Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Bremerton Ferry Terminal Wingwall Replacement Project, 11844-11856 [2013-03808]
Download as PDF
11844
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
Northwestern Gulf of Mexico, AprilMay 2013,’’ prepared by LGL Ltd.,
Environmental Research Associates on
behalf of USGS. The EA analyzes the
direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts of the proposed
specified activities on marine mammals
including those listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA. Prior to
making a final decision on the IHA
application, NMFS will either prepare
an independent EA, or, after review and
evaluation of the USGS EA for
consistency with the regulations
published by the Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
NOAA Administrative Order 216–6,
Environmental Review Procedures for
Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, adopt the
USGS EA and make a decision of
whether or not to issue a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
Proposed Authorization
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to
USGS for conducting a low-energy
marine seismic survey in the deep water
of the northwestern GOM, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. The duration of the
IHA would not exceed one year from the
date of its issuance.
Information Solicited
NMFS requests interested persons to
submit comments and information
concerning this proposed project and
NMFS’s preliminary determination of
issuing an IHA (see ADDRESSES).
Concurrent with the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is
forwarding copies of this application to
the Marine Mammal Commission and
its Committee of Scientific Advisors.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–03837 Filed 2–19–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
RIN 0648–XC360
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Specified Activities; Bremerton
Ferry Terminal Wingwall Replacement
Project
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments and information.
ACTION:
NMFS has received a request
from the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferries
Division (WSF) for an authorization to
take small numbers of six species of
marine mammals, by Level B
harassment, incidental to proposed
construction activities for the
replacement of wingwalls at the
Bremerton ferry terminal in Washington
State. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an authorization to WSDOT to
incidentally take, by harassment, small
numbers of marine mammals for a
period of 1 year.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than March 22,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the
application should be addressed to
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The
mailbox address for providing email
comments is itp.guan@noaa.gov. NMFS
is not responsible for email comments
sent to addresses other than the one
provided here. Comments sent via
email, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm without change. All
Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
A copy of the application may be
obtained by writing to the address
specified above or visiting the Internet
at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental.htm. Documents
cited in this notice may also be viewed,
by appointment, during regular business
hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘* * * an
impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely
to, adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.’’
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
established an expedited process by
which citizens of the U.S. can apply for
a one-year authorization to incidentally
take small numbers of marine mammals
by harassment, provided that there is no
potential for serious injury or mortality
to result from the activity. Section
101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time
limit for NMFS review of an application
followed by a 30-day public notice and
comment period on any proposed
authorizations for the incidental
harassment of marine mammals. Within
45 days of the close of the comment
period, NMFS must either issue or deny
the authorization.
Summary of Request
On August 14, 2012, WSDOT
submitted a request to NOAA requesting
an IHA for the possible harassment of
small numbers of six marine mammal
species incidental to construction
associated with the replacement of
wingwalls at the Bremerton ferry
terminal in Washington State. On
December 4, 2012, WSDOT submitted a
revised IHA application. The action
discussed in this document is based on
WSDOT’s December 4, 2012, IHA
application. NMFS is proposing to
authorize the Level B harassment of the
following marine mammal species:
harbor seal, California sea lion, Steller
sea lion, killer whale, gray whale, and
humpback whale.
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
Description of the Specified Activity
Wingwalls are structures that protect
the vehicle transfer span from direct
vessel impact and help guide and hold
the vessel in position when the ferry is
docked. There are two types of
wingwalls common at WSF ferry
terminals: timber and steel. Timber
wingwalls are older structures, typically
constructed of creosote treated pilings
lashed together by galvanized steel rope,
and reinforced as needed with 13’’
plastic/steel core piles. The current
timber wingwalls at the Bremerton
terminal are near the end of their design
life, and must be replaced with steel
wingwalls to ensure safe and reliable
functioning of the terminal.
Steel wingwalls are designed
similarly to timber wingwalls in that
they contain two rows of plumb piling
and one row of batter piling or a third
row of plumb piling. A rubber fender
between the first and second rows of
plumb piling absorbs much of the
energy and returns the front row to its
original vertical position after an
impact. The second row of plumb piling
is driven deeper into the sediment and
braced with batter piling to minimize
movement of the structure. Both pile
rows are welded together with
horizontal I-beams to which rubbing
timbers are attached faced with ultrahigh molecular weight (UHMW) plastic,
which acts as a rub surface for the ferry.
They are designed for a 25-year life
span.
The proposed project at the
Bremerton Ferry Terminal is to replace
the existing Slip 2 timber wingwalls
with new standard steel design
wingwalls.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Overview of the Planned Activities
The following construction activities
are anticipated for the proposed
wingwall replacement project:
• Remove two timber wingwalls (112
13-inch timber piles and 100 tons of
creosote-treated timber) with a vibratory
hammer, direct pull or clamshell
removal. Vibratory pile-drive eight 24and two 30-inch hollow steel piles for
each wingwall (20 piles total). Attach
rub timbers to new wingwall faces.
• A total of 100 tons of creosotetreated timbers will be removed from
the marine environment. The total
mudline footprint of the existing
wingwalls is 206 square feet (ft2). The
total mudline footprint of the new
wingwalls will be 95 ft2, a reduction of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
111 ft2. The new wingwalls will have 20
piles, compared to the existing
wingwalls, which have approximately
112 tightly clustered piles with no space
between them. The footprint of the new
steel wingwalls will be more open,
allowing fish movement between the
piles.
Construction Activity Elements
1. Vibratory Hammer Removal
Vibratory hammer extraction is a
common method for removing timber
piling. A vibratory hammer is a large
mechanical device mostly constructed
of steel (weighing 5 to 16 tons) that is
suspended from a crane by a cable. It is
attached to a derrick and positioned on
the top of a pile. The pile is then
unseated from the sediments by
engaging the hammer, creating a
vibration that loosens the sediments
binding the pile, and then slowly lifting
up on the hammer with the aid of the
crane.
Once unseated, the crane would
continue to raise the hammer and pull
the pile from the sediment. When the
pile is released from the sediment, the
vibratory hammer is disengaged and the
pile is pulled from the water and placed
on a barge for transfer upland. Vibratory
removal would take approximately 10 to
15 minutes per pile, depending on
sediment conditions.
2. Direct Pull and Clamshell Removal
Older timber pilings are particularly
prone to breaking at the mudline
because of damage from marine borers
and vessel impacts and must be
removed because they can interfere with
the installation of new pilings. In some
cases, removal with a vibratory hammer
is not possible if the pile is too fragile
to withstand the hammer force. Broken
or damaged piles may be removed by
wrapping the piles with a cable and
pulling them directly from the sediment
with a crane. If the piles break below the
waterline, the pile stubs would be
removed with a clamshell bucket, a
hinged steel apparatus that operates like
a set of steel jaws. The bucket would be
lowered from a crane and the jaws
would grasp the pile stub as the crane
pulled up. The broken piling and stubs
would be loaded onto the barge for offsite disposal. Clamshell removal would
be used only if necessary. Direct pull
and clamshell removal are not expected
to produce noise that could impact
marine mammals.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11845
3 Vibratory Hammer Installation
Vibratory hammers are commonly
used in steel pile installation where
sediments allow and involve the same
vibratory hammer used in pile
extraction. The pile is placed into
position using a choker and crane, and
then vibrated between 1,200 and 2,400
vibrations per minute. The vibrations
liquefy the sediment surrounding the
pile allowing the pile to penetrate to the
required seating depth. The type of
vibratory hammer that will be used for
the project will likely be an APE 400
King Kong (or equivalent) with a drive
force of 361 tons.
Sound Levels From Proposed
Construction Activity
As mentioned earlier, the proposed
project includes vibratory removal of
13-inch timber piles, and vibratory
driving of 24-inch and 30-inch hollow
steel piling.
No source level data is available for
13-inch timber piles. Based on in-water
measurements at the WSF Port
Townsend Ferry Terminal (Laughlin
2011), removal of 12-inch timber piles
generated 149 to 152 dBrms re 1 mPa with
an overall average root-mean-square
(RMS) value of 150 dBrms re 1 mPa
measured at 16 meters. A worst-case
noise level for vibratory removal of 13inch timber piles will be 152 dBrms re 1
mPa at 16 m.
Based on in-water measurements at
the WSF Friday Harbor Ferry Terminal,
vibratory pile driving of a 24-inch steel
pile generated 162 dBrms re 1 mPa
measured at 10 meters (Laughlin 2010a).
Based on in-water measurements
during a vibratory test pile at the WSF
Port Townsend Ferry Terminal,
vibratory pile driving of a 30-inch steel
pile generated 170 dBrms re 1 mPa
(overall average), with the highest
measured at 174 dBrms re 1 mPa
measured at 10 meters (Laughlin 2010b).
A worst-case noise level for vibratory
driving of 30-inch steel piles will be 174
dBrms re 1 mPa at 10 m.
Using practical spreading model to
calculate sound propagation loss, Table
1 provides the estimated distances
where the received underwater sound
levels drop to 120 dBrms re 1 mPa, which
is the threshold that is currently used
for determining Level B behavioral
harassment (see below) from nonimpulse noise sources based on
measurements of different pile sizes.
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
11846
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED DISTANCES WHERE VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING RECEIVED SOUND LEVELS DROP TO 120 dBrms re 1
μPa BASED ON MEASUREMENTS OF DIFFERENT PILE SIZES
Distance to 120
dBrms re 1 μPa
(km)
Pile size (inch)
Measured source levels
13 ...................................
24 ...................................
30 ...................................
152 dBrms re 1 μPa @ 16 m .................................................................................................................
162 dBrms re 1 μPa @ 10 m .................................................................................................................
174 dBrms re 1 μPa @ 10 m .................................................................................................................
However, land mass is intersected
before the extent of vibratory pile
driving is reached, at a maximum of 4.7
km (2.9 miles) at the Bremerton
Terminal proposed construction area.
For airborne noise, currently NMFS
uses an in-air noise disturbance
threshold of 90 dBrms re 20 mPa
(unweighted) for harbor seals, and 100
dBrms re 20 mPa (unweighted) for all
other pinnipeds. Using the above
aforementioned measurement of 97.8
dBrms re 20 mPa @ 50 ft, and attenuating
at 6 dBA per doubling distance, in-air
noise from vibratory pile removal and
driving will attenuate to the 90 dBrms re
20 mPa within approximately 37 m, and
the 100 dBrms re 20 mPa within
approximately 12 m.
Dates, Duration, and Region of Activity
In-water construction is planned to
take place between September 1, 2013,
and February 15, 2014.
The number of days it will take to
remove and install the pilings largely
depends on the condition of the piles
being removed and the difficulty in
penetrating the substrate during pile
installation. Duration estimates of each
of the pile driving elements follow:
• The daily construction window for
pile removal or driving would begin no
sooner than 30 minutes after sunrise to
allow for initial marine mammal
monitoring, and would end at sunset (or
soon after), when visibility decreases to
the point that effective marine mammal
monitoring is not possible.
• Vibratory pile removal of the
existing timber piles would take
approximately 10 to 15 minutes per
2.2
6.3
39.8
pile. Vibratory removal would take less
time than driving, because piles are
vibrated to loosen them from the soil,
then pulled out with the vibratory
hammer turned off. Assuming the worst
case of 15 minutes per pile (with no
direct pull or clamshell removal),
removal of 112 piles would take 28
hours over four days of pile removal
(Table 2).
• Vibratory pile driving of the steel
piles would take approximately 20
minutes per pile, with three to five piles
installed per day. Assuming 20 minutes
per pile, and three piles per day, driving
of 20 piles would take 6 hours 45
minutes over seven days.
The total worst-case time for pile
removal is four days, and seven days for
pile installation. The actual number of
pile-removal/driving days is expected to
be less (Table 2).
TABLE 2—WORST CASE PILE REMOVAL AND DRIVING FOR THE PROPOSED BREMERTON WINGWALLS DOLPHIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Maximum
number of
piles
Removal/Installed
Vibratory pile removal ................................................................................................................
Vibratory pile installation ............................................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
The marine mammal species under
NMFS jurisdiction most likely to occur
in the proposed construction area
include Pacific harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina richardsi), California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus), Steller sea
lion (Eumetopias jubatus), killer whale
(Orcinus orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus), and humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae).
General information on the marine
mammal species found in California
waters can be found in Caretta et al.
(2011), which is available at the
following URL: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/
po2011.pdf. Refer to that document for
information on these species. Specific
information concerning these species in
the vicinity of the proposed action area
is provided below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:45 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are members of the true
seal family (Phocidae). For management
purposes, differences in mean pupping
date (Temte 1986), movement patterns
(Jeffries 1985; Brown 1988), pollutant
loads (Calambokidis et al. 1985), and
fishery interactions have led to the
recognition of three separate harbor seal
stocks along the west coast of the
continental U.S. (Boveng 1988). The
three distinct stocks are: (1) Inland
waters of Washington State (including
Hood Canal, Puget Sound, Georgia Basin
and the Strait of Juan de Fuca out to
Cape Flattery), (2) outer coast of Oregon
and Washington, and (3) California
(Carretta et al. 2011).
Pupping seasons vary by geographic
region. For the southern Puget Sound
region, pups are born from late June
through September. After October 1 all
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
112
20
Time
(hrs.)
28
6.75
Days
4
7
pups in the inland waters of
Washington are weaned.
Harbor seals, like all pinnipeds,
communicate both on land and
underwater. Harbor seals have the
broadest auditory bandwidth of the
pinnipeds, estimated by Southall et al.
(2007) as between 75 hertz (Hz) and 75
kilohertz (kHz) for ‘‘functional’’ in-water
hearing and between 75 Hz and 30 kHz
for ‘‘functional’’ in-air hearing. At lower
frequencies (below 1 kHz) sounds must
be louder to be heard (Kastak and
Schusterman 1998). Studies indicated
that pinnipeds are sensitive to a broader
range of sound frequencies in-water
than in-air (Southall et al. 2007).
Hearing capabilities for harbor seals inwater are 25 to 30 dB better than in-air
(Kastak and Schusterman 1998).
Of the two pinniped species that
commonly occur within the region of
activity, harbor seals are the most
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
numerous and the only one that breeds
in the inland marine waters of
Washington (Calambokidis and Baird
1994). In 1999, Jeffries et al. (2003)
recorded a mean count of 9,550 harbor
seals in Washington’s inland marine
waters, and estimated the total
population to be approximately 14,612
animals (including the Strait of Juan de
Fuca). The population across
Washington increased at an average
annual rate of 10 percent between 1991
and 1996 (Jeffries et al. 1997) and is
thought to be stable (Jeffries et al. 2003).
The nearest documented harbor seal
haulout site to the Bremerton ferry
terminal is 8.5 km north and west
(shoreline distance). The number of
harbor seals using the haulout is less
than 100.
From July 2006 to January 2007, a
consultant completed 10 at-sea surveys
in preparation for replacement of the
WSDOT Manette Bridge, located in
Bremerton. Marine mammals were
recorded during these surveys: 29
harbor seals were observed in an area
approximately the same as the
Bremerton wingwalls project ZOI. Seals
observed outside of the Bremerton ZOI
were subtracted from the total observed
(36) during this project. According to
the dates on harbor seal observation
tags, the most seals seen in any one day
is two (given that two tags cover others,
the dates may be the same underneath).
From August 2010 to January 2012,
marine mammal monitoring was
implemented during construction of the
Manette Bridge. Counts were conducted
only during pile removal/driving days,
not every day of the month. Counts were
recorded in blocks of working days (not
counts per day). The highest number of
harbor seals observed was 93 over three
days (10/18–20, 2011). The highest
number observed during one day was 59
(10/18/2011). It was assumed that these
included multiple observations of the
same animal by different observers
(David Evans & Assoc. Inc. 2011a;
2011b).
