pile driving and
removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals.
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound;
therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound
in a particular instance might affect marine mammals
[[Page 26023]]
perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an
underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance,
the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the
individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound
source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding
area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007;
NRC, 2005).
Disturbance may result in 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); or avoidance of areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haulout time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound
are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on
numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory
sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al.,
2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can
vary not only among individuals but also within an individual,
depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and
numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending
on characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source).
In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans,
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial
sound than most cetaceans. Please see appendices B and C of Southall et
al. (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.,
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al.,
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. The
Puget Sound area contains active commercial shipping, ferry operations,
and commercial fishing as well as numerous recreational and other
commercial vessels, and background sound levels in the area are already
elevated.
Airborne Acoustic Effects--Pinnipeds that occur near the project
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving
and removal that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment,
depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are
not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in
harassment as defined under the MMPA. Airborne noise would primarily be
an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project
site within the range of noise levels elevated above the acoustic
criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to
airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking
with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause
behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to
underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled
out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as
reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the
area and move further from the source. There are two documented haulout
sites in the project ZOI (WDFW 2000), one California sea lion haulout
approximately 5 km SE, and one California sea lion/harbor seal haulout
approximately 8 km NE of the project site (figure 3-1). In-air noise
will not reach the documented haulouts. Seals and sea lions also make
use of undocumented docks, buoys, and beaches in the area. Pinnipeds
may experience noise above the thresholds when passing through the
noise zones noted above. Airborne take will be accounted for within the
Level A and B underwater take estimates because animals cannot be taken
more than once in a day. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these
animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take.
Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take
resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne
sound is not discussed further here.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
WSDOT's proposed project would have temporary and localized impacts
on marine mammals and their habitat. Temporary, intermittent, and
short-term habitat alteration may result from increased noise levels
within the Level A and Level B harassment zones. Effects on marine
mammals will be limited to temporary displacement from pile
installation and removal noise, and effects on prey species will be
similarly limited in time and space.
Water Quality--Short-term turbidity is a water quality effect of
most in-water work, including pile driving and removal. WSF must comply
with state water quality standards during these operations by limiting
the extent of turbidity in the immediate project area.
[[Page 26024]]
Roni and Weitkamp (1996) monitored water quality parameters during
a pier replacement project in Manchester, Washington. The study
measured water quality before, during and after pile removal and
driving. The study found that construction activity at the site had
``little or no effect on dissolved oxygen, water temperature and
salinity,'' and turbidity (measured in nephelometric turbidity units
[NTU]) at all depths nearest the construction activity was typically
less than 1 NTU higher than stations farther from the project area
throughout construction. In general, turbidity associated with pile
installation is localized to about a 7.-meter radius around the pile
(Everitt et al. 1980).
Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the Kingston Ferry
Terminal to experience turbidity, and any pinnipeds will be transiting
the terminal area and could avoid localized areas of turbidity.
Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be
discountable to marine mammals.
In-Water Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat--The area likely
impacted by the project is relatively small and provides marginal
foraging habitat for marine mammals and fishes compared to the
available habitat in Puget Sound. The area is highly influenced by
anthropogenic activities. The total seafloor area affected by pile
installation and removal is a small area compared to the vast foraging
area available to marine mammals in the area. Furthermore, pile driving
and removal at the project site would not obstruct long-term movements
or migration of marine mammals.
Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish or, in the case of
transient killer whales, other marine mammals) of the immediate area
due to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is also possible.
The duration of fish and marine mammal avoidance of this area after
pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal
recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral
avoidance by fish or marine mammals of the disturbed area would still
leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging
habitat of similar or better quality in the nearby vicinity.
In-Water Effects on Potential Prey--Sound may affect marine mammals
through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey
species (e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton, other
marine mammals). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and
location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on
known marine mammal prey other than other marine mammals (which have
been discussed earlier).
Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay,
2009). Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory
structures, which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure
and particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of
surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the
sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include
behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related
injuries), and mortality.
Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or
intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as
flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp
sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local
distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g.,
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors.
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies
have documented effects of pile driving on fish; several are based on
studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects
(e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Several
studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might affect the
distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting
foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell
and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992;
Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some studies have
shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013;
Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Popper et al.,
2016).
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish
and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the
ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is
restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et
al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours
for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish
is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long.
Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can
cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma
injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile
driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
The most likely impact to fishes from pile driving and removal and
construction activities at the project areas would be temporary
behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of
this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to
normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated.
Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have
the potential to adversely affect forage fish in the project areas.
Forage fish form a significant prey base for many marine mammal species
that occur in the project areas. Increased turbidity is expected to
occur in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. However,
suspended sediments and particulates are expected to dissipate quickly
within a single tidal cycle. Given the limited area affected and high
tidal dilution rates any effects on forage fish are expected to be
minor or negligible. Finally, exposure to turbid waters from
construction activities is not expected to be different from the
current exposure; fish and marine mammals in Puget Sound are routinely
exposed to substantial levels of suspended sediment from natural and
anthropogenic sources.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS'
consideration of ``small numbers,'' the negligible impact
determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
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).
