Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Rehabilitation of Jetty A at the Mouth of the Columbia River, 53777-53786 [2015-22069]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
The items of discussion in the
Assessment Process webinars are as
follows: Panelists will present summary
data, and discuss data needs and
treatments.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Action will
be restricted to those issues specifically
identified in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the intent to take final action
to address the emergency.
Special Accommodations
The meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to the
Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least
10 business days prior to each
workshop.
Note: The times and sequence
specified in this agenda are subject to
change.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 2, 2015.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–22539 Filed 9–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XD978
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the
Rehabilitation of Jetty A at the Mouth
of the Columbia River
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given
that we have issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (the Corps)
to incidentally harass, by Level B
harassment only, six species of marine
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
mammals during activities related to the
rehabilitation of Jetty A at the mouth of
the Columbia River (MCR).
DATES: This authorization is effective
from May 1, 2016 through April 30,
2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the Corps’
application and supporting documents,
as well as a list of the references cited
in this document, may be obtained by
visiting the Internet at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.htm. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s), will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
subsistence uses (where relevant), and if
the permissible methods of taking and
requirements pertaining to the
mitigation, monitoring and reporting of
such takings are set forth. NMFS has
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as ‘‘. . . an impact resulting
from the specified activity that cannot
be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
established an expedited process by
which citizens of the U.S. can apply for
an authorization to incidentally take
small numbers of marine mammals by
harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D)
establishes a 45-day time limit for
NMFS’ review of an application
followed by a 30-day public notice and
comment period on any proposed
authorizations for the incidental
harassment of marine mammals. Within
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53777
45 days of the close of the comment
period, NMFS must either issue or deny
the authorization. Except with respect to
certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as ‘‘any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance
which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild [Level A harassment];
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
[Level B harassment].’’
Summary of Request
On February 13, 2015 NMFS received
an application from the Corps for the
taking of marine mammals incidental to
the rehabilitation of Jetty A at the MCR.
On June 9, 2015 NMFS received a
revised application. NMFS determined
that the application was adequate and
complete on June 12, 2015. The Corps
proposes to conduct in-water work that
may incidentally harass marine
mammals (i.e., pile driving and
removal). The use of vibratory pile
driving is expected to produce
underwater sound at levels that have the
potential to result in behavioral
harassment of marine mammals. Species
with the expected potential to be
present during the project timeframe
include killer whale (Orcinus orca),
Steller sea lion (Eumatopius jubatus),
gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), and harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina richardii).
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
The Corps is seeking an IHA for the
first year of pile installation and,
possibly, removal work at Jetty A related
to construction and maintenance of a
barge offloading facility. The barge
facility will be used for activities
associated with the rehabilitation of
Jetty A. The Corps is seeking this
authorization by the end of August 2015
for contract bid scheduling reasons.
Dates and Duration
Work on the first year of pile
installation may begin as early as May
2016 and would extend through
September 2017. Because the work may
extend to two seasons the Corps has
requested a Letter of Authorization
(LOA) that would come into effect
immediately after the IHA expires for
the second year of pile maintenance and
removal at Jetty A. The LOA would also
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
53778
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
cover rehabilitation work planned for
the North and South Jetties.
Specific Geographic Region
This activity will take place at Jetty A
at the MCR jetty system in Pacific
County, Washington.
Detailed Description of Activities
We provided a description of the
proposed action in our Federal Register
notice announcing the proposed
authorization (80 FR 43739; July 23,
2015). Please refer to that document; we
provide only summary information
here.
The scheduled rehabilitation of Jetty
A would occur as part of the Corps’
Major Rehabilitation program for the
MCR jetty system. During the first year
of the project, operators would install
and potentially remove up to 24 24-in
steel piles and 93 sections of Z or H
piles using a vibratory hammer. USACE
expects those activities to take 17 days
and would limit them to daylight hours
only.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue
an IHA was published in the Federal
Register on July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43739).
During the 30-day public comment
period, the Marine Mammal
Commission submitted a letter. The
letter is available on the Internet at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.htm. All
comments specific to the Corps’
application that address the statutory
and regulatory requirements or findings
NMFS must make to issue an IHA are
addressed in this section of the Federal
Register notice.