Harbor seals are not listed as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA or as depleted under the MMPA.
They are not considered a strategic stock
under the MMPA,
California Sea Lion
NMFS recognizes three stocks of
California sea lion based on their
geographic distribution: (1) The U.S.
stock begins at the U.S./Mexico border
and extends northward into Canada; (2)
the Western Baja California stock
extends from the U.S./Mexico border to
the southern tip of the Baja California
Peninsula; and (3) the Gulf of California
stock, which includes the Gulf of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
California from the southern tip of the
Baja California peninsula and across to
the mainland and extends to southern
Mexico (Lowry et al. 1992). California
sea lions in the Washington State belong
to the U.S. stock.
The U.S. stock was estimated at
296,750 in the 2011 Stock Assessment
Report (SAR) and may be at carrying
capacity (Carretta et al. 2011). The
number of California sea lions in the
San Juan Islands and the adjacent Strait
of Juan de Fuca totaled fewer than 3,000
in the mid-1980s (Bigg 1985; Gearin et
al. 1986). In 1994, it was reported that
the number of sea lions had stabilized
or decreased in some areas (Gearin et al.
1988; Calambokidis and Baird 1994).
More recently, 3,000 to 5,000 animals
are estimated to move into northwest
waters (both Washington and British
Columbia) during the fall (September)
and remain until the late spring (May)
when most return to breeding rookeries
in California and Mexico (Jeffries et al.
2000; WSDOT 2012). Peak counts of
over 1,000 animals have been made in
Puget Sound (Jeffries et al. 2000).
The closest documented California
sea lion haulout site to the Bremerton
Ferry Terminal is the Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard security barrier, located
approximately 435 m SW of the ferry
terminal. The next closest documented
California sea lion haulout sites to the
Bremerton Ferry Terminal are
navigation buoys and net pens in Rich
Passage, approximately nine and ten km
east of the terminal, respectively. The
number of California sea lions using
each haulout is less than 10.
From August 2010 to February 2011,
marine mammal monitoring was
implemented during construction of the
Manette Bridge. Counts were conducted
only during pile removal/driving days,
not every day of the month. Counts were
recorded in blocks of working days (not
counts per day). The highest number of
California sea lions observed was 21
(September) over six days, an average of
3.5/day (David Evans & Assoc. Inc.
2011a; 2011b).
The Bremerton Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard (PSNS) is located to the west
of the Bremerton Ferry Terminal. Since
November 2010, PSNS personnel have
been conducting monthly counts of the
number of sea lions that use the security
barrier floats as a haulout. As of June 13,
2012, the highest count has been 144
observed during one day in November
2011. All are believed to be California
sea lions.
California sea lions do not avoid areas
with heavy or frequent human activity,
but rather may approach certain areas to
investigate. This species typically does
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11847
not flush from a buoy or haulout if
approached.
California sea lions are not listed as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA or as depleted under the MMPA.
They are not considered a strategic stock
under the MMPA,
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions comprise two
recognized management stocks (eastern
and western), separated at 144° W
longitude (Loughlin 1997). Only the
eastern stock is considered here because
the western stock occurs outside of the
geographic area of the proposed activity.
Breeding rookeries for the eastern stock
are located along the California, Oregon,
British Columbia, and southeast Alaska
coasts, but not along the Washington
coast or in inland Washington waters
(Angliss and Outlaw 2007). Steller sea
lions primarily use haulout sites on the
outer coast of Washington and in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca along Vancouver
Island in British Columbia. Only subadults or non-breeding adults may be
found in the inland waters of
Washington (Pitcher et al. 2007).
The eastern stock of Steller sea lions
is estimated to be between 58,334 and
72,223 individuals based on 2006
through 2009 pup counts (Allens and
Angliss 2011). Washington’s estimate
including the outer coast is 651
individuals (non-pups only) (Pitcher et
al. 2007). However, recent estimates are
that 1,000 to 2,000 individuals enter the
Strait of Juan de Fuca during the fall
and winter months (WSDOT 2012).
Steller sea lions in Washington State
decline during the summer months,
which correspond to the breeding
season at Oregon and British Columbia
rookeries (approximately late May to
early June) and peak during the fall and
winter months (Jeffries et al. 2000). A
few Steller sea lions can be observed
year-round in Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin although most of the breeding age
animals return to rookeries in the spring
and summer.
For Washington inland waters, Steller
sea lion abundances vary seasonally
with a minimum estimate of 1,000 to
2,000 individuals present or passing
through the Strait of Juan de Fuca in fall
and winter months. However, the
number of haulout sites has increased in
recent years. The nearest documented
Steller sea lion haulout site to the
Bremerton ferry terminal are the
Orchard Rocks in Rich Passage,
approximately nine and ten km east of
the terminal, respectively (Kitsap
Transit 2012).
From July 2006 to January 2007, a
consultant completed 10 at-sea surveys
in preparation for replacement of the
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
11848
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
WSDOT Manette Bridge that is located
in Bremerton. Marine mammals were
recorded during these surveys: no
Stellar sea lions were observed (USDA
2007).
From August 2010 to February 2011,
marine mammal monitoring was
implemented during construction of the
Manette Bridge. No Stellar sea lions
were observed (David Evans & Assoc.
Inc. 2011).
Steller sea lions were listed as
threatened range-wide under the ESA
on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204).
After division into two stocks, the
western stock was listed as endangered
under the ESA on May 4, 1997 and the
eastern stock remained classified as
threatened (62 FR 24345). On August
27, 1993, NMFS published a final rule
designating critical habitat for the
Steller sea lion (NMFS 1993). No critical
habitat has been designated in
Washington (NMFS 1993). Critical
habitat is associated with breeding and
haulout areas in Alaska, California, and
Oregon (NMFS 1993).
On June 29, 2010, NMFS initiated a
review of the eastern stock of Steller sea
lion status to reassess the listing
classification under the ESA (75 FR
37385). Based on the comprehensive
review, NMFS proposed to delist the
eastern stock of Steller sea lion on April
18, 2012 (77 FR 23209).
Steller sea lions are listed as depleted
under the MMPA. Both stocks are thus
classified as strategic.
Killer Whale
Two sympatric ecotypes of killer
whales are found within the proposed
activity area: transient and resident.
These types vary in diet, distribution,
acoustic calls, behavior, morphology,
and coloration (Baird 2000; Ford et al.
2000). The ranges of transient and
resident killer whales overlap; however,
little interaction and high reproductive
isolation occurs among the two ecotypes
(Barrett-Lennard 2000; Barrett-Lennard
and Ellis 2001; Hoelzel et al. 2002.
Resident killer whales are primarily
piscivorous, whereas transients
primarily feed on marine mammals,
especially harbor seals (Baird and Dill
1996). Resident killer whales also tend
to occur in larger (10 to 60 individuals),
stable family groups known as pods,
whereas transients occur in smaller (less
than 10 individuals), less structured
pods.
One stock of transient killer whale,
the West Coast Transient stock, occurs
in Washington State. West Coast
transients primarily forage on harbor
seals (Ford and Ellis 1999), but other
species such as porpoises and sea lions
are also taken (NMFS 2008a). Two
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
stocks of resident killer whales occur in
Washington State: the Southern
Resident and Northern Resident stocks.
Southern Residents occur within the
activity area, in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and in coastal
waters off Washington and Vancouver
Island, British Columbia (Ford et al.
2000). Northern Residents occur
primarily in inland and coastal British
Columbia and Southeast Alaska waters
and rarely venture into Washington
State waters. Little interaction (Ford et
al. 2000) or gene flow (Barrett-Lennard
2000; Barrett-Lennard and Ellis 2001;
Hoelzel et al. 2004) is known to occur
between the two resident stocks.
The West Coast Transient stock,
which includes individuals from
California to southeastern Alaska, was
estimated to have a minimum number of
354 (NMFS 2010b). Trends in
abundance for the West Coast
Transients were unavailable in the most
recent stock assessment report (Angliss
and Outlaw 2007).
The Southern Resident stock was first
recorded in a 1974 census, at which
time the population comprised 71
whales. This population peaked at 97
animals in 1996, declined to 79 by 2001
(Center for Whale Research 2011), and
then increased to 89 animals by 2006
(Carretta et al. 2007a). As of October
2012, the population collectively
numbers 85 individuals: J pod has 25
members, K pod has 20 members, and
L pod has 40 members (Whale Museum
2012b).
Both West Coast Transient and the
Southern Resident stocks are found
within Washington inland waters.
Individuals of both forms have longranging movements and thus regularly
leave the inland waters (Calambokidis
and Baird 1994).
The West Coast Transient stock
occurs in California, Oregon,
Washington, British Columbia, and
southeastern Alaskan waters. Within the
inland waters, they may frequent areas
near seal rookeries when pups are
weaned (Baird and Dill 1995).
There are only two reports of
Transient killer whale in the Bremerton
terminal area. From May 18–19 of 2004,
a group of up to 12 individuals entered
Sinclair and Dyes Inlet. From May 26–
27 of 2010, a group of up to five
individuals again entered the same area
(Orca Network 2012b).
Southern Residents are documented
in coastal waters ranging from central
California to the Queen Charlotte
Islands, British Columbia (NMFS
2008a). They occur in all inland marine
waters within the activity area. While in
the activity area, resident killer whales
generally spend more time in deeper
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
water and only occasionally enter water
less than 15 feet deep (Baird 2000).
Distribution is strongly associated with
areas of greatest salmon abundance,
with heaviest foraging activity occurring
over deep open water and in areas
characterized by high-relief underwater
topography, such as subsurface canyons,
seamounts, ridges, and steep slopes
(Wiles 2004).
West Coast Transients are
documented intermittently year-round
in Washington inland waters. Records
from 1976 through 2006 document
Southern Residents in the inland waters
of Washington during the months of
March through June and October
through December, with the primary
area of occurrence in inland waters
north of Admiralty Inlet, located in
north Puget Sound (The Whale Museum
2008a).
Beginning in May or June and through
the summer months, all three pods (J, K,
and L) of Southern Residents are most
often located in the protected inshore
waters of Haro Strait (west of San Juan
Island), in the Strait of Juan de Fuca,
and Georgia Strait near the Fraser River.
Historically, the J pod also occurred
intermittently during this time in Puget
Sound; however, records from The
Whale Museum (2008a) from 1997
through 2007 show that J pod did not
enter Puget Sound south of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca from approximately June
through August.
In fall, all three pods occur in areas
where migrating salmon are
concentrated such as the mouth of the
Fraser River. They may also enter areas
in Puget Sound where migrating chum
and Chinook salmon are concentrated
(Osborne 1999). In the winter months,
the K and L pods spend progressively
less time in inland marine waters and
depart for coastal waters in January or
February. The J pod is most likely to
appear year-round near the San Juan
Islands, and in the fall/winter, in the
lower Puget Sound and in Georgia Strait
at the mouth of the Fraser River.
Under contract with the NMFS, the
Friday Harbor Whale Museum keeps a
database of verified marine mammal
sightings by location quadrants. Whale
sightings do not indicate sightings of
individual animals. Instead, sightings
can be any number of animals. Between
1990 and 2008, in the September to
February window proposed for the
Bremerton project, an average of 2.9 SR
killer whale sightings/month were
annually reported for Quad 411 (which
encompasses the Bremerton action area)
(WSDOT 2012).
Between September 2009 and
February 2012, there was one
unconfirmed report of a single SR killer
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
whale in the Bremerton action area
(January 2009) during the proposed inwater work window for this project
(Orca Network 2012b). Based on this
information, the possibility of
encountering killer whales during the
Bremerton project is low to medium,
depending on the actual work month.
In one highly unusual 1997 event, 19
L pod individuals entered Sinclair and
Dyes Inlet, and remained in Dyes Inlet
for 30 days, from October 21 to
November 19. As this event unfolded,
whale specialists became increasingly
concerned that the whale’s exit was
blocked by shallow water and the need
to pass under several bridges, even
though they had passed under the same
bridges to enter the inlet. After several
individuals displayed signs of weight
loss, hazing was considered to drive
them out of the inlet. However, on day
30 the group exited on their own (Kitsap
Sun 2012).
Killer whales are protected under the
MMPA of 1972. The West Coast
Transient stock is not designated as
depleted under the MMPA or listed as
‘‘threatened or ‘‘endangered’’ under the
ESA. The Southern Resident stock is
listed as an endangered distinct
population segment (DPS) under the
ESA. On November 29, 2006, NMFS
published a final rule designating
critical habitat for the Southern
Resident killer whale DPS (71 FR
69054). Both Puget Sound and the San
Juan Islands are designated as core areas
of critical habitat under the ESA, but
areas less than 20 feet deep relative to
extreme high water are not designated
as critical habitat (71 FR 69054). A final
recovery plan for southern residents was
published in January of 2008 (NMFS
2008a).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Gray Whale
Gray whales are recorded in
Washington waters during feeding
migrations between late spring and
autumn with occasional sightings
during winter months (Calambokidis et
al. 1994, 2002; Orca Network 2011).
Early in the 20th century, it is
believed that commercial hunting for
gray whales reduced population
numbers to below 2,000 individuals
(Calambokidis and Baird 1994). After
listing of the species under the ESA in
1970, the number of gray whales
increased dramatically resulting in their
delisting in 1994. Population surveys
since the delisting estimate that the
population fluctuates at or just below
the carrying capacity of the species
(∼26,000 individuals) (Rugh et al. 1999;
Calambokidis et al. 1994; Angliss and
Outlaw 2007).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
11849
Gray whales migrate within 5 to 43
km of the coast of Washington during
their annual north/south migrations
(Green et al. 1995). Gray whales migrate
south to Baja California where they
calve in November and December, and
then migrate north to Alaska from
March through May (Rice et al. 1984;
Rugh et al. 2001) to summer and feed.
A very few gray whales are observed in
Washington inland waters between the
months of September and January, with
peak numbers of individuals from
March through May. Peak months of
gray whale observations in the area of
activity occur outside the proposed
work window of September through
February. The average tenure within
Washington inland waters is 47 days
and the longest stay was 112 days.
Although typically seen during their
annual migrations on the outer coast, a
regular group of gray whales annually
comes into the inland waters at Saratoga
Passage and Port Susan from March
through May to feed on ghost shrimp
(Weitkamp et al. 1992). During this time
frame they are also seen in the Strait of
Juan de Fuca, the San Juan Islands, and
areas of Puget Sound, although the
observations in Puget Sound are highly
variable between years (Calambokidis et
al. 1994).
Between December 2002 and May
2012, there were three reports of gray
whale in the Bremerton area during the
proposed in-water work window
months for this project: January 8 and
10, 2008 (likely the same individual);
November 28–29, 2008; and December
2–6, 2009 (Orca Network 2012b). There
were also two reports of gray whale
stranding, one on May 3, 2005 at the US
Navy Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to
the west of the Bremerton terminal
(Cascadia 2005), and one on a beach in
the Bremerton area on July 27, 2011.
Typically 4–6 gray whales strand every
year in Washington State (Cascadia
2011).
The Eastern North Pacific stock of
gray whales was removed from listing
under the ESA in 1994 after a 5-year
review by NOAA Fisheries (Angliss and
Outlaw 2007). In 2001 NOAA Fisheries
received a petition to relist the stock
under the ESA, but it was determined
that there was not sufficient information
to warrant the petition (Angliss and
Outlaw 2007).
in near shore areas. Recent studies have
indicated that there are three distinct
stocks of humpback whale in the North
Pacific: California-Oregon-Washington
(formerly Eastern North Pacific), Central
North Pacific and Western North Pacific
(NMFS 2011e).