[[Page 26025]]
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the acoustic source (i.e., 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 harbor seal, harbor porpoise, Steller sea
lion, and California sea lion because predicted auditory injury zones
are larger than for other species and those four species are more
commonly seen within the area. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for
Northern elephant seals, transient killer whales, gray whales, minke
whales, Dall's porpoises, common bottlenose dolphins, Pacific white-
sided dolphins, and long-beaked common dolphins. The proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the
severity of the taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by
considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine mammals will likely be behaviorally
harassed or incur some degree of auditory injury; (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) the number of days of activities. We note that while
these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an
initial prediction of potential 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 estimates.
Acoustic Criteria
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to
Level B harassment) or to incur auditory injury of some degree (equated
to Level A harassment). We note that the criteria for AUD INJ, as well
as the names of two hearing groups, have been recently updated (NMFS
2024) as reflected below in the Level A harassment section.
Level B Harassment--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 or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2019, Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-
mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced
to 1 micropascal (re 1 [mu]Pa)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile
driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-
explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g.,
scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take
estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected
to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood of
TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which
behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can
manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and
the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals
(conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in
behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.
WSDOTs proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory
hammer) and impulsive (impact hammer) sources, and therefore the RMS
SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa, respectively, are
applicable.
Level A harassment--NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing
the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version
3.0) (Updated Technical Guidance, 2024) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different
underwater marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive).WSDOTs proposed activity includes the use
of impulsive (impact hammer) and non-impulsive (vibratory hammer)
sources.
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated
thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The
thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described
in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools.
Table 4--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
[NMFS 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUD INJ onset thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: L0-pk,flat: 222 Cell 2: LE, LF,24h: 197 dB.
dB; LE, LF,24h: 183 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 3: L0-pk,flat: 230 Cell 4: LE, HF,24h: 201 dB.
dB; LE, HF,24h: 193 dB.
Very High-Frequency (VHF) Cetaceans.... Cell 5: L0-pk,flat: 202 Cell 6: LE, VHF,24h: 181 dB.
dB; LE,VHF,24h: 159 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7 L0-pk,flat: 223 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 195 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 183 dB.
[[Page 26026]]
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: L0-pk,flat: 230 Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 199 dB.
dB; LE,OW,24h: 185 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating AUD
INJ onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds
associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended for consideration.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (L0-pk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and weighted cumulative sound
exposure level (LE,) has a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to be
more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ``flat''
is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 165 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound
exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, HF, and VHF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted
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 thresholds will be exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected by sound generated from the
impact and vibratory pile driving components of this project.
In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level
B harassment thresholds for the methods and piles being used in these
projects, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from previous pile driving
at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal (impact installation of 24-in
and 30-in steel piles), Edmonds Ferry Terminal (vibratory pile driving
of a 30-in steel piles), and data from NMFS National Source-Level
Dataset to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes, and
methods for the project (table 5). A source level for vibratory driving
of 18-in steel piles was taken from a 2017 project in Elliot Bay. Each
of the projects listed above occurred within the Puget Sound and
provided the most suitable source levels due to similar physical
habitat characteristics, pile sizes, and pile driving or removal
methods.
Table 5--Kingston Ferry Terminal Span Proxy Sound Source Levels for Pile Sizes and Driving Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source level at 10m (dB
Pile type and size (in) Method re 1 [mu]PA) Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-inch Concrete..................... Vibratory.............. 149 dB rms............. Elliott Bay (2017).
24-inch Steel Sheet Pile............. Vibratory.............. 160 dB rms............. NMFS (2022).
24 & 30-inch Steel................... Vibratory.............. 166 dB rms............. Laughlin (2011).
24-inch Steel........................ Impact................. 192.8 dB rms; 180 dB Bainbridge (2005);
SEL; 207.5 dB Peak. Friday Harbor (2005);
SR520 (2010).
30-inch Steel........................ Impact................. 192.5 dB rms; 182.9 dB Vashon (2010); Friday
SEL; 212.5 dB Peak. Harbor (2005); SR520
(2010).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Harassment Zones
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2)
Where:
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement
The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is
the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected
propagation environment that would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate
assumption for the WSDOTs proposed activities in the absence of
specific modeling. The estimated Level B harassment zones for the
WSDOTs proposed activities are shown in table 6.
Level A Harassment Zones
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more
technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a
duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User
Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance that
can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use
in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict
potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate
that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of
potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool
offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For
stationary sources such as pile installation and removal, the optional
User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine
mammal
[[Page 26027]]
remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be
expected to incur auditory injury. Inputs used in the optional User
Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting estimated isopleths, are reported
below.