Comment 1: The Commission
recommends that a hydroacoustic
monitoring plan be incorporated in
subsequent years of activity under
requested regulations, if and when
issued. The Commission believes such a
plan is prudent due to the types and
sizes of piles to be installed and
removed, the substrate of the
environment, and the ambient sound
and sound propagation loss associated
with a river mouth opening into the
open ocean.
Response 1: NMFS agrees that a
hydroacoustic monitoring plan would
be valuable for defining potential injury
and harassment zones during future
years of the jetty rehabilitation project.
There is very limited hydroacoustic data
pertaining to the MCR. NMFS will work
with the applicant to devise a
monitoring plan during the next
application cycle.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
There are six marine mammal species
known to occur in the vicinity of the
MCR which may be subjected to Level
B harassment. These are the killer
whale, Steller sea lion, gray whale,
harbor porpoise, California sea lion, and
harbor seal.
We have reviewed the Corps’ detailed
species descriptions, including life
history information, for accuracy and
completeness and refer the reader to
Section 3 of the Corps’ application as
well as the proposed incidental
harassment authorization published in
the Federal Register (80 FR 43739)
instead of reprinting the information
here. Please also refer to NMFS’ Web
site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
mammals) for generalized species
accounts which provide information
regarding the biology and behavior of
the marine resources that occur in the
vicinity of the MCR. We provided
additional information for the
potentially affected stocks, including
details of stock-wide status, trends, and
threats, in our Federal Register notice of
proposed authorization (80 FR 43739).
Table 1 lists marine mammal stocks
that could occur in the vicinity of the
Jetty A project that may be subject to
Level B harassment and summarizes key
information regarding stock status and
abundance. Taxonomically, we follow
Committee on Taxonomy (2014). Please
see NMFS’ Stock Assessment Reports
(SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of
these stocks’ status and abundance.
TABLE 1—LIST OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION THAT OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE MCR
PROJECT AREA *
Stock(s)
abundance
estimate 1
ESA status
85 .....................
Endangered ..................
243 ...................
..................................
Species
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), Eastern N. Pacific,
Southern Resident Stock.
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), Eastern N. Pacific,
West Coast Transient Stock.
Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Eastern
North Pacific Stock, (Pacific Coast Feed
Group).
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Northern
Oregon/Washington Coast Stock.
Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus), Eastern
U.S. Stock/DPS**.
California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus), U.S.
Stock.
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), Oregon
and Washington Stock.
MMPA * status
Depleted and Strategic
Infrequent/Rare.
Non-depleted ................
Rare.
Non-depleted ................
Rare.
..................................
Non-depleted ................
Likely.
Depleted and Strategic 2
Likely.
296,750 ............
Delisted/Recovered
(2013).
..................................
Non-depleted ................
Likely.
24,732 4 ............
..................................
Non-depleted ................
Seasonal.
18,017 (173) .....
Delisted/Recovered
(1994).
21,487 ..............
63,160–78,198
1 NOAA/NMFS
2014 marine mammal stock assessment reports at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.
be updated based on the recent delisting status.
3 Frequency defined here in the range of:
• Rare—Few confirmed sightings, or the distribution of the species is near enough to the area that the species could occur there.
• Infrequent—Confirmed, but irregular sightings.
• Likely—Confirmed and regular sightings of the species in the area year-round.
• Seasonal—Confirmed and regular sightings of the species in the area on a seasonal basis.
4 Data is 8 years old. No current abundance estimates exist.
* MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act.
** DPS = Distinct population segment.
2 May
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Frequency of
occurrence 3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals
The Federal Register notice of
proposed authorization (80 FR 43739),
incorporated here by reference, provides
a general background on sound relevant
to the specified activity as well as a
detailed description of marine mammal
hearing and of the potential effects of
these construction activities on marine
mammals.
Anticipated Effects on Habitat
We described potential impacts to
marine mammal habitat in detail in our
Federal Register notice of proposed
authorization. In summary, the project
activities would not modify existing
marine mammal habitat. The activities
may cause some fish to leave the area
of disturbance, thus temporarily
impacting marine mammals’ foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the
foraging range. Because of the short
duration of the activities and the
relatively small area of the habitat that
may be affected, the impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative
consequences for individual marine
mammals or their populations
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, ‘‘and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on such species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for taking’’ for certain subsistence uses.