The California-Oregon-Washington
(CA-OR-WA) stock calve and mate in
coastal Central America and Mexico and
migrate up the coast from California to
southern British Columbia in the
summer and fall to feed (NMFS 1991;
Marine Mammal Commission 2003;
Carretta et al. 2011). Although
infrequent, interchange between the
other two stocks and the Eastern North
Pacific stock occurs in breeding areas
(Carretta et al. 2011). Few Eastern North
Pacific stock humpback whales are seen
in Puget Sound, but more frequent
sightings occur in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca and near the San Juan Islands.
Most sightings are in spring and
summer. Humpback whales feed on
krill, small shrimp-like crustaceans and
various kinds of small fish.
The 2007/2008 estimate of 2,043
humpback whales is the best estimate
for abundance for this stock, though it
does exclude some whales in
Washington (Calambokidis et al. 2009).
Historically, humpback whales were
common in inland waters of Puget
Sound and the San Juan Islands
(Calambokidis et al. 2002). In the early
part of this century, there was a
productive commercial hunt for
humpbacks in Georgia Strait that was
probably responsible for their long
disappearance from local waters
(Osborne et al. 1988). Since the mid1990s, sightings in Puget Sound have
increased. Between 1996 and 2001,
Calambokidis et al. (2002) recorded only
six individuals south of Admiralty Inlet
(northern Puget Sound).
Between September 2003 and
February 2012, there was one
unconfirmed report (February 24, 2012)
of humpback whale in the Bremerton
action area (Orca Network 2012).
Humpback whales are listed as
‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA, and
consequently the stock is automatically
considered a depleted stock under the
MMPA.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are wide-ranging
baleen whales that can be found
virtually worldwide. They summer in
temperate and polar waters for feeding,
and winter in tropical waters for mating
and calving. Humpbacks are vulnerable
to whaling due to their tendency to feed
WSDOT and NMFS determined that
open-water pile driving and pile
removal associated with the
construction activities at Bremerton
Ferry Terminal has the potential to
result in behavioral harassment of
marine mammal species and stocks in
the vicinity of the proposed activity.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11850
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
Marine mammals exposed to high
intensity sound repeatedly or for
prolonged periods can experience
hearing threshold shift (TS), which is
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain
frequency ranges (Kastak et al. 1999;
Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al.
2002; 2005). TS can be permanent
(PTS), in which case the loss of hearing
sensitivity is unrecoverable, or
temporary (TTS), in which case the
animal’s hearing threshold will recover
over time (Southall et al. 2007). Since
marine mammals depend on acoustic
cues for vital biological functions, such
as orientation, communication, finding
prey, and avoiding predators, hearing
impairment could result in the reduced
ability of marine mammals to detect or
interpret important sounds. Repeated
noise exposure that leads to TTS could
cause PTS.
Experiments on a bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncates) and beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas) showed that
exposure to a single watergun impulse
at a received level of 207 kPa (or 30 psi)
peak-to-peak (p–p), which is equivalent
to 228 dB (p–p) re 1 mPa, resulted in a
7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at
0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively.
Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of
the pre-exposure level within 4 minutes
of the exposure (Finneran et al. 2002).
No TTS was observed in the bottlenose
dolphin. Although the source level of
pile driving from one hammer strike is
expected to be much lower than the
single watergun impulse cited here,
animals being exposed for a prolonged
period to repeated hammer strikes could
receive more noise exposure in terms of
SEL than from the single watergun
impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 mPa2s) in the aforementioned experiment
(Finneran et al. 2002).
Current NMFS acoustic thresholds
that identify the received sound levels
above which permanent hearing
impairment (permanent threshold shift,
PTS) or other injury could potentially
occur are 180 and 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
respectively. The established 180– and
190–dB re 1 mPa (rms) criteria are the
received levels above which, in the view
of a panel of bioacoustics specialists
convened by NMFS before direct data
on temporary threshold shift (TTS)
(from which PTS is primarily
extrapolated) for marine mammals
became available, one could not be
certain that there would be no injurious
effects, auditory or otherwise, to marine
mammals. For the proposed wingwall
replacement work at the Bremerton
Ferry Terminal, only vibratory pile
driving would be used. Noise levels
measured near the source of vibratory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
hammers (10 m and 16 m from the
source, see above) are much lower than
the 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) threshold
currently used by NMFS. Therefore, it is
very unlikely that any marine mammals
would experience TTS or PTS as a
result of noise exposure to WSDOT’s
proposed construction activities at
Bremerton Ferry Terminal.
In addition, chronic exposure to
excessive, though not high-intensity,
noise could cause masking at particular
frequencies for marine mammals that
utilize sound for vital biological
functions (Clark et al. 2009). Masking
can interfere with detection of acoustic
signals such as communication calls,
echolocation sounds, and
environmental sounds important to
marine mammals. Therefore, under
certain circumstances, marine mammals
whose acoustical sensors or
environment are being severely masked
could also be impaired.
Masking occurs at the frequency band
which the animals utilize. Therefore,
since noise generated from in-water
vibratory pile driving and removal is
mostly concentrated at low frequency
ranges, it may have less effect on high
frequency echolocation sounds by
odontocetes (toothed whales). However,
lower frequency man-made noises are
more likely to affect detection of
communication calls and other
potentially important natural sounds
such as surf and prey noise. It may also
affect communication signals when they
occur near the noise band and thus
reduce the communication space of
animals (e.g., Clark et al. 2009) and
cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote
et al. 2004; Holt et al. 2009).
Unlike TS, masking can potentially
impact the species at population,
community, or even ecosystem levels, as
well as individual levels. Masking
affects both senders and receivers of the
signals and could have long-term
chronic effects on marine mammal
species and populations. Recent science
suggests that low frequency ambient
sound levels have increased by as much
as 20 dB (more than 3 times in terms of
SPL) in the world’s ocean from preindustrial periods, and most of these
increases are from distant shipping
(Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic
noise sources, such as those from
vessels traffic, pile driving, dredging,
and dismantling existing bridge by
mechanic means, contribute to the
elevated ambient noise levels, thus
intensify masking.
Nevertheless, the sum of noise from
the proposed WSDOT construction
activities is confined in an area that is
bounded by landmass, therefore, the
noise generated is not expected to
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
contribute to increased ocean ambient
noise. Due to shallow water depths near
the ferry terminals, underwater sound
propagation for low-frequency sound
(which is the major noise source from
pile driving) is expected to be poor.
Finally, exposure of marine mammals
to certain sounds could lead to
behavioral disturbance (Richardson et
al. 1995), such as: changing durations of
surfacing and dives, number of blows
per surfacing, or moving direction and/
or speed; reduced/increased vocal
activities, changing/cessation of certain
behavioral activities (such as socializing
or feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke
slapping or jaw clapping), avoidance of
areas where noise sources are located,
and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds
flushing into water from haulouts or
rookeries).
The biological significance of many of
these behavioral disturbances is difficult
to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However,
the consequences of behavioral
modification could be expected to be
biologically significant if the change
affects growth, survival, and
reproduction. Some of these significant
behavioral modifications include:
• Drastic change in diving/surfacing
patterns (such as those thought to be
causing beaked whale stranding due to
exposure to military mid-frequency
tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of
desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cease feeding or social interaction.
For example, at the Guerreo Negro
Lagoon in Baja California, Mexico,
which is one of the important breeding
grounds for Pacific gray whales,
shipping and dredging associated with a
salt works may have induced gray
whales to abandon the area through
most of the 1960s (Bryant et al. 1984).
After these activities stopped, the
lagoon was reoccupied, first by single
whales and later by cow-calf pairs.
The onset of behavioral disturbance
from anthropogenic noise depends on
both external factors (characteristics of
noise sources and their paths) and the
receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also
difficult to predict (Southall et al. 2007).
The proposed project area is not a
prime habitat for marine mammals, nor
is it considered an area frequented by
marine mammals. Therefore, behavioral
disturbances that could result from
anthropogenic noise associated with
WSDOT construction activities are
expected to affect only a small number
of marine mammals on an infrequent
basis.
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
Currently NMFS uses 120 dBrms re 1
mPa received level for non-impulse
noises (such as vibratory pile driving,
saw cutting, drilling, and dredging) for
the onset of marine mammal Level B
behavioral harassment.
As far as airborne noise is concerned,
the estimated in-air source level from
vibratory pile driving a 30-in steel pile
is estimated at 97.8 dB re 1 mPa at 15
m (50 feet) from the pile (Laughlin
2010b). Using the spreading loss of 6 dB
per doubling of distance, it is estimated
that the distances to the 90 dB and 100
dB thresholds were estimated at 37 m
and 12 m, respectively.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat
The primary potential impacts to
marine mammal habitat are associated
with elevated sound levels produced by
vibratory pile removal and pile driving
in the area. However, other potential
impacts to the surrounding habitat from
physical disturbance are also possible.
Potential Impacts on Prey Species
With regard to fish as a prey source
for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are
known to hear and react to sounds and
to use sound to communicate (Tavolga
et al. 1981) and possibly avoid predators
(Wilson and Dill 2002). Experiments
have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound
(Hawkins 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a
sound signal, and potentially react to it,
are the frequency of the signal and the
strength of the signal in relation to the
natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish
will react or alter its behavior is usually
well above the detection level. Fish
have been found to react to sounds
when the sound level increased to about
20 dB above the detection level of 120
dB (Ona 1988); however, the response
threshold can depend on the time of
year and the fish’s physiological
condition (Engas et al. 1993). In general,
fish react more strongly to pulses of
sound rather than non-pulse signals
(such as noise from vessels) (Blaxter et
al. 1981), and a quicker alarm response
is elicited when the sound signal
intensity rises rapidly compared to
sound rising more slowly to the same
level.
Further, during the coastal
construction only a small fraction of the
available habitat would be ensonified at
any given time. Disturbance to fish
species would be short-term and fish
would return to their pre-disturbance
behavior once the pile driving activity
ceases. Thus, the proposed construction
would have little, if any, impact on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
abilities of marine mammals to feed in
the area where construction work is
planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed
construction activity would avoid the
spawning season of the ESA-listed
salmonid species.
Water and Sediment Quality
Short-term turbidity is a water quality
effect of most in-water work, pile
removal and driving. WSF must comply
with state water quality standards
during these operations by limiting the
extent of turbidity to the immediate
project area.
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.
Similar results were recorded during
pile removal operations at two WSF
ferry facilities. At the Friday Harbor
terminal, localized turbidity levels (from
three timber pile removal events) were
generally less than 0.5 NTU higher than
background levels and never exceeded 1
NTU. At the Eagle Harbor maintenance
facility, local turbidity levels (from
removal of timber and steel piles) did
not exceed 0.2 NTU above background
levels. In general, turbidity associated
with pile installation is localized to
about a 25-foot radius around the pile
(Everitt et al. 1980).
Cetaceans are not expected to be close
enough to the Bremerton ferry terminal
to experience effects of 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.
Removal of the timber wingwalls at
the Bremerton ferry terminal will result
in 112 creosote-treated piles (100 tons)
removed from the marine environment.
This will result in the potential,
temporary and localized sediment resuspension of some of the contaminants
associated with creosote, such as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
However, the actual removal of the
creosote-treated wood piles from the
marine environment will result in a
long-term improvement in water and
sediment quality. The net impact is a
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11851
benefit to marine organisms, especially
toothed whales and pinnipeds that are
high in the food chain and
bioaccumulate these toxins. This is
especially a concern for long-lived
species that spend their entire life in
Puget Sound, such as Southern Resident
killer whales (NMFS 2008a).
Potential Impacts on Availability of
Affected Species or Stock for Taking for
Subsistence Uses
No subsistence harvest of marine
mammals occur in the proposed action
area.
Proposed Mitigation Measures
In order to issue an incidental take
authorization under Section 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
permissible methods of taking pursuant
to such activity, and other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for
taking for certain subsistence uses.
For the proposed Bremerton Ferry
Terminal wingwall replacement project,
WSDOT proposed the following
mitigation measures to minimize the
potential impacts to marine mammals in
the project vicinity. These mitigation
measures would be employed during all
pile removal and installation activities
at the Bremerton Ferry Terminal.
WSDOT has informed NMFS that any
monitoring measures required by the
IHA would be imposed upon
contracting parties, through the Contract
Plans and Specifications, and
contractors.
Since the measured source levels (at
10 and 16 m, Table 1) of the vibratory
hammer involved in pile removal and
pile driving are below NMFS current
thresholds for Level A takes, i.e., below
180 dB re 1 mPa (rms), no exclusion
zone would be established, and there
would be no required power-down and
shutdown measures. Instead, WSDOT
would establish and monitor the 120 dB
re 1 mPa (rms) zone of influence (ZOI,
see below Proposed Monitoring and
Reporting section).
One major mitigation measure for
WSDOT’s proposed pile removal and
pile driving activities is ramping up, or
soft start, of vibratory pile hammers.
The purpose of this procedure is to
reduce the startling behavior of marine
mammals in the vicinity of the proposed
construction activity from sudden loud
noise.
Soft start requires contractors to
initiate the vibratory hammer at reduced
power for 15 seconds with a 1 minute
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
11852
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
interval, and repeat such procedures for
an additional two times.
In addition, monitoring for marine
mammal presence will take place 20
minutes before, during and 30 minutes
after pile driving to ensure that marine
mammals takes will not exceed the
authorized levels.
Furthermore, a containment boom
surrounding the work area would be
used during creosote-treated pile
removal to contain and collect any
floating debris and sheen, provided that
the boom does not interfere with
operations. The contractor would also
retrieve any debris generated during
construction and properly disposed of at
an approved upland location. The
contractor would have oil-absorbent
materials on site to be used in the event
of a spill if any oil product is observed
in the water.
Finally, if the number of any allotted
marine mammal takes (see Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment section
below) reaches the limit under the IHA
(if issued), WSDOT would implement
shutdown and power down measures if
such species/stock of animal approaches
the Level B harassment zone.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an
activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking’’. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13)
indicate that requests for ITAs must
include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in
increased knowledge of the species and
of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are
expected to be present in the proposed
action area.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The monitoring plan proposed by
WSDOT can be found in its IHA
application. The plan may be modified
or supplemented based on comments or
new information received from the
public during the public comment
period. A summary of the primary
components of the plan follows.
(1) Marine Mammal Monitoring
Coordination
WSDOT would conduct briefings
between the construction supervisors
and the crew and protected species
observers (PSOs) prior to the start of
pile-driving activity, marine mammal
monitoring protocol and operational
procedures.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Prior to the start of pile driving, the
Orca Network and/or Center for Whale
Research would be contacted to find out
the location of the nearest marine
mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings
Network consists of a list of over 600
(and growing) residents, scientists, and
government agency personnel in the
U.S. 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.
Sighting 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 killer whale communication, inwater noise, bottom fish ecology and
local climatic conditions. A hydrophone
at the Port Townsend Marine Science
Center measures average in-water sound
levels and automatically detects
unusual sounds. These passive acoustic
devices allow researchers to hear when
different marine mammals come into
the region. This acoustic network,
combined with the volunteer
(incidental) visual sighting network
allows researchers to document
presence and location of various marine
mammal species.
With this level of coordination in the
region of activity, WSDOT will be able
to get real-time information on the
presence or absence of whales before
starting any pile removal or driving.