Table 6--Level A and B Harassment Zones
[NMFS 2024]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A injury zone (m) Level B
Pile size, type & method -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- harassment
LF cetacean HF cetacean VHF cetacean Phocid Otariid zone (m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-inch concrete vibratory.............................. 3.7 1.4 3.0 4.7 1.6 858
24-inch sheet pile vibratory............................ 19.9 7.7 16.3 25.7 8.6 4,642
24 & 30-inch steel vibratory............................ 50.1 19.2 40.9 64.4 21.7 11,659
24-inch steel Impact \1\................................ 1,253.1 159.9 1,939.2 1,113,2 415.0 1,537
30-inch steel Impact \1\................................ 1,196.7 152.7 1,852 1,063.1 396.3 1,467.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These values were calculated with source levels in table 5 above. The application has incorrect source levels in Table 1-1-3 of the application.
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation Calculation
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which
will inform the take calculations. Additionally, we describe how the
occurrence information is synthesized to produce a quantitative
estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed
for authorization. Available information regarding marine mammal
occurrence in the vicinity of the project area includes site-specific
and nearby survey information from WSDOT. Specifically, data sources
consulted included PSO monitoring completed on 175 days between 2015
and 2021, primarily during the multi-year WSDOT Multimodal Construction
Project, but also including a small amount of monitoring conducted
during the Edmonds Ferry Terminal Dolphin Replacement Project. During
the 169 days of Mukilteo monitoring, PSOs were located at the Mukilteo
project site as well as on the Mukilteo--Clinton ferry and additional
positions on Whidbey Island, Camano Island, and north of Everett,
Washington.
To estimate take by Level B and Level A harassment, NMFS and WSDOT
referred to the data reported at all PSO monitoring locations. For take
by Level B harassment, WSDOT and NMFS predicted a daily occurrence
probability in which the average daily occurrence for each species is
multiplied by the number of days of each type of pile driving activity,
generally using the following equation: Take by Level B harassment =
marine mammal occurrence x days of pile driving activities.
However, WSDOT generated different daily average marine mammal
occurrence rates based on the size of the Level B harassment zone for
impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. Since impact and
vibratory pile driving could occur on any construction day, NMFS finds
it more appropriate to use the marine mammal occurrence estimated
within the largest Level B harassment zone across all activities to
estimate take by Level B harassment.
In cases where marine mammals are expected to occasionally occur
within the project area (e.g., harbor porpoise or transient killer
whale), NMFS and WSDOT define marine mammal occurrence by one group of
the average (harbor porpoise) or maximum (transient killer whale) group
size for that species. In cases where marine mammals are expected to
occur frequently in the project area, marine mammal occurrence is
defined by the daily average occurrence of marine mammals documented by
PSOs within the largest Level B harassment zones.
Finally, WSDOT rounded daily average occurrence of less than 1 up
to 1. However, in such cases where species are unlikely to occur in the
project area, but for which there is some potential, NMFS proposes that
one group of each species may occur in the project area during each
project year rather than each construction day (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans and Dall's porpoise).
For take by Level A harassment, WSDOT attempted to estimate the
occurrence of marine mammals occurring within the largest Level A
harassment zone across all hearing groups. However, WSDOT referred to
data reported at all PSO monitoring locations during the Mukilteo
Multimodal Project. Because the distance of the marine mammal to the
PSO was reported rather than the source, NMFS instead refers to marine
mammal data reported from the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal location only, as
it is reasonable to assume the distance of the marine mammal to the PSO
reported at that location would be near the source. NMFS also reviewed
the data to estimate marine mammal occurrence according to the largest
Level A harassment zone of each species' respective hearing group,
rather than the largest Level A harassment zone across all hearing
groups.
Table 7--Edmonds and Mukilteo Marine Mammal Monitoring Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Species Sightings sightings/ day Maximum one- Take requested
total (175 days) day sightings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal........................... 3,557 20.33 98 Yes.
Northern Elephant Seal................ 2 0.012 2 Yes.
California Sea Lion................... 2,055 11.7 114 Yes.
Steller Sea Lion...................... 48 0.27 6 Yes.
Unidentified pinniped................. 15 N/A N/A N/A.
Killer Whale Transient................ 44 0.26 15 Yes.
[[Page 26028]]
Gray Whale............................ 2 0.012 1 Yes.
Minke Whale........................... 0 N/A N/A Yes.
Unidentified whale.................... 1 N/A N/A N/A.
Harbor Porpoise....................... 210 1.2 18 Yes.
Dall's Porpoise....................... 3 0.017 2 Yes.
Pacific White-sided Dolphin........... 0 N/A N/A Yes.
Long-beaked Common Dolphin............ 0 N/A N/A Yes.
Unidentified dolphin/porpoise......... 1 N/A N/A N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized
to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably
likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
Harbor Seal--Harbor seals are common in the project area. During
the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects, WSDOT recorded an average of 20.33
harbor seal detections per day and a maximum of 98 in a single day
(WSDOT 2024). WSDOT estimated that an average of 20.33 harbor seals
will enter the Level B harassment zones each of the 85 days of
construction. To account for the potential for Level A and Level B
harassment, NMFS proposes to calculate expected take for vibratory pile
driving days (54) and impact pile driving days (31) separately. For
vibratory pile driving days, all take is expected to occur by Level B
harassment. Thus, average sightings per day was multiplied by 54, which
equates to 1,098 takes by Level B harassment. Average sightings per day
was also used to calculate total expected take (Level A and Level B)
for impact pile driving days. However, NMFS proposes to assume that two
of every three harbor seals would be taken by Level A harassment due to
the relative size of the estimated Level A and Level B harassment zones
for impact pile driving. During impact pile driving, 420 takes are
therefore expected to occur by Level A harassment and 210 by Level B
harassment. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize a total of 1,308
takes by Level B harassment and 420 takes by Level A harassment for
harbor seals.