Measurements from similar pile
driving events were coupled with
practical spreading loss to estimate
zones of influence (ZOI; see ‘‘Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment’’). ZOIs
are often used to establish a mitigation
zone around each pile (when deemed
practicable) to prevent Level A
harassment to marine mammals, and
also provide estimates of the areas
within which Level B harassment might
occur. ZOIs may vary between different
diameter piles and types of installation
methods. The Corps will employ the
following mitigation measures:
(a) Conduct briefings between
construction supervisors and crews,
marine mammal monitoring team, and
the Corps’ staff prior to the start of all
pile driving activity, and when new
personnel join the work, in order to
explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery
work other than pile driving (using, e.g.,
standard barges, tug boats, bargemounted excavators, or clamshell
equipment used to place or remove
material), if a marine mammal comes
within 10 m, operations shall cease and
vessels shall reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions.
This type of work could include the
following activities: (1) Movement of the
barge to the pile location or (2)
positioning of the pile on the substrate
via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile).
Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile
Driving
The following measures apply to the
Corps’ mitigation through shutdown
and disturbance zones:
Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving
activities, the Corps will establish a
shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are
intended to contain the area in which
SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB
rms acoustic injury criteria, with the
purpose being to define an area within
which shutdown of activity would
53779
occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area), thus
preventing injury of marine mammals.
The estimated shutdown zone for Level
A injury to cetaceans would be 1 meter.
The Corps, however, would implement
a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m
radius for all marine mammals around
all vibratory pile driving and removal
activities. These precautionary measures
are intended to further reduce the
unlikely possibility of injury from direct
physical interaction with construction
operations.
Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones
are the areas in which sound pressure
levels (SPLs) equal or exceed 120 dB
rms (for continuous sound) for pile
driving installation and removal.
Disturbance zones provide utility for
monitoring conducted for mitigation
purposes (i.e., shutdown zone
monitoring) by establishing monitoring
protocols for areas adjacent to the
shutdown zones. Monitoring of
disturbance zones enables observers to
be aware of and communicate the
presence of marine mammals in the
project area but outside the shutdown
zone and thus prepare for potential
shutdowns of activity. However, the
primary purpose of disturbance zone
monitoring is for documenting incidents
of Level B harassment. Nominal radial
distances for disturbance zones are
shown in Table 2. The shutdown zone
for Level B injury wound extend 7,356
meters from the sound source. Given the
size of the disturbance zone for
vibratory pile driving, it is impossible to
guarantee that all animals would be
observed or to make comprehensive
observations of fine-scale behavioral
reactions to sound. We discuss
monitoring objectives and protocols in
greater depth in ‘‘Monitoring and
Reporting.’’
TABLE 2—CALCULATED AREA ENCOMPASSED WITHIN ZONE OF INFLUENCE AT MCR JETTIES FOR UNDERWATER MARINE
MAMMAL SOUND THRESHOLDS AT JETTY A
Underwater threshold
Distance—m (mi)
Jetty A: ∼ Station 78+50, River Side ..........
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Jetty
Vibratory driving, pinniped injury (190 dB)
Vibratory driving, cetacean injury (180 dB)
Vibratory driving, disturbance (120 dB) ......
0 .....................................
1 (3.3) ............................
7,356 (4.6 miles) ............
Time Restrictions—Work would occur
only during daylight hours, when visual
monitoring of marine mammals can be
conducted. In order minimize impact to
Southern resident killer whales, inwater work will not be conducted
during their primary feeding season
extending from October 1 until on or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
after May 1. Installation could occur
from May 1 through September 30 each
year.
In order to document observed
incidents of harassment, observers
record all marine mammal observations,
regardless of location. The observer’s
location, as well as the location of the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Area excluding land & jetty
masses—km2 (mi2)
0
<0.000003 (0.000001)
23.63 (9.12)
pile being driven, is known from a GPS.
The location of the animal is estimated
as a distance from the observer, which
is then compared to the location from
the pile and the estimated ZOIs for
relevant activities (i.e., pile installation
and removal). This information may
then be used to extrapolate observed
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
53780
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
takes to reach an approximate
understanding of actual total takes.
Soft Start—The use of a soft start
procedure is believed to provide
additional protection to marine
mammals by warning or providing a
chance to leave the area prior to the
hammer operating at full capacity, and
typically involves a requirement to
initiate sound from the hammer at
reduced energy followed by a waiting
period. This procedure is repeated two
additional times. It is difficult to specify
the reduction in energy for any given
hammer because of variation across
drivers. The project will utilize soft start
techniques for all vibratory pile driving.