(2) Protected Species Observers (PSOs)
WSDOT will employ qualified PSOs
to monitor the 120 dBrms re 1 mPa for
marine mammals. Qualifications for
marine mammal observers include:
• Visual acuity in both eyes
(correction is permissible) sufficient for
discernment of moving targets at the
water’s surface with ability to estimate
target size and distance. Use of
binoculars will be necessary to correctly
identify the target.
• Advanced education in biological
science, wildlife management,
mammalogy or related fields (Bachelors
degree or higher is preferred), but not
required.
• Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals
(cetaceans and pinnipeds).
• Sufficient training, orientation or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• 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.
• Experience and ability to conduct
field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols (this
may include academic experience).
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
report of observations that would
include such information as the number
and type of marine mammals observed;
the behavior of marine mammals in the
project area during construction, dates
and times when observations were
conducted; dates and times when inwater construction activities were
conducted; and dates and times when
marine mammals were present at or
within the defined ZOI.
(3) Monitoring Protocols
PSOs would be present on site at all
times during pile removal and driving.
Marine mammal behavior, overall
numbers of individuals observed,
frequency of observation, and the time
corresponding to the daily tidal cycle
would be recorded.
WSDOT proposes the following
methodology to estimate marine
mammals that were taken as a result of
the proposed Bremerton Ferry Terminal
construction work:
• A range finder or hand-held global
positioning system device would be
used to ensure that the 120 dBrms re 1
mPa Level B behavioral harassment ZOI
is monitored.
• The vibratory Level B acoustical
harassment ZOI would be monitored for
the presence of marine mammals 20
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after any pile removal or driving
activity.
• Monitoring would be continuous
unless the contractor takes a significant
break—then the 20 minutes before,
during, and 30 minutes monitoring
sequence will begin again.
• If marine mammals are observed,
the following information will be
documented:
D Species of observed marine
mammals;
D Number of observed marine
mammal individuals;
D Behavioral of observed marine
mammals;
D Location within the ZOI; and
D Animals’ reaction (if any) to piledriving activities.
• During vibratory pile removal and
driving, one land-based biologist would
monitor the area from the terminal work
site, and one monitor will move among
a number of access points along the
southern Sinclair Inlet shore. Binoculars
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
shall be used during marine mammal
monitoring.
NMFS has reviewed the WSDOT’s
proposed marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and has determined the
applicant’s monitoring program is
adequate, particularly as it relates to
assessing the level of taking or impacts
to affected species. The land-based PSO
is expected to be positioned in a
location that will maximize his/her
ability to detect marine mammals and
will also utilize binoculars to improve
detection rates. In addition, the boatbased PSO will cruise within the 120 dB
ZOI, which is not a particularly large
zone, thereby allowing him/her to
conduct additional monitoring with
binoculars. With respect to WSDOT’s
take limits, NMFS is primarily
concerned that WSDOT could reach its
Southern Resident killer whale limit.
However, killer whales have large dorsal
fins and can be easily spotted from great
distances. Further, Southern Resident
killer whales typically move in groups,
which makes visual detection much
easier. In addition, added underwater
acoustic monitoring by Orca Network in
the region would further provide
additional detection, since resident
killer whales are very vocal.
Proposed Reporting Measures
WSDOT would provide NMFS with a
draft monitoring report within 90 days
of the conclusion of the proposed
construction work. This report will
detail the monitoring protocol,
summarize the data recorded during
monitoring, and estimate the number of
marine mammals that may have been
harassed.
If comments are received from the
NMFS Northwest Regional
Administrator or NMFS Office of
Protected Resources on the draft report,
a final report will be submitted to NMFS
within 30 days thereafter. If no
comments are received from NMFS, the
draft report will be considered to be the
final report.
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment
As mentioned earlier in this
document, a worst-case scenario for the
Bremerton Ferry Terminal project
assumes that it may take four days to
remove the existing piles and seven
days to install the new piles. The
maximum total number of hours of pile
removal activity is about 28 hours, and
pile-driving activity is about 6.75 hours
(averaging about 3.2 hours of active pile
removal/driving for each construction
day). The actual number of hours for
both projects is expected to be less.
Also, as described earlier, for nonimpulse noise, NMFS uses 120 dB re 1
mPa (rms) as the threshold for Level B
behavioral harassment. The distance to
the 120 dB contour Level B acoustical
harassment threshold due to vibratory
pile driving for the Bremerton ferry
terminal project extends a maximum of
4.7 km (2.9 miles) before land is
intersected. The ZOI would be
monitored during construction to
estimate actual harassment take of
marine mammals.
Airborne noises can affect pinnipeds,
especially resting seals hauled out on
rocks or sand spits. The airborne 90 dB
Level B threshold for hauled out harbor
seals was estimated at 37 m, and the
airborne 100 dB Level B threshold for
all other pinnipeds is estimated at 12 m.
The nearest known harbor seal
haulout site to the Bremerton ferry
terminal is 8.5 km north and west
(shoreline distance). The nearest
documented California and Steller sea
lion haulout sites to the Bremerton ferry
terminal are navigation buoys in Rich
Passage, approximately 9 and 10 km
11853
east of the terminal. The Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard security barrier
California sea lion haulout is located
approximately 435 m SW of the ferry
terminal.
In-air noise from this project will not
reach to haulout sites, but harbor seals
swimming on the surface through the 37
m zone, and other pinnipeds swimming
on the surface through the 12 m zone
during vibratory pile removal or driving
may be temporarily disturbed.
Incidental take is estimated for each
species by estimating the likelihood of
a marine mammal being present within
a ZOI during active pile removal or
driving. Expected marine mammal
presence is determined by past
observations and general abundance
near the Bremerton Ferry Terminal
during the construction window.
Typically, potential take is estimated by
multiplying the area of the ZOI by the
local animal density. This provides an
estimate of the number of animals that
might occupy the ZOI at any given
moment. However, there are no density
estimates for any Puget Sound
population of marine mammal. As a
result, the take requests were estimated
using local marine mammal data sets
(e.g., Orca Network, state and federal
agencies), opinions from state and
federal agencies, and observations from
Navy biologists.
Based on the estimates, approximately
649 Pacific harbor seals, 1,584
California sea lions, 66 Steller sea lions,
40 killer whales (24 transient, 16
Southern Resident killer whales), 8 gray
whales, and 8 humpback whales could
be exposed to received sound levels
above 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) from the
proposed Bremerton Ferry Terminal
wingwall dolphin replacement work. A
summary of the estimated takes is
presented in Table 3.
TABLE 3—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO RECEIVED PILE DRIVING AND PILE
REMOVAL LEVELS ABOVE 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms)
Estimated marine mammal
takes
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Species
Pacific harbor seal .................................................................................................................................................
California sea lion ..................................................................................................................................................
Steller sea lion .......................................................................................................................................................
Killer whale, transient ............................................................................................................................................
Killer whale, Southern Resident ............................................................................................................................
Gray whale .............................................................................................................................................................
Humpback whale ...................................................................................................................................................
The requested takes represent 4.4% of
the Inland Washington stock harbor
seals (estimated at 14,612), 0.53% of the
U.S. stock California sea lion (estimated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
at 296,750), 0.11% of the eastern stock
Steller sea lion (estimated at 58,334),
6.8% of the West Coast transient killer
whale (estimated at 354), 18.8% of
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
649
1,584
66
24
16
8
8
Percentage
4.4
0.53
0.11
6.8
18.8
0.03
0.7
Southern Resident killer whale
(estimated at 85), 0.03% of the Eastern
North Pacific stock gray whale
(estimated at 26,000), and 0.7% of the
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
11854
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Eastern North Pacific stock humpback
whale (estimated at 1,100).
Negligible Impact and Small Numbers
Analysis and Preliminary
Determination
Pursuant to NMFS’ regulations
implementing the MMPA, an applicant
is required to estimate the number of
animals that will be ‘‘taken’’ by the
specified activities (i.e., takes by
harassment only, or takes by
harassment, injury, and/or death). This
estimate informs the analysis that NMFS
must perform to determine whether the
activity will have a ‘‘negligible impact’’
on the species or stock. Level B
(behavioral) harassment occurs at the
level of the individual(s) and does not
assume any resulting population-level
consequences, though there are known
avenues through which behavioral
disturbance of individuals can result in
population-level effects. A negligible
impact finding is based on the lack of
likely adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of Level B harassment takes alone is not
enough information on which to base an
impact determination.
In addition to considering estimates of
the number of marine mammals that
might be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral
harassment, NMFS considers other
factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration,
etc.), the context of any responses
(critical reproductive time or location,
migration, etc.), as well as the number
and nature of estimated Level A takes,
the number of estimated mortalities, and
effects on habitat.
The WSDOT’s proposed Bremerton
Ferry Terminal construction project
would conduct vibratory pile removal
and pile driving to replace wingwall
structures. Elevated underwater noises
are expected to be generated as a result
of pile removal and pile driving
activities. However, noise levels from
the machinery and activities are not
expected to reach to the level that may
cause TTS, injury (PTS included), or
mortality to marine mammals.
Therefore, NMFS does not expect that
any animals would experience Level A
(including injury) harassment or Level B
harassment in the form of TTS from
being exposed to in-water pile driving
and pile removal associated with
WSDOT construction project.
Based on long-term marine mammal
monitoring and studies in the vicinity of
the proposed construction areas, it is
estimated that approximately 649
Pacific harbor seals, 1,584 California sea
lions, 66 Steller sea lions, 40 killer
whales (24 transient, 16 Southern
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Resident killer whales), 8 gray whales,
and 8 humpback whales could be
exposed to received noise levels above
120 dBrms re 1 mPa from the proposed
construction work at the Bremerton
Ferry Terminal. These numbers
represent approximately 0.03%–18.8%
of the stocks and populations of these
species could be affected by Level B
behavioral harassment. As mentioned
earlier in this document, the worst case
scenario for the proposed construction
work would only take a total of 34.75
hours (28 hours for pile removal and
6.75 hours for pile driving).
In addition, these low intensity,
localized, and short-term noise
exposures may cause brief startle
reactions or short-term behavioral
modification by the animals. These
reactions and behavioral changes are
expected to subside quickly when the
exposures cease. In addition, no
important feeding and/or reproductive
areas of marine mammals is known to
be near the proposed action area.
Therefore, the take resulting from the
proposed Bremerton Ferry Terminal
construction projects is not reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely
to, adversely affect the marine mammal
species or stocks through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The maximum estimated 120 dB
isopleths from vibratory pile driving is
approximately 4.7 km at from the pile
before being blocked by landmass.
The closest documented California
sea lion haulout site to the Bremerton
Ferry Terminal is the Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard security barrier, located
approximately 435 m SW of the ferry
terminal. The next closest documented
California sea lion haulout sites to the
Bremerton Ferry Terminal are
navigation buoys and net pens in Rich
Passage, approximately nine and ten km
east of the terminal, respectively.
However, it is estimated that airborne
noise from vibratory pile driving a 30in steel pile would fall below 90 dB and
100 dB re 1 20 mPa at 37 m and 12 m
from the pile, respectively. Therefore,
pinnipeds hauled out at the Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard security barrier
will not be affected.
For the reasons discussed in this
document, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the impact of vibratory
pile removal and pile driving associated
with wingwall replacements at
Bremerton Ferry Terminal would result,
at worst, in the Level B harassment of
small numbers of six marine mammals
that inhabit or visit the area. While
behavioral modifications, including
temporarily vacating the area around the
construction site, may be made by these
species to avoid the resultant visual and
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
acoustic disturbance, the availability of
alternate areas within Washington
coastal waters and haul-out sites has led
NMFS to preliminarily determine that
this action will have a negligible impact
on these species in the vicinity of the
proposed construction area.
In addition, no take by TTS, Level A
harassment (injury) or death is
anticipated and harassment takes
should be at the lowest level practicable
due to incorporation of the mitigation
and monitoring measures mentioned
previously in this document.
Proposed Incidental Harassment
Authorization
This section contains a draft of the
IHA itself. The wording contained in
this section is proposed for inclusion in
the IHA (if issued).
1. This Authorization is valid from
September 1, 2013, through February
15, 2014.
2. This Authorization is valid only for
activities associated in-water
construction work at the Bremerton
Ferry Terminals in the State of
Washington.
3. (a) The species authorized for
incidental harassment takings, Level B
harassment only, are: Pacific harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina richardsi), California sea
lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller
sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), transient
and Southern Resident killer whales
(Orcinus orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus), and humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae).
(b) The authorization for taking by
harassment is limited to the following
acoustic sources and from the following
activities:
(i) Vibratory pile removal; and
(ii) Vibratory pile driving.
(c) The taking of any marine mammal
in a manner prohibited under this
Authorization must be reported within
24 hours of the taking to the Northwest
Regional Administrator (206–526–6150),
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and the Chief of the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301)
427–8401, or his designee (301–427–
8418).
4. The holder of this Authorization
must notify the Chief of the Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, at least 48 hours
prior to the start of activities identified
in 3(b) (unless constrained by the date
of issuance of this Authorization in
which case notification shall be made as
soon as possible).
5. Prohibitions.
(a) The taking, by incidental
harassment only, is limited to the
species listed under condition 3(a)
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
above and by the numbers listed in
Table 3. The taking by Level A
harassment, injury or death of these
species or the taking by harassment,
injury or death of any other species of
marine mammal is prohibited and may
result in the modification, suspension,
or revocation of this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal
is prohibited whenever the required
protected species observers (PSOs),
required by condition 7(a), are not
present in conformance with condition
7(a) of this Authorization.
6. Mitigation.
(a) Ramp Up (Soft Start):
Vibratory hammer for pile removal
and pile driving shall be initiated at
reduced power for 15 seconds with a 1
minute interval, and be repeated with
this procedure for an additional two
times.
(b) Marine Mammal Monitoring:
Monitoring for marine mammal
presence shall take place 20 minutes
before, during and 30 minutes after pile
driving.
(c) Power Down and Shutdown
Measures
If the number of any allotted marine
mammal takes reaches the limit under
the IHA (if issued), WSDOT shall
implement shutdown and power down
measures if such species/stock of animal
approaches the Level B harassment
zone.
7. Monitoring.
(a) Protected Species Observers:
WSDOT shall employ qualified
protected species observers (PSOs) to
monitor the 120 dBrms re 1 mPa zone of
influence (ZOI) for marine mammals.
Qualifications for marine mammal
observers include:
(i) Visual acuity in both eyes
(correction is permissible) sufficient for
discernment of moving targets at the
water’s surface with ability to estimate
target size and distance. Use of
binoculars will be required to correctly
identify the target.
(ii) Advanced education in biological
science, wildlife management,
mammalogy or related fields (bachelors
degree or higher is preferred), but not
required.
(iii) Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals
(cetaceans and pinnipeds).
(iv) Sufficient training, orientation or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations.
(v) 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.
(vi) Experience and ability to conduct
field observations and collect data
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
according to assigned protocols (this
may include academic experience).
(vii) Writing skills sufficient to
prepare a report of observations that
would include such information as the
number and type of marine mammals
observed; the behavior of marine
mammals in the project area during
construction, dates and times when
observations were conducted; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; and dates
and times when marine mammals were
present at or within the defined ZOI.
(b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall
be present on site at all times during
pile removal and driving.
(i) A range finder or hand-held global
positioning system device will be used
to ensure that the 120 dBrms re 1 mPa
Level B behavioral harassment ZOI is
monitored.
(ii) A 20-minute pre-construction
marine mammal monitoring will be
required before the first pile driving or
pile removal of the day. A 30-minute
post-construction marine mammal
monitoring will be required after the last
pile driving or pile removal of the day.
If the constructors take a break between
subsequent pile driving or pile removal
for more than 30 minutes, then
additional pre-construction marine
mammal monitoring will be required
before the next start-up of pile driving
or pile removal.