Northern Elephant Seal--Elephant seals are rare in the project
area. During the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects, WSDOT recorded only two
sightings (WSDOT 2024). However, if an elephant seal were present, it
is possible that it may remain in the area for an extended duration.
Therefore, NMFS assumes that one elephant seal could be present and
remain in the project area for 30 days. We propose to authorize 30
takes of northern elephant seal, by Level B harassment. Given the
anticipated rarity of occurrence for elephant seals, WSDOT does not
expect northern elephant seals to enter Level A harassment zones
without being detected prior to shutdown measures being implemented.
Construction would cease if a northern elephant seal was observed
entering the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, no take by Level A
harassment of northern elephant seals is anticipated or proposed to be
authorized.
California Sea Lion--California sea lions have been known to use a
haulout near the project site. During the Edmonds and Mukilteo
Projects, WSDOT recorded an average of 11.7 sea lion detections per day
and a maximum of 114 in a single day (WSDOT 2024). WSDOT estimated that
an average of 11.7 sea lions will enter the Level B harassment zones
for each of the 85 days of construction. To account for the potential
for Level A and Level B harassment, NMFS proposes to calculate expected
take for vibratory pile driving days (54) and impact pile driving days
(31) separately. For vibratory pile driving days, all take is expected
to occur by Level B harassment. Thus, average sightings per day was
multiplied by 54, which equates to 632 takes by Level B harassment.
Similarly, average sightings per day was also used to calculate total
expected take (Level A and Level B) for impact pile driving days.
However, NMFS proposes to assume that one of every four California sea
lions would be taken by Level A harassment due to the relative size of
the estimated Level A and Level B harassment zones for impact driving.
During impact pile driving, 91 takes of California sea lions are
expected to occur by Level A harassment and 272 by Level B harassment.
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize a total of 904 takes by Level B
harassment and 91 takes by Level A harassment for California sea lions.
Steller Sea Lion--Steller sea lions have not been documented to use
haulout sites within the project area, and are relatively rare. During
the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects, WSDOT recorded an average of 0.27
Steller sea lion detections per day and a maximum of 6 in a single day
(WSDOT 2024). WSDOT estimated that 0.27 Steller sea lions could enter
the Level B harassment zones for each of the 85 days of construction.
To account for the potential for Level A and Level B harassment, NMFS
proposes to calculate expected take for vibratory pile driving days
(54) and impact pile driving days (31) separately. For vibratory pile
driving days, all take is expected to occur by Level B harassment.
Thus, average sightings per day was multiplied by the number of pile
driving days (54) and rounded up for total of 20 takes by Level B
harassment. However, NMFS proposes to assume that one of every four
Steller sea lions would be taken by Level A harassment due to the
relative size of the estimated Level A and Level B harassment zones for
impact driving. During impact pile driving, 3 takes of Steller sea
lions is expected to occur by Level A harassment and 7 by Level B
harassment. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize a total of 27 takes
by Level B harassment and 3 takes by Level A harassment for Steller sea
lions.
Transient Killer Whale--During the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects,
WSDOT recorded 44 sightings of transient killer whales (WSDOT 2024).
Based on this record of sightings, NMFS assumes that groups of
transient killer whales may occur periodically in the project area
during the 85-day project duration. To estimate the number of takes by
Level B harassment, NMFS assumes that a group of transient killer
whales (average group size assumed to be 8) may occur in the project
area twice during the duration, and would be present on each occasion
for 6 days. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 96 takes of transient
killer whale by Level B harassment (2 groups x 8 whales x 6 days).
Given the visibility of killer
[[Page 26029]]
whales and extensive reporting and monitoring of this species, WSDOT
would be able to cease pile driving before killer whales could enter
the Level A harassment zone. No take of killer whales by Level A
harassment is requested or proposed to be authorized.
Gray Whale--During the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects, WSDOT
recorded only two gray whale sightings (WSDOT 2024). Therefore, to
account for the possibility that this species could occur within the
project area, NMFS proposes to authorize two takes by Level B
harassment of gray whale. In consideration of the infrequent occurrence
of gray whales in the project areas, the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures that WSDOT would be required to comply with,
including marine mammal monitoring and coordination with Orca Network
that would alert WSDOT to the presence of large whales in the project
area (see Proposed Mitigation), and given the size and visibility of
gray whales, WSDOT would be able to detect gray whales and stop work
before gray whales could enter the Level A harassment zones. Therefore,
it is unlikely that any gray whales would be taken by Level A
harassment. No take of gray whales by Level A harassment is requested
or proposed to be authorized.
Minke Whale--During the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects, WSDOT
recorded no minke whale sightings during either project (WSDOT 2024).