We require the Corps to initiate sound
from vibratory hammers for fifteen
seconds at reduced energy followed by
a thirty-second waiting period, with the
procedure repeated two additional
times. Soft start will be required at the
beginning of each day’s pile driving
work and at any time following a
cessation of pile driving of 20 minutes
or longer.
Monitoring
Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring
would be conducted before, during, and
after pile driving. In addition, observers
shall record all incidents of marine
mammal occurrence, regardless of
distance from activity, and shall
document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being
driven. Observations made outside the
shutdown zone will not result in
shutdown and that pile segment would
be completed without cessation, unless
the animal approaches or enters the
shutdown zone, at which point all pile
driving activities would be halted.
Monitoring will take place from thirty
minutes prior to initiation through
thirty minutes post-completion of pile
driving activities. Pile driving activities
include the time to remove a single pile
or series of piles, as long as the time
elapsed between uses of the pile driving
equipment is no more than thirty
minutes.
The following additional measures
apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by
qualified observers, who will be placed
at the best vantage point(s) practicable
to monitor for marine mammals and
implement shutdown/delay procedures
when applicable by calling for the
shutdown to the hammer operator. One
observer will be placed on or near the
drilling rig near Jetty A while a second
observer will be stationed on the
opposite side of the observable zone of
influence on Clatsop Spit. Qualified
observers are trained biologists, with the
following minimum qualifications:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes
(correction is permissible) sufficient for
discernment of moving targets at the
water’s surface with ability to estimate
target size and distance; use of
binoculars may be necessary to correctly
identify the target;
(b) Advanced education in biological
science or related field (undergraduate
degree or higher required);
(c) Experience and ability to conduct
field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols (this
may include academic experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of
behaviors;
(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare
a report of observations including but
not limited to the number and species
of marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid
potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals
observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior;
and
(g) Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving
activity, the shutdown zone will be
monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that
it is clear of marine mammals. Pile
driving will only commence once
observers have declared the shutdown
zone clear of marine mammals; animals
will be allowed to remain in the
shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their
own volition) and their behavior will be
monitored and documented. The
shutdown zone may only be declared
clear, and pile driving started, when the
entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e.,
when not obscured by dark, rain, fog,
etc.).
If waters exceed a sea-state which
restricts the observers’ ability to make
observations within the marine mammal
shutdown zone (e.g. excessive wind or
fog), pile installation will cease. Pile
driving will not be initiated until the
entire shutdown zone is visible.
The waters will be scanned 30
minutes prior to commencing pile
driving at the beginning of each day,
and prior to commencing pile driving
after any stoppage of 30 minutes or
greater. If marine mammals enter or are
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
observed within the designated marine
mammal shutdown zone during or 30
minutes prior to pile driving, the
monitors will notify the on-site
construction manager to not begin until
the animal has moved outside the
designated radius.
If any marine mammal species are
encountered during activities that are
not listed in Table 1 for authorized
taking and are likely to be exposed to
sound pressure levels (SPLs) greater
than or equal to 120 dB re 1mPa (rms),
then the Holder of this Authorization
must stop pile driving activities and
report observations to NMFS’ Office of
Protected Resources at (301) 847–8401.
If a marine mammal approaches or
enters the shutdown zone during the
course of vibratory pile driving
operations, activity will be halted and
delayed until the animal has voluntarily
left and been visually confirmed beyond
the shutdown zone. If a marine mammal
is seen above water and then dives
below, the contractor would wait 15
minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes
for cetaceans. If no marine mammals are
seen by the observer in that time it will
be assumed that the animal has moved
beyond the exclusion zone.
Monitoring will be conducted
throughout the time required to drive a
pile.
(3) Marine mammal presence within
the Level B harassment zone will be
monitored, but vibratory driving will
not be stopped if marine mammals are
found to be present. Any marine
mammal documented within the Level
B harassment zone during vibratory
driving would constitute a Level B take
(harassment), and will be recorded and
reported as such.