(iii) If marine mammals are observed,
the following information will be
documented:
(A) Species of observed marine
mammals;
(B) Number of observed marine
mammal individuals;
(C) Behavioral of observed marine
mammals;
(D) Location within the ZOI; and
(E) Animals’ reaction (if any) to piledriving activities
(iv) During vibratory pile removal and
driving, one land-based biologist would
monitor the area from the terminal work
site, and one monitor will move among
a number of access points along the
southern Sinclair Inlet shore. Binoculars
shall be used during marine mammal
monitoring.
(v) WSDOT shall contact the Orca
Network and/or Center for Whale
Research to find out the location of the
nearest marine mammal sightings.
(vi) WSDOT shall also utilize marine
mammal occurrence information
collected by the Orca Network using
hydrophone systems to maximize
marine mammal detection in the project
vicinity.
8. Reporting:
(a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with
a draft monitoring report within 90 days
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11855
of the conclusion of the construction
work. This report shall detail the
monitoring protocol, summarize the
data recorded during monitoring, and
estimate the number of marine
mammals that may have been harassed.
(b) If comments are received from the
NMFS Northwest Regional
Administrator or NMFS Office of
Protected Resources on the draft report,
a final report shall be submitted to
NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no
comments are received from NMFS, the
draft report will be considered to be the
final report.
9. This Authorization may be
modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the
conditions prescribed herein or if the
authorized taking is having more than a
negligible impact on the species or stock
of affected marine mammals, or if there
is an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of such species or stocks for
subsistence uses.
10. A copy of this Authorization and
the Incidental Take Statement must be
in the possession of each contractor who
performs the construction work at the
Bremerton Ferry Terminals.
11. WSDOT is required to comply
with the Terms and Conditions of the
Incidental Take Statement
corresponding to NMFS’ Biological
Opinion. National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)
NMFS is currently preparing an
Environmental Assessment, pursuant to
NEPA, to determine whether or not the
issuance of the proposed IHA may have
a significant effect on the human
environment. This analysis will be
completed prior to the issuance or
denial of the IHA.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The humpback whale, Southern
Resident stock of killer whale, and the
eastern population of Steller sea lions,
are the only marine mammal species
currently listed under the ESA that
could occur in the vicinity of WSDOT’s
proposed construction projects. NMFS’
Permits and Conservation Division has
initiated consultation with NMFS’
Protected Resources Division under
section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of
an IHA to WSDOT under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this
activity. Consultation will be concluded
prior to a determination on the issuance
of an IHA.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to
authorize the take of marine mammals
incidental to WSDOT’s Bremerton Ferry
Terminal construction projects,
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
11856
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Notices
provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: February 14, 2013.
Helen Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–03808 Filed 2–19–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities Under OMB Review
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, this Notice
announces that the Information
Collection Request (‘‘ICR’’) abstracted
below has been forwarded to the Office
of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for
review and comment. The ICR describes
the nature of the information collection
and its expected costs and burden.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before March 22, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding
the burden estimated or any other
aspect of the information collection
described in this Notice, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
the addresses below. Please refer to
OMB Control No. 3038–NEW, Form TO
in any correspondence. Submit
comments to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, by the
following method:
Mail: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Attention:
Desk Officer for CFTC, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503.
And
SUMMARY:
1 See
17 CFR 145.9.
Options, 77 FR 25320, April 27,
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2 Commodity
2012.
3 See 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A)(i). Note that the swap
definition excludes options on futures (which must
be traded on a designated contract market (‘‘DCM’’)
pursuant to part 33 of the Commission’s
regulations) (see Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’)
section 1a(47)(B)(i), 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(i)), but it
includes options on physical commodities (whether
or not traded on a DCM) (see CEA section
1a(47)(A)(i), 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A)(i)). Other options
excluded from the statutory definition of swap are
options on any security, certificate of deposit, or
group or index of securities, including any interest
therein or based on the value thereof, that are
subject to the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (see CEA section
1a(47)(B)(iii), 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(iii)) and foreign
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Feb 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (‘‘CFTC’’), by any of the
following methods:
• Agency Web Site: https://
comments.cftc.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
through the Web site.
• Mail: Melissa Jurgens, Secretary of
the Commission, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same
address as for ‘‘Mail,’’ above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: Please submit your
comments to both OMB and CFTC (for
CFTC, use only one of the methods
listed above), and identify all comments
as pertaining to OMB Control No. 3038–
NEW, Form TO.
All comments must be submitted in
English, or if not, accompanied by an
English translation. Comments will be
posted as received, without change, to
www.cftc.gov. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. If you wish the
Commission to consider information
that you believe is exempt from
disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act, a petition for
confidential treatment of the exempt
information may be submitted according
to the procedures established in § 145.9
of the Commission’s regulations.1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald Heitman, Division of Market
Oversight, dheitman@cftc.gov, (202)
418–5041, FAX: (202) 418–5507; or
David Aron, Office of the General
Counsel, daron@cftc.gov, (202) 418–
6621, FAX: (202) 418–5702; Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st
Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, and
refer to OMB Control No. 3038–NEW,
Form TO.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Form TO, Annual Notice Filing
for Counterparties to Unreported Trade
Options (OMB Control No. 3038–NEW,
Form TO). This is a request for approval
of a new collection of information.
Abstract: In accordance with section
721 of the Dodd-Frank Act, on April 27,
2012, the Commission published a final
and interim final rule governing
commodity options (‘‘Commodity
Options Rules’’).2 The final rule portion
of that rulemaking adopted the
Commission’s proposal to generally
permit market participants to trade
commodity options, which are
statutorily defined as swaps,3 subject to
the same rules applicable to every other
swap. The interim final rule portion of
the rulemaking includes a trade option
exemption for physically delivered
commodity options purchased by
commercial users of the commodities
underlying the options (‘‘Trade Option
Interim Final Rule’’ or ‘‘Trade Option
IFR’’), subject to certain conditions.
Those conditions, which include both
recordkeeping and reporting obligations,
are primarily intended to preserve a
level of market visibility for the
Commission while reducing the
regulatory compliance burden for
market participants. The requirement to
file Form TO constitutes the collection
of information within the meaning of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The Form TO filing
requirement was promulgated last year
in the Commodity Options Rules, and
the associated collection of information
is now being submitted to OMB. The
Federal Register notice for the 60-day
comment period on this request for
approval of a new collection of
information was published on December
17, 2012.4 That notice included a
description of the content of Form TO
and when a person would be required
to file Form TO.
currency options entered into on a national
securities exchange registered pursuant to section
6(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (see
CEA section 1a(47)(B)(iv), 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(iv)).
Note also that the Commission’s regulations
define a commodity option transaction or
commodity option as ‘‘any transaction or agreement
in interstate commerce which is or is held out to
be of the character of, or is commonly known to the
trade as, an ‘option,’ ‘privilege,’ ‘indemnity,’ ‘bid,’
‘offer,’ ‘call,’ ‘put,’ ‘advance guaranty’ or ‘decline
guaranty’.’’ 17 CFR 1.3(hh). For purposes of this
release, the Commission uses the term ‘‘commodity
options’’ to apply solely to commodity options not
excluded from the swap definition set forth in CEA
section 1a(47)(A), 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A). Last year, the
Commission published, jointly with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) final rules to
further define, among other things, the term
‘‘swap.’’ See Further Definition of ‘‘Swap,’’
‘‘Security-Based Swap,’’ and ‘‘Security-Based Swap
Agreement’’; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap
Agreement; Final Rule, 77 FR 48207, August 13,
2012 (‘‘Product Definitions Final Rules’’). The
Product Definitions Final Rules address the
determination of whether a commodity option or a
transaction with optionality is subject to the swap
definition in the first instance. If a commodity
option or a transaction with optionality is excluded
from the scope of the swap definition (for example,
if it is an excluded forward contract—see id. at
48227), the commodity options rules, including the
Form TO reporting requirement, are not applicable.
4 See Agency Information Collection Activities:
Proposed Collection, Comment Request: Form TO,
Annual Notice Filing for Counterparties to
Unreported Trade Options, 77 FR 74647.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11844-11856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03808]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XC360
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Bremerton Ferry Terminal Wingwall Replacement Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments and information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferries Division (WSF) for an
authorization to take small numbers of six species of marine mammals,
by Level B harassment, incidental to proposed construction activities
for the replacement of wingwalls at the Bremerton ferry terminal in
Washington State. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA),
NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an authorization
to WSDOT to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of marine
mammals for a period of 1 year.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March
22, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael
Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email
comments is itp.guan@noaa.gov. NMFS is not responsible for email
comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments
sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-
megabyte file size.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information
(for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
A copy of the application may be obtained by writing to the address
specified above or visiting the Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this notice may also be
viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the
aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for a one-year authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment,
provided that there is no potential for serious injury or mortality to
result from the activity. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day
time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day
public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the
incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of
the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
Summary of Request
On August 14, 2012, WSDOT submitted a request to NOAA requesting an
IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of six marine mammal
species incidental to construction associated with the replacement of
wingwalls at the Bremerton ferry terminal in Washington State. On
December 4, 2012, WSDOT submitted a revised IHA application. The action
discussed in this document is based on WSDOT's December 4, 2012, IHA
application. NMFS is proposing to authorize the Level B harassment of
the following marine mammal species: harbor seal, California sea lion,
Steller sea lion, killer whale, gray whale, and humpback whale.
[[Page 11845]]
Description of the Specified Activity
Wingwalls are structures that protect the vehicle transfer span
from direct vessel impact and help guide and hold the vessel in
position when the ferry is docked. There are two types of wingwalls
common at WSF ferry terminals: timber and steel. Timber wingwalls are
older structures, typically constructed of creosote treated pilings
lashed together by galvanized steel rope, and reinforced as needed with
13'' plastic/steel core piles. The current timber wingwalls at the
Bremerton terminal are near the end of their design life, and must be
replaced with steel wingwalls to ensure safe and reliable functioning
of the terminal.
Steel wingwalls are designed similarly to timber wingwalls in that
they contain two rows of plumb piling and one row of batter piling or a
third row of plumb piling. A rubber fender between the first and second
rows of plumb piling absorbs much of the energy and returns the front
row to its original vertical position after an impact. The second row
of plumb piling is driven deeper into the sediment and braced with
batter piling to minimize movement of the structure. Both pile rows are
welded together with horizontal I-beams to which rubbing timbers are
attached faced with ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) plastic, which
acts as a rub surface for the ferry. They are designed for a 25-year
life span.
The proposed project at the Bremerton Ferry Terminal is to replace
the existing Slip 2 timber wingwalls with new standard steel design
wingwalls.
Overview of the Planned Activities
The following construction activities are anticipated for the
proposed wingwall replacement project:
Remove two timber wingwalls (112 13-inch timber piles and
100 tons of creosote-treated timber) with a vibratory hammer, direct
pull or clamshell removal. Vibratory pile-drive eight 24- and two 30-
inch hollow steel piles for each wingwall (20 piles total). Attach rub
timbers to new wingwall faces.
A total of 100 tons of creosote-treated timbers will be
removed from the marine environment. The total mudline footprint of the
existing wingwalls is 206 square feet (ft\2\). The total mudline
footprint of the new wingwalls will be 95 ft\2\, a reduction of 111
ft\2\. The new wingwalls will have 20 piles, compared to the existing
wingwalls, which have approximately 112 tightly clustered piles with no
space between them. The footprint of the new steel wingwalls will be
more open, allowing fish movement between the piles.
Construction Activity Elements
1. Vibratory Hammer Removal
Vibratory hammer extraction is a common method for removing timber
piling. A vibratory hammer is a large mechanical device mostly
constructed of steel (weighing 5 to 16 tons) that is suspended from a
crane by a cable. It is attached to a derrick and positioned on the top
of a pile. The pile is then unseated from the sediments by engaging the
hammer, creating a vibration that loosens the sediments binding the
pile, and then slowly lifting up on the hammer with the aid of the
crane.
Once unseated, the crane would continue to raise the hammer and
pull the pile from the sediment. When the pile is released from the
sediment, the vibratory hammer is disengaged and the pile is pulled
from the water and placed on a barge for transfer upland. Vibratory
removal would take approximately 10 to 15 minutes per pile, depending
on sediment conditions.
2. Direct Pull and Clamshell Removal
Older timber pilings are particularly prone to breaking at the
mudline because of damage from marine borers and vessel impacts and
must be removed because they can interfere with the installation of new
pilings. In some cases, removal with a vibratory hammer is not possible
if the pile is too fragile to withstand the hammer force. Broken or
damaged piles may be removed by wrapping the piles with a cable and
pulling them directly from the sediment with a crane. If the piles
break below the waterline, the pile stubs would be removed with a
clamshell bucket, a hinged steel apparatus that operates like a set of
steel jaws. The bucket would be lowered from a crane and the jaws would
grasp the pile stub as the crane pulled up. The broken piling and stubs
would be loaded onto the barge for off-site disposal. Clamshell removal
would be used only if necessary. Direct pull and clamshell removal are
not expected to produce noise that could impact marine mammals.
3 Vibratory Hammer Installation
Vibratory hammers are commonly used in steel pile installation
where sediments allow and involve the same vibratory hammer used in
pile extraction. The pile is placed into position using a choker and
crane, and then vibrated between 1,200 and 2,400 vibrations per minute.
The vibrations liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile allowing the
pile to penetrate to the required seating depth. The type of vibratory
hammer that will be used for the project will likely be an APE 400 King
Kong (or equivalent) with a drive force of 361 tons.
Sound Levels From Proposed Construction Activity
As mentioned earlier, the proposed project includes vibratory
removal of 13-inch timber piles, and vibratory driving of 24-inch and
30-inch hollow steel piling.
No source level data is available for 13-inch timber piles. Based
on in-water measurements at the WSF Port Townsend Ferry Terminal
(Laughlin 2011), removal of 12-inch timber piles generated 149 to 152
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa with an overall average root-mean-square
(RMS) value of 150 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa measured at 16 meters.
A worst-case noise level for vibratory removal of 13-inch timber piles
will be 152 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa at 16 m.
Based on in-water measurements at the WSF Friday Harbor Ferry
Terminal, vibratory pile driving of a 24-inch steel pile generated 162
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa measured at 10 meters (Laughlin 2010a).
Based on in-water measurements during a vibratory test pile at the
WSF Port Townsend Ferry Terminal, vibratory pile driving of a 30-inch
steel pile generated 170 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa (overall
average), with the highest measured at 174 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa
measured at 10 meters (Laughlin 2010b). A worst-case noise level for
vibratory driving of 30-inch steel piles will be 174 dBrms
re 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m.
Using practical spreading model to calculate sound propagation
loss, Table 1 provides the estimated distances where the received
underwater sound levels drop to 120 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa, which
is the threshold that is currently used for determining Level B
behavioral harassment (see below) from non-impulse noise sources based
on measurements of different pile sizes.
[[Page 11846]]
Table 1--Estimated Distances Where Vibratory Pile Driving Received Sound
Levels Drop to 120 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa Based on Measurements of Different
Pile Sizes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to 120
Pile size (inch) Measured source levels dBrms re 1
[mu]Pa (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13............................. 152 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa 2.2
@ 16 m.
24............................. 162 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa 6.3
@ 10 m.
30............................. 174 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa 39.8
@ 10 m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, land mass is intersected before the extent of vibratory
pile driving is reached, at a maximum of 4.7 km (2.9 miles) at the
Bremerton Terminal proposed construction area.