However, we assume that it is possible for minke whales to occur in the
project area, as the species is known to occur in Puget Sound. Given
the project duration (85 days), NMFS proposes to authorize two takes of
minke whales by Level B harassment. Due to the infrequent occurrence of
minke whales in the project areas, the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures that WSDOT would be required to comply with,
including marine mammal monitoring and coordination with Orca Network
(see Proposed Mitigation), and given the size and visibility of minke
whales, WSDOT would be able to detect minke whales and stop work before
minke whales could enter the Level A harassment zones. Therefore, it is
unlikely that any minke whales would be taken by Level A harassment. No
take of minke whales by Level A harassment is requested or proposed to
be authorized.
Harbor Porpoise--During the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects, WSDOT
recorded an average of 1.2 sightings per day with a maximum of 18 in
one day (WSDOT 2024). WSDOT estimated that an average of 1.2 harbor
porpoises will enter the Level B harassment zones for each of the 85
days of construction. To account for the potential for Level A and
Level B harassment, NMFS proposes to calculate expected take for
vibratory pile driving days (54) and impact pile driving days (31)
separately. For vibratory pile driving days, all take is expected to
occur by Level B harassment. The average sightings per day was
multiplied by the number of pile driving days (54) for a total of 65
takes by Level B harassment. For all impact pile driving, Level A
harassment zones are larger than Level B harassment zones. In this
scenario, NMFS assumes that all take of harbor porpoises would occur by
Level A harassment. Thus, average sighting of harbor porpoises per day
was multiplied by impact pile driving days (31), which equates to 38
takes by Level A harassment. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 65
takes by Level B harassment and 38 takes by Level A harassment for
harbor porpoise.
Dall's Porpoise--During the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects, WSDOT
recorded three sightings of Dall's porpoise, with a maximum of two in a
single day (WSDOT 2024). Therefore, and in consideration of the
infrequent occurrence of Dall's porpoise in the project areas, NMFS
proposes to authorize up to two takes of Dall's porpoise over the
project duration. Given the large size of the estimated Level A
harassment zones for VHF cetaceans for certain activities, we assume
that these two takes could be by Level A harassment and propose to
authorize them as such.
Common Bottlenose Dolphin--There were no bottlenose dolphins
detected during the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects (WSDOT 2024). Due to
the rarity of this species in Puget Sound, it is estimated that
potentially 1 group could pass through the project area with an average
group size of 10, and we propose to authorize 10 takes by Level B
harassment. No take of bottlenose dolphins by Level A harassment is
requested or proposed to be authorized.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin--There were no white-sided dolphins
detected during the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects (WSDOT 2024). Due to
the rarity of this species in Puget Sound, it is estimated that
potentially one group could pass through the project area with an
average group size of 10, and we propose to authorize 10 takes by Level
B harassment. No take of white-sided dolphins by Level A harassment is
requested or proposed to be authorized.
Long-Beaked Common Dolphin--There were no long-beaked common
dolphins detected during the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects (WSDOT
2024). Due to the rarity of this species in Puget Sound, it is
estimated that potentially one group could pass through the project
area with an average group size of 10, and we propose to authorize 10
takes by Level B harassment. No take of long-beaked common dolphins by
Level A harassment is requested or proposed to be authorized.
Table 8--Proposed Take of Marine Mammals by Level A and Level B Harassment and Percent of Each Stock Expected To Be Taken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B Percentage of
Common name Scientific name Stock harassment harassment Total SAR abundance population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Harbor Seal............. Phoca vitulina..... Washington Inland 420 1,308 1,728 2,529 68.32
Southern Puget
Sound.
Northern Elephant Seal.......... Mirounga CA Breeding........ 0 85 85 187,386 0.05
angustirostris.
California Sea Lion............. Zalophus U.S................ 91 904 995 257,606 0.39
californianus.
Steller Sea Lion................ Eumetopias jubatus. Eastern............ 3 27 30 36,308 0.08
Killer Whale Transient.......... Orcinus orca....... West Coast 0 96 96 349 27.5
Transient.
Gray Whale...................... Eschrichtius Eastern N Pacific.. 0 2 2 26,960 0.007
robustus.
Minke Whale..................... Balaenoptera CA/OR/WA........... 0 2 2 915 0.21
acutorostrata.
Harbor Porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena.. Washington Inland 38 65 103 11,233 0.92
Waters.
Dall's Porpoise................. Phocoenoides dalli. CA/OR/WA........... 2 0 2 16,498 0.01
Common Bottlenose Dolphin....... Tursiops truncatus. CA/OR/WA Offshore.. 0 10 10 3,477 0.29
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin..... Lagenorhynchus CA/OR/WA........... 0 10 10 34,999 0.03
obliquidens.
[[Page 26030]]
Long-Beaked Common Dolphin...... Delphinus delphis CA................. 0 10 10 83,379 0.01
bairdii.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. 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 the
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers 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.