For airborne noise, currently NMFS uses an in-air noise disturbance
threshold of 90 dBrms re 20 [mu]Pa (unweighted) for harbor
seals, and 100 dBrms re 20 [mu]Pa (unweighted) for all other
pinnipeds. Using the above aforementioned measurement of 97.8
dBrms re 20 [mu]Pa @ 50 ft, and attenuating at 6 dBA per
doubling distance, in-air noise from vibratory pile removal and driving
will attenuate to the 90 dBrms re 20 [mu]Pa within
approximately 37 m, and the 100 dBrms re 20 [mu]Pa within
approximately 12 m.
Dates, Duration, and Region of Activity
In-water construction is planned to take place between September 1,
2013, and February 15, 2014.
The number of days it will take to remove and install the pilings
largely depends on the condition of the piles being removed and the
difficulty in penetrating the substrate during pile installation.
Duration estimates of each of the pile driving elements follow:
The daily construction window for pile removal or driving
would begin no sooner than 30 minutes after sunrise to allow for
initial marine mammal monitoring, and would end at sunset (or soon
after), when visibility decreases to the point that effective marine
mammal monitoring is not possible.
Vibratory pile removal of the existing timber piles would
take approximately 10 to 15 minutes per pile. Vibratory removal would
take less time than driving, because piles are vibrated to loosen them
from the soil, then pulled out with the vibratory hammer turned off.
Assuming the worst case of 15 minutes per pile (with no direct pull or
clamshell removal), removal of 112 piles would take 28 hours over four
days of pile removal (Table 2).
Vibratory pile driving of the steel piles would take
approximately 20 minutes per pile, with three to five piles installed
per day. Assuming 20 minutes per pile, and three piles per day, driving
of 20 piles would take 6 hours 45 minutes over seven days.
The total worst-case time for pile removal is four days, and seven
days for pile installation. The actual number of pile-removal/driving
days is expected to be less (Table 2).
Table 2--Worst Case Pile Removal and Driving for the Proposed Bremerton Wingwalls Dolphin Replacement Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum number
Removal/Installed of piles Time (hrs.) Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile removal.......................................... 112 28 4
Vibratory pile installation..................................... 20 6.75 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to
occur in the proposed construction area include Pacific harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina richardsi), California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), killer whale
(Orcinus orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae).
General information on the marine mammal species found in
California waters can be found in Caretta et al. (2011), which is
available at the following URL: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2011.pdf. Refer to that document for information on these species.
Specific information concerning these species in the vicinity of the
proposed action area is provided below.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are members of the true seal family (Phocidae). For
management purposes, differences in mean pupping date (Temte 1986),
movement patterns (Jeffries 1985; Brown 1988), pollutant loads
(Calambokidis et al. 1985), and fishery interactions have led to the
recognition of three separate harbor seal stocks along the west coast
of the continental U.S. (Boveng 1988). The three distinct stocks are:
(1) Inland waters of Washington State (including Hood Canal, Puget
Sound, Georgia Basin and the Strait of Juan de Fuca out to Cape
Flattery), (2) outer coast of Oregon and Washington, and (3) California
(Carretta et al. 2011).
Pupping seasons vary by geographic region. For the southern Puget
Sound region, pups are born from late June through September. After
October 1 all pups in the inland waters of Washington are weaned.
Harbor seals, like all pinnipeds, communicate both on land and
underwater. Harbor seals have the broadest auditory bandwidth of the
pinnipeds, estimated by Southall et al. (2007) as between 75 hertz (Hz)
and 75 kilohertz (kHz) for ``functional'' in-water hearing and between
75 Hz and 30 kHz for ``functional'' in-air hearing. At lower
frequencies (below 1 kHz) sounds must be louder to be heard (Kastak and
Schusterman 1998). Studies indicated that pinnipeds are sensitive to a
broader range of sound frequencies in-water than in-air (Southall et
al. 2007). Hearing capabilities for harbor seals in-water are 25 to 30
dB better than in-air (Kastak and Schusterman 1998).
Of the two pinniped species that commonly occur within the region
of activity, harbor seals are the most
[[Page 11847]]
numerous and the only one that breeds in the inland marine waters of
Washington (Calambokidis and Baird 1994). In 1999, Jeffries et al.
(2003) recorded a mean count of 9,550 harbor seals in Washington's
inland marine waters, and estimated the total population to be
approximately 14,612 animals (including the Strait of Juan de Fuca).
The population across Washington increased at an average annual rate of
10 percent between 1991 and 1996 (Jeffries et al. 1997) and is thought
to be stable (Jeffries et al. 2003).
The nearest documented harbor seal haulout site to the Bremerton
ferry terminal is 8.5 km north and west (shoreline distance). The
number of harbor seals using the haulout is less than 100.
From July 2006 to January 2007, a consultant completed 10 at-sea
surveys in preparation for replacement of the WSDOT Manette Bridge,
located in Bremerton. Marine mammals were recorded during these
surveys: 29 harbor seals were observed in an area approximately the
same as the Bremerton wingwalls project ZOI. Seals observed outside of
the Bremerton ZOI were subtracted from the total observed (36) during
this project. According to the dates on harbor seal observation tags,
the most seals seen in any one day is two (given that two tags cover
others, the dates may be the same underneath).
From August 2010 to January 2012, marine mammal monitoring was
implemented during construction of the Manette Bridge. Counts were
conducted only during pile removal/driving days, not every day of the
month. Counts were recorded in blocks of working days (not counts per
day). The highest number of harbor seals observed was 93 over three
days (10/18-20, 2011). The highest number observed during one day was
59 (10/18/2011). It was assumed that these included multiple
observations of the same animal by different observers (David Evans &
Assoc. Inc. 2011a; 2011b).
Harbor seals are not listed as endangered or threatened under the
ESA or as depleted under the MMPA. They are not considered a strategic
stock under the MMPA,
California Sea Lion
NMFS recognizes three stocks of California sea lion based on their
geographic distribution: (1) The U.S. stock begins at the U.S./Mexico
border and extends northward into Canada; (2) the Western Baja
California stock extends from the U.S./Mexico border to the southern
tip of the Baja California Peninsula; and (3) the Gulf of California
stock, which includes the Gulf of California from the southern tip of
the Baja California peninsula and across to the mainland and extends to
southern Mexico (Lowry et al. 1992). California sea lions in the
Washington State belong to the U.S. stock.
The U.S. stock was estimated at 296,750 in the 2011 Stock
Assessment Report (SAR) and may be at carrying capacity (Carretta et
al. 2011). The number of California sea lions in the San Juan Islands
and the adjacent Strait of Juan de Fuca totaled fewer than 3,000 in the
mid-1980s (Bigg 1985; Gearin et al. 1986). In 1994, it was reported
that the number of sea lions had stabilized or decreased in some areas
(Gearin et al. 1988; Calambokidis and Baird 1994). More recently, 3,000
to 5,000 animals are estimated to move into northwest waters (both
Washington and British Columbia) during the fall (September) and remain
until the late spring (May) when most return to breeding rookeries in
California and Mexico (Jeffries et al. 2000; WSDOT 2012). Peak counts
of over 1,000 animals have been made in Puget Sound (Jeffries et al.
2000).
The closest documented California sea lion haulout site to the
Bremerton Ferry Terminal is the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard security
barrier, located approximately 435 m SW of the ferry terminal. The next
closest documented California sea lion haulout sites to the Bremerton
Ferry Terminal are navigation buoys and net pens in Rich Passage,
approximately nine and ten km east of the terminal, respectively. The
number of California sea lions using each haulout is less than 10.
From August 2010 to February 2011, marine mammal monitoring was
implemented during construction of the Manette Bridge. Counts were
conducted only during pile removal/driving days, not every day of the
month. Counts were recorded in blocks of working days (not counts per
day). The highest number of California sea lions observed was 21
(September) over six days, an average of 3.5/day (David Evans & Assoc.
Inc. 2011a; 2011b).
The Bremerton Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) is located to the
west of the Bremerton Ferry Terminal. Since November 2010, PSNS
personnel have been conducting monthly counts of the number of sea
lions that use the security barrier floats as a haulout. As of June 13,
2012, the highest count has been 144 observed during one day in
November 2011. All are believed to be California sea lions.
California sea lions do not avoid areas with heavy or frequent
human activity, but rather may approach certain areas to investigate.
This species typically does not flush from a buoy or haulout if
approached.
California sea lions are not listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA or as depleted under the MMPA. They are not considered a
strategic stock under the MMPA,
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions comprise two recognized management stocks
(eastern and western), separated at 144[deg] W longitude (Loughlin
1997). Only the eastern stock is considered here because the western
stock occurs outside of the geographic area of the proposed activity.
Breeding rookeries for the eastern stock are located along the
California, Oregon, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska coasts, but
not along the Washington coast or in inland Washington waters (Angliss
and Outlaw 2007). Steller sea lions primarily use haulout sites on the
outer coast of Washington and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca along
Vancouver Island in British Columbia. Only sub-adults or non-breeding
adults may be found in the inland waters of Washington (Pitcher et al.
2007).
The eastern stock of Steller sea lions is estimated to be between
58,334 and 72,223 individuals based on 2006 through 2009 pup counts
(Allens and Angliss 2011). Washington's estimate including the outer
coast is 651 individuals (non-pups only) (Pitcher et al. 2007).
However, recent estimates are that 1,000 to 2,000 individuals enter the
Strait of Juan de Fuca during the fall and winter months (WSDOT 2012).
Steller sea lions in Washington State decline during the summer
months, which correspond to the breeding season at Oregon and British
Columbia rookeries (approximately late May to early June) and peak
during the fall and winter months (Jeffries et al. 2000). A few Steller
sea lions can be observed year-round in Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
although most of the breeding age animals return to rookeries in the
spring and summer.
For Washington inland waters, Steller sea lion abundances vary
seasonally with a minimum estimate of 1,000 to 2,000 individuals
present or passing through the Strait of Juan de Fuca in fall and
winter months. However, the number of haulout sites has increased in
recent years. The nearest documented Steller sea lion haulout site to
the Bremerton ferry terminal are the Orchard Rocks in Rich Passage,
approximately nine and ten km east of the terminal, respectively
(Kitsap Transit 2012).
From July 2006 to January 2007, a consultant completed 10 at-sea
surveys in preparation for replacement of the
[[Page 11848]]
WSDOT Manette Bridge that is located in Bremerton. Marine mammals were
recorded during these surveys: no Stellar sea lions were observed (USDA
2007).
From August 2010 to February 2011, marine mammal monitoring was
implemented during construction of the Manette Bridge. No Stellar sea
lions were observed (David Evans & Assoc. Inc. 2011).
Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-wide under the
ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). After division into two stocks,
the western stock was listed as endangered under the ESA on May 4, 1997
and the eastern stock remained classified as threatened (62 FR 24345).
On August 27, 1993, NMFS published a final rule designating critical
habitat for the Steller sea lion (NMFS 1993). No critical habitat has
been designated in Washington (NMFS 1993). Critical habitat is
associated with breeding and haulout areas in Alaska, California, and
Oregon (NMFS 1993).
On June 29, 2010, NMFS initiated a review of the eastern stock of
Steller sea lion status to reassess the listing classification under
the ESA (75 FR 37385). Based on the comprehensive review, NMFS proposed
to delist the eastern stock of Steller sea lion on April 18, 2012 (77
FR 23209).
Steller sea lions are listed as depleted under the MMPA. Both
stocks are thus classified as strategic.
Killer Whale
Two sympatric ecotypes of killer whales are found within the
proposed activity area: transient and resident. These types vary in
diet, distribution, acoustic calls, behavior, morphology, and
coloration (Baird 2000; Ford et al. 2000). The ranges of transient and
resident killer whales overlap; however, little interaction and high
reproductive isolation occurs among the two ecotypes (Barrett-Lennard
2000; Barrett-Lennard and Ellis 2001; Hoelzel et al. 2002. Resident
killer whales are primarily piscivorous, whereas transients primarily
feed on marine mammals, especially harbor seals (Baird and Dill 1996).
Resident killer whales also tend to occur in larger (10 to 60
individuals), stable family groups known as pods, whereas transients
occur in smaller (less than 10 individuals), less structured pods.
One stock of transient killer whale, the West Coast Transient
stock, occurs in Washington State. West Coast transients primarily
forage on harbor seals (Ford and Ellis 1999), but other species such as
porpoises and sea lions are also taken (NMFS 2008a). Two stocks of
resident killer whales occur in Washington State: the Southern Resident
and Northern Resident stocks. Southern Residents occur within the
activity area, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and in
coastal waters off Washington and Vancouver Island, British Columbia
(Ford et al. 2000). Northern Residents occur primarily in inland and
coastal British Columbia and Southeast Alaska waters and rarely venture
into Washington State waters. Little interaction (Ford et al. 2000) or
gene flow (Barrett-Lennard 2000; Barrett-Lennard and Ellis 2001;
Hoelzel et al. 2004) is known to occur between the two resident stocks.
The West Coast Transient stock, which includes individuals from
California to southeastern Alaska, was estimated to have a minimum
number of 354 (NMFS 2010b). Trends in abundance for the West Coast
Transients were unavailable in the most recent stock assessment report
(Angliss and Outlaw 2007).
The Southern Resident stock was first recorded in a 1974 census, at
which time the population comprised 71 whales. This population peaked
at 97 animals in 1996, declined to 79 by 2001 (Center for Whale
Research 2011), and then increased to 89 animals by 2006 (Carretta et
al. 2007a). As of October 2012, the population collectively numbers 85
individuals: J pod has 25 members, K pod has 20 members, and L pod has
40 members (Whale Museum 2012b).
Both West Coast Transient and the Southern Resident stocks are
found within Washington inland waters. Individuals of both forms have
long-ranging movements and thus regularly leave the inland waters
(Calambokidis and Baird 1994).
The West Coast Transient stock occurs in California, Oregon,
Washington, British Columbia, and southeastern Alaskan waters. Within
the inland waters, they may frequent areas near seal rookeries when
pups are weaned (Baird and Dill 1995).
There are only two reports of Transient killer whale in the
Bremerton terminal area. From May 18-19 of 2004, a group of up to 12
individuals entered Sinclair and Dyes Inlet. From May 26-27 of 2010, a
group of up to five individuals again entered the same area (Orca
Network 2012b).
Southern Residents are documented in coastal waters ranging from
central California to the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia
(NMFS 2008a). They occur in all inland marine waters within the
activity area. While in the activity area, resident killer whales
generally spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter
water less than 15 feet deep (Baird 2000). Distribution is strongly
associated with areas of greatest salmon abundance, with heaviest
foraging activity occurring over deep open water and in areas
characterized by high-relief underwater topography, such as subsurface
canyons, seamounts, ridges, and steep slopes (Wiles 2004).
West Coast Transients are documented intermittently year-round in
Washington inland waters. Records from 1976 through 2006 document
Southern Residents in the inland waters of Washington during the months
of March through June and October through December, with the primary
area of occurrence in inland waters north of Admiralty Inlet, located
in north Puget Sound (The Whale Museum 2008a).
Beginning in May or June and through the summer months, all three
pods (J, K, and L) of Southern Residents are most often located in the
protected inshore waters of Haro Strait (west of San Juan Island), in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Georgia Strait near the Fraser River.
Historically, the J pod also occurred intermittently during this time
in Puget Sound; however, records from The Whale Museum (2008a) from
1997 through 2007 show that J pod did not enter Puget Sound south of
the Strait of Juan de Fuca from approximately June through August.
In fall, all three pods occur in areas where migrating salmon are
concentrated such as the mouth of the Fraser River. They may also enter
areas in Puget Sound where migrating chum and Chinook salmon are
concentrated (Osborne 1999). In the winter months, the K and L pods
spend progressively less time in inland marine waters and depart for
coastal waters in January or February. The J pod is most likely to
appear year-round near the San Juan Islands, and in the fall/winter, in
the lower Puget Sound and in Georgia Strait at the mouth of the Fraser
River.
Under contract with the NMFS, the Friday Harbor Whale Museum keeps
a database of verified marine mammal sightings by location quadrants.
Whale sightings do not indicate sightings of individual animals.
Instead, sightings can be any number of animals. Between 1990 and 2008,
in the September to February window proposed for the Bremerton project,
an average of 2.9 SR killer whale sightings/month were annually
reported for Quad 411 (which encompasses the Bremerton action area)
(WSDOT 2012).
Between September 2009 and February 2012, there was one unconfirmed
report of a single SR killer
[[Page 11849]]
whale in the Bremerton action area (January 2009) during the proposed
in-water work window for this project (Orca Network 2012b). Based on
this information, the possibility of encountering killer whales during
the Bremerton project is low to medium, depending on the actual work
month.
In one highly unusual 1997 event, 19 L pod individuals entered
Sinclair and Dyes Inlet, and remained in Dyes Inlet for 30 days, from
October 21 to November 19. As this event unfolded, whale specialists
became increasingly concerned that the whale's exit was blocked by
shallow water and the need to pass under several bridges, even though
they had passed under the same bridges to enter the inlet. After
several individuals displayed signs of weight loss, hazing was
considered to drive them out of the inlet. However, on day 30 the group
exited on their own (Kitsap Sun 2012).
Killer whales are protected under the MMPA of 1972. The West Coast
Transient stock is not designated as depleted under the MMPA or listed
as ``threatened or ``endangered'' under the ESA. The Southern Resident
stock is listed as an endangered distinct population segment (DPS)
under the ESA. On November 29, 2006, NMFS published a final rule
designating critical habitat for the Southern Resident killer whale DPS
(71 FR 69054). Both Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands are designated
as core areas of critical habitat under the ESA, but areas less than 20
feet deep relative to extreme high water are not designated as critical
habitat (71 FR 69054). A final recovery plan for southern residents was
published in January of 2008 (NMFS 2008a).
Gray Whale
Gray whales are recorded in Washington waters during feeding
migrations between late spring and autumn with occasional sightings
during winter months (Calambokidis et al. 1994, 2002; Orca Network
2011).
Early in the 20th century, it is believed that commercial hunting
for gray whales reduced population numbers to below 2,000 individuals
(Calambokidis and Baird 1994). After listing of the species under the
ESA in 1970, the number of gray whales increased dramatically resulting
in their delisting in 1994. Population surveys since the delisting
estimate that the population fluctuates at or just below the carrying
capacity of the species (~26,000 individuals) (Rugh et al. 1999;
Calambokidis et al. 1994; Angliss and Outlaw 2007).
Gray whales migrate within 5 to 43 km of the coast of Washington
during their annual north/south migrations (Green et al. 1995). Gray
whales migrate south to Baja California where they calve in November
and December, and then migrate north to Alaska from March through May
(Rice et al. 1984; Rugh et al. 2001) to summer and feed. A very few
gray whales are observed in Washington inland waters between the months
of September and January, with peak numbers of individuals from March
through May. Peak months of gray whale observations in the area of
activity occur outside the proposed work window of September through
February. The average tenure within Washington inland waters is 47 days
and the longest stay was 112 days.
Although typically seen during their annual migrations on the outer
coast, a regular group of gray whales annually comes into the inland
waters at Saratoga Passage and Port Susan from March through May to
feed on ghost shrimp (Weitkamp et al. 1992). During this time frame
they are also seen in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the San Juan Islands,
and areas of Puget Sound, although the observations in Puget Sound are
highly variable between years (Calambokidis et al. 1994).
Between December 2002 and May 2012, there were three reports of
gray whale in the Bremerton area during the proposed in-water work
window months for this project: January 8 and 10, 2008 (likely the same
individual); November 28-29, 2008; and December 2-6, 2009 (Orca Network
2012b). There were also two reports of gray whale stranding, one on May
3, 2005 at the US Navy Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to the west of the
Bremerton terminal (Cascadia 2005), and one on a beach in the Bremerton
area on July 27, 2011. Typically 4-6 gray whales strand every year in
Washington State (Cascadia 2011).
The Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales was removed from
listing under the ESA in 1994 after a 5-year review by NOAA Fisheries
(Angliss and Outlaw 2007). In 2001 NOAA Fisheries received a petition
to relist the stock under the ESA, but it was determined that there was
not sufficient information to warrant the petition (Angliss and Outlaw
2007).
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are wide-ranging baleen whales that can be found
virtually worldwide. They summer in temperate and polar waters for
feeding, and winter in tropical waters for mating and calving.
Humpbacks are vulnerable to whaling due to their tendency to feed in
near shore areas. Recent studies have indicated that there are three
distinct stocks of humpback whale in the North Pacific: California-
Oregon-Washington (formerly Eastern North Pacific), Central North
Pacific and Western North Pacific (NMFS 2011e).
The California-Oregon-Washington (CA-OR-WA) stock calve and mate in
coastal Central America and Mexico and migrate up the coast from
California to southern British Columbia in the summer and fall to feed
(NMFS 1991; Marine Mammal Commission 2003; Carretta et al. 2011).
Although infrequent, interchange between the other two stocks and the
Eastern North Pacific stock occurs in breeding areas (Carretta et al.
2011). Few Eastern North Pacific stock humpback whales are seen in
Puget Sound, but more frequent sightings occur in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca and near the San Juan Islands. Most sightings are in spring and
summer. Humpback whales feed on krill, small shrimp-like crustaceans
and various kinds of small fish.
The 2007/2008 estimate of 2,043 humpback whales is the best
estimate for abundance for this stock, though it does exclude some
whales in Washington (Calambokidis et al. 2009).
Historically, humpback whales were common in inland waters of Puget
Sound and the San Juan Islands (Calambokidis et al. 2002). In the early
part of this century, there was a productive commercial hunt for
humpbacks in Georgia Strait that was probably responsible for their
long disappearance from local waters (Osborne et al. 1988). Since the
mid-1990s, sightings in Puget Sound have increased. Between 1996 and
2001, Calambokidis et al. (2002) recorded only six individuals south of
Admiralty Inlet (northern Puget Sound).
Between September 2003 and February 2012, there was one unconfirmed
report (February 24, 2012) of humpback whale in the Bremerton action
area (Orca Network 2012).
Humpback whales are listed as ``endangered'' under the ESA, and
consequently the stock is automatically considered a depleted stock
under the MMPA.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
WSDOT and NMFS determined that open-water pile driving and pile
removal associated with the construction activities at Bremerton Ferry
Terminal has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine
mammal species and stocks in the vicinity of the proposed activity.
[[Page 11850]]
Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for
prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et
al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002; 2005). TS can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is
unrecoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing
threshold will recover over time (Southall et al. 2007). Since marine
mammals depend on acoustic cues for vital biological functions, such as
orientation, communication, finding prey, and avoiding predators,
hearing impairment could result in the reduced ability of marine
mammals to detect or interpret important sounds. Repeated noise
exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS.
Experiments on a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) and beluga
whale (Delphinapterus leucas) showed that exposure to a single watergun
impulse at a received level of 207 kPa (or 30 psi) peak-to-peak (p-p),
which is equivalent to 228 dB (p-p) re 1 [mu]Pa, resulted in a 7 and 6
dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds
returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within 4 minutes of
the exposure (Finneran et al. 2002). No TTS was observed in the
bottlenose dolphin. Although the source level of pile driving from one
hammer strike is expected to be much lower than the single watergun
impulse cited here, animals being exposed for a prolonged period to
repeated hammer strikes could receive more noise exposure in terms of
SEL than from the single watergun impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1
[mu]Pa\2\-s) in the aforementioned experiment (Finneran et al. 2002).
Current NMFS acoustic thresholds that identify the received sound
levels above which permanent hearing impairment (permanent threshold
shift, PTS) or other injury could potentially occur are 180 and 190 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. The
established 180- and 190-dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) criteria are the received
levels above which, in the view of a panel of bioacoustics specialists
convened by NMFS before direct data on temporary threshold shift (TTS)
(from which PTS is primarily extrapolated) for marine mammals became
available, one could not be certain that there would be no injurious
effects, auditory or otherwise, to marine mammals. For the proposed
wingwall replacement work at the Bremerton Ferry Terminal, only
vibratory pile driving would be used. Noise levels measured near the
source of vibratory hammers (10 m and 16 m from the source, see above)
are much lower than the 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold currently
used by NMFS. Therefore, it is very unlikely that any marine mammals
would experience TTS or PTS as a result of noise exposure to WSDOT's
proposed construction activities at Bremerton Ferry Terminal.
In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-
intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark
et al. 2009). Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals
such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental
sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain
circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment
are being severely masked could also be impaired.
Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize.
Therefore, since noise generated from in-water vibratory pile driving
and removal is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have
less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes
(toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more
likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially
important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also
affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and
thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al.
2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al. 2004; Holt
et al. 2009).
Unlike TS, masking can potentially impact the species at
population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual
levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and
could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and
populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound
levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times in terms
of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of
these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All
anthropogenic noise sources, such as those from vessels traffic, pile
driving, dredging, and dismantling existing bridge by mechanic means,
contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels, thus intensify
masking.
Nevertheless, the sum of noise from the proposed WSDOT construction
activities is confined in an area that is bounded by landmass,
therefore, the noise generated is not expected to contribute to
increased ocean ambient noise. Due to shallow water depths near the
ferry terminals, underwater sound propagation for low-frequency sound
(which is the major noise source from pile driving) is expected to be
poor.
Finally, exposure of marine mammals to certain sounds could lead to
behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al. 1995), such as: changing
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities,
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping), avoidance of
areas where noise sources are located, and/or flight responses (e.g.,
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, and reproduction. Some of these
significant behavioral modifications include:
Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those
thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic
environment; and
Cease feeding or social interaction.
For example, at the Guerreo Negro Lagoon in Baja California,
Mexico, which is one of the important breeding grounds for Pacific gray
whales, shipping and dredging associated with a salt works may have
induced gray whales to abandon the area through most of the 1960s
(Bryant et al. 1984). After these activities stopped, the lagoon was
reoccupied, first by single whales and later by cow-calf pairs.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et
al. 2007).
The proposed project area is not a prime habitat for marine
mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by marine mammals.
Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic
noise associated with WSDOT construction activities are expected to
affect only a small number of marine mammals on an infrequent basis.
[[Page 11851]]
Currently NMFS uses 120 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa received level
for non-impulse noises (such as vibratory pile driving, saw cutting,
drilling, and dredging) for the onset of marine mammal Level B
behavioral harassment.
As far as airborne noise is concerned, the estimated in-air source
level from vibratory pile driving a 30-in steel pile is estimated at
97.8 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 15 m (50 feet) from the pile (Laughlin 2010b).
Using the spreading loss of 6 dB per doubling of distance, it is
estimated that the distances to the 90 dB and 100 dB thresholds were
estimated at 37 m and 12 m, respectively.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile
removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts
to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
Potential Impacts on Prey Species
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to
communicate (Tavolga et al. 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson
and Dill 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the
detection level of 120 dB (Ona 1988); however, the response threshold
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition
(Engas et al. 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of
sound rather than non-pulse signals (such as noise from vessels)
(Blaxter et al. 1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when
the sound signal intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more
slowly to the same level.
Further, during the coastal construction only a small fraction of
the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time.
Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would return
to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity
ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any,
impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where
construction work is planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid
the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.
Water and Sediment Quality
Short-term turbidity is a water quality effect of most in-water
work, pile removal and driving. WSF must comply with state water
quality standards during these operations by limiting the extent of
turbidity to the immediate project area.
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.
Similar results were recorded during pile removal operations at two
WSF ferry facilities. At the Friday Harbor terminal, localized
turbidity levels (from three timber pile removal events) were generally
less than 0.5 NTU higher than background levels and never exceeded 1
NTU. At the Eagle Harbor maintenance facility, local turbidity levels
(from removal of timber and steel piles) did not exceed 0.2 NTU above
background levels. In general, turbidity associated with pile
installation is localized to about a 25-foot radius around the pile
(Everitt et al. 1980).
Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the Bremerton
ferry terminal to experience effects of 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.
Removal of the timber wingwalls at the Bremerton ferry terminal
will result in 112 creosote-treated piles (100 tons) removed from the
marine environment. This will result in the potential, temporary and
localized sediment re-suspension of some of the contaminants associated
with creosote, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. However, the
actual removal of the creosote-treated wood piles from the marine
environment will result in a long-term improvement in water and
sediment quality. The net impact is a benefit to marine organisms,
especially toothed whales and pinnipeds that are high in the food chain
and bioaccumulate these toxins. This is especially a concern for long-
lived species that spend their entire life in Puget Sound, such as
Southern Resident killer whales (NMFS 2008a).
Potential Impacts on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for
Taking for Subsistence Uses
No subsistence harvest of marine mammals occur in the proposed
action area.
Proposed Mitigation Measures
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under Section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
For the proposed Bremerton Ferry Terminal wingwall replacement
project, WSDOT proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize
the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. These
mitigation measures would be employed during all pile removal and
installation activities at the Bremerton Ferry Terminal. WSDOT has
informed NMFS that any monitoring measures required by the IHA would be
imposed upon contracting parties, through the Contract Plans and
Specifications, and contractors.
Since the measured source levels (at 10 and 16 m, Table 1) of the
vibratory hammer involved in pile removal and pile driving are below
NMFS current thresholds for Level A takes, i.e., below 180 dB re 1
[mu]Pa (rms), no exclusion zone would be established, and there would
be no required power-down and shutdown measures. Instead, WSDOT would
establish and monitor the 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) zone of influence
(ZOI, see below Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section).
One major mitigation measure for WSDOT's proposed pile removal and
pile driving activities is ramping up, or soft start, of vibratory pile
hammers. The purpose of this procedure is to reduce the startling
behavior of marine mammals in the vicinity of the proposed construction
activity from sudden loud noise.
Soft start requires contractors to initiate the vibratory hammer at
reduced power for 15 seconds with a 1 minute
[[Page 11852]]
interval, and repeat such procedures for an additional two times.
In addition, monitoring for marine mammal presence will take place
20 minutes before, during and 30 minutes after pile driving to ensure
that marine mammals takes will not exceed the authorized levels.
Furthermore, a containment boom surrounding the work area would be
used during creosote-treated pile removal to contain and collect any
floating debris and sheen, provided that the boom does not interfere
with operations. The contractor would also retrieve any debris
generated during construction and properly disposed of at an approved
upland location. The contractor would have oil-absorbent materials on
site to be used in the event of a spill if any oil product is observed
in the water.
Finally, if the number of any allotted marine mammal takes (see
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section below) reaches the
limit under the IHA (if issued), WSDOT would implement shutdown and
power down measures if such species/stock of animal approaches the
Level B harassment zone.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
The monitoring plan proposed by WSDOT can be found in its IHA
application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments
or new information received from the public during the public comment
period. A summary of the primary components of the plan follows.
(1) Marine Mammal Monitoring Coordination
WSDOT would conduct briefings between the construction supervisors
and the crew and protected species observers (PSOs) prior to the start
of pile-driving activity, marine mammal monitoring protocol and
operational procedures.
Prior to the start of pile driving, the Orca Network and/or Center
for Whale Research would be contacted to find out the location of the
nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings Network consists of
a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government
agency personnel in the U.S. 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.