Shutdown Zone
Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, WSDOT
would establish shutdown zones for all activities. The purpose of a
shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of
the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Pile driving
would also not commence until all marine mammals are clear of their
respective shutdown zones. Shutdown zones are established in
consideration of the Level A harassment zones and therefore typically
vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group (table
9). At minimum, the shutdown zone for all hearing groups and all
activities would be 10 m. For in-water heavy machinery work other than
pile driving (e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes
within 10 m, operations would cease and vessels would reduce speed to
the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working
conditions. This type of work could include, for example, the movement
of the barge to the pile location or positioning of the pile on the
substrate via a crane.
WSDOT would also establish shutdown zones for all marine mammals
for which take has not been authorized or for which incidental take has
been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met. These
zones are equivalent to the Level B harassment zones for each activity
(table 9).
WSDOT would also implement shutdown measures for Southern Resident
killer whales and humpback whales. If Southern Resident killer whales
or humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project areas
and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (table 9), WSDOT would
shut down the pile driving equipment to avoid possible take of these
species. If a killer whale approaches the Level B harassment zone
during pile driving, and it is unknown whether it is a Southern
Resident killer whale or a transient killer whale, it would be assumed
to be a Southern Resident killer whale and WSDOT would implement the
shutdown measure.
If a Southern Resident killer whale, unidentified killer whale, or
humpback whale enters the Level B harassment zone undetected, in-water
pile driving would be suspended until the whale exits the Level B
harassment zone, or 15 minutes have elapsed with no sighting of the
animal.
Table 9--Shutdown Zones for Kingston Ferry Terminal
[NMFS 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zones (m)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile size, type & method VHF SRKW/
LF cetacean HF cetacean cetacean Phocid Otariid Humpback
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-inch concrete vibratory........ 10 10 10 10 10 858
24-inch sheet pile vibratory...... 26 26 26 26 26 4,642
24 & 30-inch steel vibratory...... 65 65 65 65 65 11,659
24-inch steel impact.............. 1,255 160 400 65 65 1,537
30-inch steel impact.............. 1,200 160 400 65 65 1,467.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protected Species Observers
The placement of protected species observers (PSOs) during all pile
driving activities (described in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
section) would ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible. Should
environmental conditions deteriorate such that the entire shutdown zone
would not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving would be
delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown
zone could be detected.
[[Page 26031]]
Monitoring for Level A and Level B Harassment
PSOs would monitor the Level B harassment zones to the extent
practicable, and all of the Level A harassment zones. Monitoring zones
provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for
areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers
to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the
project areas outside the shutdown zones and thus prepare for a
potential cessation of activity should the animal enter the shutdown
zone.
Pre-Activity Monitoring
Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activities, or
whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs
would observe shutdown and monitoring zones for a 30 minute period. The
shutdown zone would be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not
been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If pile
driving is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal,
the activities would not commence or resume until either the animal has
voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown
zones or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
When a marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is
present in the Level B harassment zone and authorized take has not been
met, activities may begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the
pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones would commence. A
determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a
period of good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown zone and
surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye).
Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network
Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the PSOs would
contact the Orca Network to find out the location of the nearest marine
mammal sightings. The Local Marine Mammal Research 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 visual sighting network allows
researchers to document the presence and location of various marine
mammal species.
Soft Start
Soft-start procedures are used to provide additional protection to
marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a
chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full
capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors would be required to
provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced
energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent
reduced- energy strike sets. Soft start would be implemented at the
start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following
cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
Bubble Curtain
A bubble curtain would be employed during impact installation or
proofing of steel piles, unless the piles are driven in the dry, or
water is less than 3 ft (0.9 m) in depth. A noise attenuation device
would not be required during vibratory pile driving. If a bubble
curtain or similar measure is used, it would distribute air bubbles
around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the
water column. Any other attenuation measure would be required to
provide 100 percent coverage in the water column for the full depth of
the pile. The lowest bubble ring would be in contact with the mudline
for the full circumference of the ring. The weights attached to the
bottom ring would ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the
ring or other objects would prevent full mudline contact.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means of 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 while
conducting the activities. 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 activity; 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.
[[Page 26032]]
Visual Monitoring
Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activities would be
conducted by PSOs meeting NMFS' standards and in a manner consistent
with the following:
PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for
example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks
during monitoring periods;
At least one PSO would have prior experience performing
the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-
issued incidental take authorization;
Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological
science or related field) or training for experience; and
Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead
observer or monitoring coordinator would be designated. The lead
observer would be required to have prior experience working as a marine
mammal observer during construction.
PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any
activities subject to this IHA.
PSOs should have the following additional qualifications:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required);
and marine mammal behavior; and
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
During all pile driving activities, a minimum of three PSOs will
monitor Level B harassment and shutdown zones. A total of six PSOs will
monitor the Level B harassment and shutdown zones during the vibratory
pile driving of 24 and 30-inch steel piles and be stationed at the
Kingston terminal (2), the Edmonds terminal (1), on the ferry (1),
Richmond beach (1), and Stamm overlook (1). During 24-inch sheet pile
driving, there will be a total of four PSOs monitoring the Level B
harassment and shutdown zones and they will be located at the Kingston
terminal (2), Overlook park (1), and on the ferry (1). For 30-inch
steel impact, 18-inch concrete vibratory, and 24-inch steel impact
there will be three PSOs monitoring the Level B harassment and shutdown
zones and they will be located at the Kingston terminal (2) and at
Overlook Park (1).
Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition,
observers would record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence,
regardless of distance from activity, and would document any behavioral
reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed.
Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single
pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of
the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
Reporting
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60
days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the
project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first.
The marine mammal report would include an overall description of work
completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and
associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report would include:
Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring;
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including: (a) How many and what type of piles were
driven or removed and the method (i.e., impact or vibratory); and (b)
the total duration of time for each pile (vibratory driving) number of
strikes for each pile (impact driving);
PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring; and
Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant
weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall
visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance.
For each observation of a marine mammal, the following would be
reported:
Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and
activity at time of sighting;
Time of sighting;
Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species,
lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in
identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of
species;
Distance and location of each observed marine mammal
relative to the pile being driven or hole being drilled for each
sighting;
Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);
Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles,
neonates, group composition, etc.);
Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations
(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling), including an
assessment of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the
activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral state such as
ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or breaching);
Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment
zones, by species; and
Detailed information about implementation of any
mitigation (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specified
actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
reports would constitute the final reports. If comments are received, a
final report addressing NMFS' comments would be required to be
submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments. All PSO datasheets
and/or raw sighting data would be submitted with the draft marine
mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, WSDOT would report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR)
([email protected]), NMFS and to the West Coast Region
(WCR) regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death
or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, WSDOT would
immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review
the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any,
additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms
of the IHAs. WSDOT would not resume their activities until notified by
NMFS.
The report would include the following information:
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
[[Page 26033]]
2. Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
3. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
4. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
5. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
6. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
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 impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We
also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338,
September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the 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, the majority of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in table 2, given that the anticipated effects of
these projects on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be
relatively similar in nature. Where there are special circumstances for
a species or stock (e.g., gray whales), they are included as a separate
subsection below.
NMFS has identified key factors which may be employed to assess the
level of analysis necessary to conclude whether potential impacts
associated with a specified activity should be considered negligible.
These include (but are not limited to) the type and magnitude of
taking, the amount and importance of the available habitat for the
species or stock that is affected, the duration of the anticipated
effect to the species or stock, and the status of the species or stock.
The following factors support negligible impact determinations for all
affected stocks.
Take by Level A harassment is proposed to be authorized for four
species (harbor seals, harbor porpoise, California sea lions, and
Steller sea lions) to account for the possibility that an animal could
enter a Level A harassment zone prior to detection, and remain within
that zone for a duration long enough to incur auditory injury. Any take
by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small
degree of auditory injury, i.e., minor degradation of hearing
capabilities within regions of hearing that align most completely with
the energy produced by impact pile driving (i.e., the low-frequency
region below 2 kilohertz (kHz)), not severe hearing impairment or
impairment within the ranges of greatest hearing sensitivity. Animals
would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer duration than
are expected to occur here in order to incur any more than a small
degree of auditory injury. Given the hearing ranges of these four
(harbor seal, harbor porpoise, California sea lion, and Steller sea
lion) species, auditory injury incurred at the low frequencies of pile
driving noise would not interfere either with conspecific communication
or echolocation, and therefore would not be expected to impact the
survival or reproductive abilities of the affected individuals, let
alone the stock or population.
As described above, NMFS expects that marine mammals would likely
move away from an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would be
expected to result in auditory injury, given sufficient notice through
use of soft start. WSDOT would also be required to shut down pile
driving activities if marine mammals approach within hearing group-
specific zones (see table 9), further minimizing the likelihood and
degree of auditory injury that would be incurred. Even absent
mitigation, no serious injury or mortality from construction activities
is anticipated or proposed to be authorized.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment in the
form of behavioral disruption, on the basis of reports in the
literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will
likely be limited to reactions such as avoidance, increased swimming
speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such
activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006). Most likely,
individuals would simply move away from the sound source and
temporarily avoid the area where pile driving is occurring. If sound
produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are
likely to simply avoid the area while the activities are occurring,
particularly as the project is located in a busy harbor with high
amounts of vessel traffic, including large ferry boats. We expect that
any avoidance of the project areas by marine mammals would be temporary
in nature and that any marine mammals that avoid the project areas
during construction would not be permanently displaced. Short-term
avoidance of the project areas and energetic impacts of interrupted
foraging or other important behaviors is unlikely to affect the
reproduction or survival of individual marine mammals, and the effects
of behavioral disturbance on individuals is not likely to accrue in a
manner that would affect the rates of recruitment or survival of any
affected stock.
Additionally, and as noted previously, some subset of the
individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously
incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of time. However,
since the hearing sensitivity of individuals that incur TTS is expected
to recover completely within minutes to hours, it is unlikely that the
brief hearing impairment would affect the individual's long-term
ability to forage and communicate with conspecifics, and would
therefore not likely impact reproduction or survival of any individual
marine mammal, let alone adversely affect rates of recruitment or
survival of the species or stock.