Sighting 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
killer whale communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology and
local climatic conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine
Science Center measures average in-water sound levels and automatically
detects unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow
researchers to hear when different marine mammals come into the region.
This acoustic network, combined with the volunteer (incidental) visual
sighting network allows researchers to document presence and location
of various marine mammal species.
With this level of coordination in the region of activity, WSDOT
will be able to get real-time information on the presence or absence of
whales before starting any pile removal or driving.
(2) Protected Species Observers (PSOs)
WSDOT will employ qualified PSOs to monitor the 120
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa for marine mammals. Qualifications for
marine mammal observers include:
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of binoculars
will be necessary to correctly identify the target.
Advanced education in biological science, wildlife
management, mammalogy or related fields (Bachelors degree or higher is
preferred), but not required.
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds).
Sufficient training, orientation or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations.
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.
Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience).
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations that would include such information as the number and type
of marine mammals observed; the behavior of marine mammals in the
project area during construction, dates and times when observations
were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities
were conducted; and dates and times when marine mammals were present at
or within the defined ZOI.
(3) Monitoring Protocols
PSOs would be present on site at all times during pile removal and
driving. Marine mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals
observed, frequency of observation, and the time corresponding to the
daily tidal cycle would be recorded.
WSDOT proposes the following methodology to estimate marine mammals
that were taken as a result of the proposed Bremerton Ferry Terminal
construction work:
A range finder or hand-held global positioning system
device would be used to ensure that the 120 dBrms re 1
[mu]Pa Level B behavioral harassment ZOI is monitored.
The vibratory Level B acoustical harassment ZOI would be
monitored for the presence of marine mammals 20 minutes before, during,
and 30 minutes after any pile removal or driving activity.
Monitoring would be continuous unless the contractor takes
a significant break--then the 20 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
monitoring sequence will begin again.
If marine mammals are observed, the following information
will be documented:
[ssquf] Species of observed marine mammals;
[ssquf] Number of observed marine mammal individuals;
[ssquf] Behavioral of observed marine mammals;
[ssquf] Location within the ZOI; and
[ssquf] Animals' reaction (if any) to pile-driving activities.
During vibratory pile removal and driving, one land-based
biologist would monitor the area from the terminal work site, and one
monitor will move among a number of access points along the southern
Sinclair Inlet shore. Binoculars
[[Page 11853]]
shall be used during marine mammal monitoring.
NMFS has reviewed the WSDOT's proposed marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and has determined the applicant's monitoring program is
adequate, particularly as it relates to assessing the level of taking
or impacts to affected species. The land-based PSO is expected to be
positioned in a location that will maximize his/her ability to detect
marine mammals and will also utilize binoculars to improve detection
rates. In addition, the boat-based PSO will cruise within the 120 dB
ZOI, which is not a particularly large zone, thereby allowing him/her
to conduct additional monitoring with binoculars. With respect to
WSDOT's take limits, NMFS is primarily concerned that WSDOT could reach
its Southern Resident killer whale limit. However, killer whales have
large dorsal fins and can be easily spotted from great distances.
Further, Southern Resident killer whales typically move in groups,
which makes visual detection much easier. In addition, added underwater
acoustic monitoring by Orca Network in the region would further provide
additional detection, since resident killer whales are very vocal.
Proposed Reporting Measures
WSDOT would provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90
days of the conclusion of the proposed construction work. This report
will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have
been harassed.
If comments are received from the NMFS Northwest Regional
Administrator or NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft
report, a final report will be submitted to NMFS within 30 days
thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report
will be considered to be the final report.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
As mentioned earlier in this document, a worst-case scenario for
the Bremerton Ferry Terminal project assumes that it may take four days
to remove the existing piles and seven days to install the new piles.
The maximum total number of hours of pile removal activity is about 28
hours, and pile-driving activity is about 6.75 hours (averaging about
3.2 hours of active pile removal/driving for each construction day).
The actual number of hours for both projects is expected to be less.
Also, as described earlier, for non-impulse noise, NMFS uses 120 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) as the threshold for Level B behavioral harassment.
The distance to the 120 dB contour Level B acoustical harassment
threshold due to vibratory pile driving for the Bremerton ferry
terminal project extends a maximum of 4.7 km (2.9 miles) before land is
intersected. The ZOI would be monitored during construction to estimate
actual harassment take of marine mammals.
Airborne noises can affect pinnipeds, especially resting seals
hauled out on rocks or sand spits. The airborne 90 dB Level B threshold
for hauled out harbor seals was estimated at 37 m, and the airborne 100
dB Level B threshold for all other pinnipeds is estimated at 12 m.
The nearest known harbor seal haulout site to the Bremerton ferry
terminal is 8.5 km north and west (shoreline distance). The nearest
documented California and Steller sea lion haulout sites to the
Bremerton ferry terminal are navigation buoys in Rich Passage,
approximately 9 and 10 km east of the terminal. The Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard security barrier California sea lion haulout is located
approximately 435 m SW of the ferry terminal.
In-air noise from this project will not reach to haulout sites, but
harbor seals swimming on the surface through the 37 m zone, and other
pinnipeds swimming on the surface through the 12 m zone during
vibratory pile removal or driving may be temporarily disturbed.
Incidental take is estimated for each species by estimating the
likelihood of a marine mammal being present within a ZOI during active
pile removal or driving. Expected marine mammal presence is determined
by past observations and general abundance near the Bremerton Ferry
Terminal during the construction window. Typically, potential take is
estimated by multiplying the area of the ZOI by the local animal
density. This provides an estimate of the number of animals that might
occupy the ZOI at any given moment. However, there are no density
estimates for any Puget Sound population of marine mammal. As a result,
the take requests were estimated using local marine mammal data sets
(e.g., Orca Network, state and federal agencies), opinions from state
and federal agencies, and observations from Navy biologists.
Based on the estimates, approximately 649 Pacific harbor seals,
1,584 California sea lions, 66 Steller sea lions, 40 killer whales (24
transient, 16 Southern Resident killer whales), 8 gray whales, and 8
humpback whales could be exposed to received sound levels above 120 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) from the proposed Bremerton Ferry Terminal wingwall
dolphin replacement work. A summary of the estimated takes is presented
in Table 3.
Table 3--Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals That May Be Exposed To
Received Pile Driving and Pile Removal Levels Above 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Species marine mammal Percentage
takes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific harbor seal..................... 649 4.4
California sea lion..................... 1,584 0.53
Steller sea lion........................ 66 0.11
Killer whale, transient................. 24 6.8
Killer whale, Southern Resident......... 16 18.8
Gray whale.............................. 8 0.03
Humpback whale.......................... 8 0.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requested takes represent 4.4% of the Inland Washington stock
harbor seals (estimated at 14,612), 0.53% of the U.S. stock California
sea lion (estimated at 296,750), 0.11% of the eastern stock Steller sea
lion (estimated at 58,334), 6.8% of the West Coast transient killer
whale (estimated at 354), 18.8% of Southern Resident killer whale
(estimated at 85), 0.03% of the Eastern North Pacific stock gray whale
(estimated at 26,000), and 0.7% of the
[[Page 11854]]
Eastern North Pacific stock humpback whale (estimated at 1,100).
Negligible Impact and Small Numbers Analysis and Preliminary
Determination
Pursuant to NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA, an applicant
is required to estimate the number of animals that will be ``taken'' by
the specified activities (i.e., takes by harassment only, or takes by
harassment, injury, and/or death). This estimate informs the analysis
that NMFS must perform to determine whether the activity will have a
``negligible impact'' on the species or stock. Level B (behavioral)
harassment occurs at the level of the individual(s) and does not assume
any resulting population-level consequences, though there are known
avenues through which behavioral disturbance of individuals can result
in population-level effects. A negligible impact finding is based on
the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of
Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to
base an impact determination.
In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine
mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment, NMFS
considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses
(their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses
(critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as
the number and nature of estimated Level A takes, the number of
estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
The WSDOT's proposed Bremerton Ferry Terminal construction project
would conduct vibratory pile removal and pile driving to replace
wingwall structures. Elevated underwater noises are expected to be
generated as a result of pile removal and pile driving activities.
However, noise levels from the machinery and activities are not
expected to reach to the level that may cause TTS, injury (PTS
included), or mortality to marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS does not
expect that any animals would experience Level A (including injury)
harassment or Level B harassment in the form of TTS from being exposed
to in-water pile driving and pile removal associated with WSDOT
construction project.
Based on long-term marine mammal monitoring and studies in the
vicinity of the proposed construction areas, it is estimated that
approximately 649 Pacific harbor seals, 1,584 California sea lions, 66
Steller sea lions, 40 killer whales (24 transient, 16 Southern Resident
killer whales), 8 gray whales, and 8 humpback whales could be exposed
to received noise levels above 120 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa from
the proposed construction work at the Bremerton Ferry Terminal. These
numbers represent approximately 0.03%-18.8% of the stocks and
populations of these species could be affected by Level B behavioral
harassment. As mentioned earlier in this document, the worst case
scenario for the proposed construction work would only take a total of
34.75 hours (28 hours for pile removal and 6.75 hours for pile
driving).
In addition, these low intensity, localized, and short-term noise
exposures may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral
modification by the animals. These reactions and behavioral changes are
expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease. In addition, no
important feeding and/or reproductive areas of marine mammals is known
to be near the proposed action area. Therefore, the take resulting from
the proposed Bremerton Ferry Terminal construction projects is not
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual
rates of recruitment or survival. The maximum estimated 120 dB
isopleths from vibratory pile driving is approximately 4.7 km at from
the pile before being blocked by landmass.
The closest documented California sea lion haulout site to the
Bremerton Ferry Terminal is the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard security
barrier, located approximately 435 m SW of the ferry terminal. The next
closest documented California sea lion haulout sites to the Bremerton
Ferry Terminal are navigation buoys and net pens in Rich Passage,
approximately nine and ten km east of the terminal, respectively.
However, it is estimated that airborne noise from vibratory pile
driving a 30-in steel pile would fall below 90 dB and 100 dB re 1 20
[mu]Pa at 37 m and 12 m from the pile, respectively. Therefore,
pinnipeds hauled out at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard security barrier
will not be affected.
For the reasons discussed in this document, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the impact of vibratory pile removal and pile driving
associated with wingwall replacements at Bremerton Ferry Terminal would
result, at worst, in the Level B harassment of small numbers of six
marine mammals that inhabit or visit the area. While behavioral
modifications, including temporarily vacating the area around the
construction site, may be made by these species to avoid the resultant
visual and acoustic disturbance, the availability of alternate areas
within Washington coastal waters and haul-out sites has led NMFS to
preliminarily determine that this action will have a negligible impact
on these species in the vicinity of the proposed construction area.
In addition, no take by TTS, Level A harassment (injury) or death
is anticipated and harassment takes should be at the lowest level
practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures mentioned previously in this document.
Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if
issued).
1. This Authorization is valid from September 1, 2013, through
February 15, 2014.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated in-
water construction work at the Bremerton Ferry Terminals in the State
of Washington.
3. (a) The species authorized for incidental harassment takings,
Level B harassment only, are: Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina
richardsi), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea
lion (Eumetopias jubatus), transient and Southern Resident killer
whales (Orcinus orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the
following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
(i) Vibratory pile removal; and
(ii) Vibratory pile driving.
(c) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under
this Authorization must be reported within 24 hours of the taking to
the Northwest Regional Administrator (206-526-6150), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427-8401, or
his designee (301-427-8418).
4. The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at
least 48 hours prior to the start of activities identified in 3(b)
(unless constrained by the date of issuance of this Authorization in
which case notification shall be made as soon as possible).
5. Prohibitions.
(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the
species listed under condition 3(a)
[[Page 11855]]
above and by the numbers listed in Table 3. The taking by Level A
harassment, injury or death of these species or the taking by
harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is
prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the
required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition
7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this
Authorization.
6. Mitigation.
(a) Ramp Up (Soft Start):
Vibratory hammer for pile removal and pile driving shall be
initiated at reduced power for 15 seconds with a 1 minute interval, and
be repeated with this procedure for an additional two times.
(b) Marine Mammal Monitoring:
Monitoring for marine mammal presence shall take place 20 minutes
before, during and 30 minutes after pile driving.
(c) Power Down and Shutdown Measures
If the number of any allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit
under the IHA (if issued), WSDOT shall implement shutdown and power
down measures if such species/stock of animal approaches the Level B
harassment zone.
7. Monitoring.
(a) Protected Species Observers: WSDOT shall employ qualified
protected species observers (PSOs) to monitor the 120 dBrms
re 1 [mu]Pa zone of influence (ZOI) for marine mammals. Qualifications
for marine mammal observers include:
(i) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of binoculars
will be required to correctly identify the target.
(ii) Advanced education in biological science, wildlife management,
mammalogy or related fields (bachelors degree or higher is preferred),
but not required.
(iii) Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds).
(iv) Sufficient training, orientation or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations.
(v) 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.
(vi) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience).
(vii) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations
that would include such information as the number and type of marine
mammals observed; the behavior of marine mammals in the project area
during construction, dates and times when observations were conducted;
dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted;
and dates and times when marine mammals were present at or within the
defined ZOI.
(b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall be present on site at all
times during pile removal and driving.
(i) A range finder or hand-held global positioning system device
will be used to ensure that the 120 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa Level
B behavioral harassment ZOI is monitored.
(ii) A 20-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be
required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A
30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required
after the last pile driving or pile removal of the day. If the
constructors take a break between subsequent pile driving or pile
removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional pre-construction
marine mammal monitoring will be required before the next start-up of
pile driving or pile removal.
(iii) If marine mammals are observed, the following information
will be documented:
(A) Species of observed marine mammals;
(B) Number of observed marine mammal individuals;
(C) Behavioral of observed marine mammals;
(D) Location within the ZOI; and
(E) Animals' reaction (if any) to pile-driving activities
(iv) During vibratory pile removal and driving, one land-based
biologist would monitor the area from the terminal work site, and one
monitor will move among a number of access points along the southern
Sinclair Inlet shore. Binoculars shall be used during marine mammal
monitoring.
(v) WSDOT shall contact the Orca Network and/or Center for Whale
Research to find out the location of the nearest marine mammal
sightings.
(vi) WSDOT shall also utilize marine mammal occurrence information
collected by the Orca Network using hydrophone systems to maximize
marine mammal detection in the project vicinity.
8. Reporting:
(a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within
90 days of the conclusion of the construction work. This report shall
detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have
been harassed.
(b) If comments are received from the NMFS Northwest Regional
Administrator or NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft
report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days
thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report
will be considered to be the final report.
9. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the
authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the
species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or
stocks for subsistence uses.
10. A copy of this Authorization and the Incidental Take Statement
must be in the possession of each contractor who performs the
construction work at the Bremerton Ferry Terminals.
11. WSDOT is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of
the Incidental Take Statement corresponding to NMFS' Biological
Opinion. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment, pursuant
to NEPA, to determine whether or not the issuance of the proposed IHA
may have a significant effect on the human environment. This analysis
will be completed prior to the issuance or denial of the IHA.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The humpback whale, Southern Resident stock of killer whale, and
the eastern population of Steller sea lions, are the only marine mammal
species currently listed under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity
of WSDOT's proposed construction projects. NMFS' Permits and
Conservation Division has initiated consultation with NMFS' Protected
Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA
to WSDOT under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity.
Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance
of an IHA.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to WSDOT's Bremerton
Ferry Terminal construction projects,
[[Page 11856]]
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: February 14, 2013.
Helen Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-03808 Filed 2-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P