This project is also not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities
will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount
of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because
of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area
of the habitat that may be affected (with no known particular
importance to marine mammals), the impacts to marine mammal habitat are
not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
Aside from the BIA for gray whales described below, there are
[[Page 26034]]
no known areas of importance for other marine mammals, such as feeding
or pupping areas, in the project area.
For all species and stocks, take would occur within a limited,
relatively confined area (Puget Sound) of the stocks' ranges. Given the
availability of suitable habitat nearby, any displacement of marine
mammals from the project areas is not expected to affect marine
mammals' fitness, survival, and reproduction due to the limited
geographic area that will be affected in comparison to the much larger
habitat for marine mammals in Puget Sound. Level A harassment and Level
B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse
impact to the marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat through
use of mitigation measures described herein. Some individual marine
mammals in the project areas may be present and be subject to repeated
exposure to sound from pile driving on multiple days. However, these
individuals would likely return to normal behavior during gaps in pile
driving activity. Puget Sound is a busy area and monitoring reports
from previous in-water pile driving activities along the nearby such as
the Edmonds and Mukilteo Projects (WSDOT 2024) indicate that marine
mammals continue to remain in the greater project area throughout pile
driving activities. Therefore, any behavioral effects of repeated or
long duration exposures are not expected to negatively affect survival
or reproductive success of any individuals. Thus, even repeated Level B
harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to
result in any effects on rates of reproduction and survival of the
stock.
Gray Whales
The Puget Sound is part of a BIA for gray whales as they migrate
between the Arctic and Mexico (Calambokidis et al., 2024). Although the
proposed project area is located within the Puget Sound, the gray whale
BIA does not overlap with the ensonified zones and gray whales
typically remain further north around Whidbey and Camano Islands
(Calambokidis et al., 2024). Gray whales are also rarely seen in the
project area. This suggests that impacts from the project would have
minimal to no impact on the migration of gray whales in the BIA, and
would therefore not affect reproduction or survival.
There was a UME for gray whales from 2018 through 2023 (see the
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
section of this notice). However, we do not expect the takes proposed
to be authorized for this project to have any additional effects to
reproduction or survival. As mentioned previously, no take by Level A
harassment, serious injury or mortality is expected. Takes proposed to
be authorized by Level B harassment of gray whales would primarily be
in the form of behavioral disturbance. The results from necropsies
showed evidence that gray whale nutritional condition was poor during
the UME. The area that would be temporarily impacted from construction
does not overlap with the gray whale feeding BIA in the northern Puget
Sound. Therefore, the construction associated with the WSF Kingston
Ferry Terminal Project is unlikely to disrupt any critical behaviors
(e.g., feeding) or have any effect on reproduction or survival of gray
whales.
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 any of the species
or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
Level A harassment is not anticipated or proposed to be
authorized for 8 of the 12 species. For the other four species, Level A
harassment would be in the form of a slight degree of auditory injury;
Level B harassment would be in the form of behavioral
disturbance, primarily resulting in avoidance of the project areas
around where impact or vibratory pile driving is occurring, and some
low-level TTS that may limit the detection of acoustic cues for
relatively brief amounts of time in relatively confined footprint of
the activities;
Nearby areas of similar habitat value within Puget Sound
are available for marine mammals that may temporarily vacate the
project areas during construction activities for both projects;
Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals
from the activities are expected to be short-term and, therefore, any
associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result
in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue
to adverse impacts on their populations from either project;
The number of anticipated takes by Level B harassment is
relatively low for all stocks for both projects;
The ensonified areas from the project is very small
relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and
will not adversely affect ESA-designated critical habitat, or cause
more than minor impacts in any BIAs or any other areas of known
biological importance;
The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative
effects to marine mammal habitat from the project;
The efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the
effects of the specified activities on all species and stocks for the
project; and
Monitoring reports from similar work in Puget Sound that
have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species
that could be impacted by the specified activities from the project.
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 previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals
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. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. For all species and
stocks other than harbor seals from the Washington Inland Southern
Puget Sound stock, the proposed take is below one-third of the stock
abundance. The proposed take of harbor seal as a proportion of the
stock abundance is greater than one-third, if all takes are assumed to
occur for different individuals. The project area represents a small
portion of the Stock's range in the Puget Sound (Pearson et al., 2024).
The distribution of sightings from Pearson et al. 2024 support that it
is reasonable to suspect that the same individual harbor seals would be
present within the ensonified project are during the relatively short
duration (85 days) of the proposed activities. Since
[[Page 26035]]
the construction area represents a small portion of harbor seals range
and the construction would occur over a short period, it is more likely
that there will be multiple takes of the same individuals during the
proposed activities.
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 would be taken relative to the population
size of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
requires that each Federal agency ensure 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 whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or
threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is
not required for this action.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to WSDOT for conducting the Kingston Ferry Trestle Seismic
Retrofit Project in Kingston, WA from July 2025 through the end of the
in-water work period in February 2026, 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/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
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
Kingston Ferry Trestle Seismic Retrofit Project. We also request
comment on the potential 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 decisions on the request
for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal
IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly
identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration
of the initial IHA).
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: June 13, 2024.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-11189 Filed 6-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P