Mitigation Conclusions
We have carefully evaluated the
Corps’ proposed mitigation measures
and considered their effectiveness in
past implementation to determine
whether they are likely to effect the least
practicable impact on the affected
marine mammal species and stocks and
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential
measures included consideration of the
following factors in relation to one
another: (1) The manner in which, and
the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure is
expected to minimize adverse impacts
to marine mammals, (2) the proven or
likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned;
and (3) the practicability of the measure
for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we
prescribe should be able to accomplish,
have a reasonable likelihood of
accomplishing (based on current
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
science), or contribute to the
accomplishment of one or more of the
general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of
injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may
contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total
number or number at biologically
important time or location) of
individual marine mammals exposed to
stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1,
above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total
number or number at biologically
important time or location) of times any
individual marine mammal would be
exposed to stimuli expected to result in
incidental take (this goal may contribute
to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of
exposure to stimuli expected to result in
incidental take (this goal may contribute
to 1, above, or to reducing the severity
of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of
adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to
the prey base, blockage or limitation of
passage to or from biologically
important areas, permanent destruction
of habitat, or temporary disturbance of
habitat during a biologically important
time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to
mitigation, an increase in the
probability of detecting marine
mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the
mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Corps’
proposed measures, including
information from monitoring of
implementation of mitigation measures
very similar to those described here
under previous IHAs from other marine
construction projects, we have
determined that the proposed mitigation
measures provide the means of effecting
the least practicable impact on marine
mammal species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking’’. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13)
indicate that requests for incidental take
authorizations must include the
suggested means of accomplishing the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
necessary monitoring and reporting that
will result in increased knowledge of
the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we
prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the
following:
(1) An increase in the probability of
detecting marine mammals, both within
the mitigation zone (thus allowing for
more effective implementation of the
mitigation) and in general to generate
more data to contribute to the analyses
mentioned below;
(2) An increase in our understanding
of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to levels of pile
driving that we associate with specific
adverse effects, such as behavioral
harassment, TTS, or PTS;
(3) An increase in our understanding
of how marine mammals respond to
stimuli expected to result in take and
how anticipated adverse effects on
individuals (in different ways and to
varying degrees) may impact the
population, species, or stock
(specifically through effects on annual
rates of recruitment or survival) through
any of the following methods:
D Behavioral observations in the
presence of stimuli compared to
observations in the absence of stimuli
(need to be able to accurately predict
received level, distance from source,
and other pertinent information);
D Physiological measurements in the
presence of stimuli compared to
observations in the absence of stimuli
(need to be able to accurately predict
received level, distance from source,
and other pertinent information);
D Distribution and/or abundance
comparisons in times or areas with
concentrated stimuli versus times or
areas without stimuli;
(4) An increased knowledge of the
affected species; and
(5) An increase in our understanding
of the effectiveness of certain mitigation
and monitoring measures.
The Corps consulted with NMFS to
create a marine mammal monitoring
plan as part of the IHA application for
this project.
Visual Marine Mammal Observations
• Two individuals meeting the
minimum qualifications previously
identified will monitor the marine
mammal buffer area and Level B
harassment zones during vibratory pile.
Monitors will be stationed on the
drilling rig or Jetty A as well as on
Clatsop Spit.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53781
• During vibratory pile driving, the
area within 10 meters of pile driving
activity will be monitored and
maintained as a marine mammal buffer
area in which pile installation will not
commence or will be suspended
temporarily if any marine mammals are
observed within or approaching the area
of potential disturbance. The Level B
harassment area will be monitored by 2
observers at locations listed above. The
monitoring staff will record any
presence of marine mammals by
species, will document any behavioral
responses noted, and record Level B
takes when sightings overlap with pile
installation activities.
• The individuals will scan the
waters within each monitoring zone
activity using binoculars (Vector 10X42
or equivalent), spotting scopes
(Swarovski 20–60 zoom or equivalent),
and visual observation.
• The area within which the Level B
harassment thresholds could be
exceeded during vibratory pile driving
will be monitored for the presence of
marine mammals. Marine mammal
presence within these zones, if any, will
be monitored but pile driving activity
will not be stopped if marine mammals
were found to be present. Any marine
mammal documented within the Level
B harassment zone will constitute a
Level B take, and will be recorded and
used to document the number of take
incidents.
• If waters exceed a sea-state which
restricts the observers’ ability to make
observations within the marine mammal
buffer zone (e.g. excessive wind or fog),
pile installation will cease until
conditions allow the resumption of
monitoring.
• The waters will be scanned for 30
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after any and all pile driving and
removal activities.
• If marine mammals enter or are
observed within the designated marine
mammal buffer zone (10 m) during or 30
minutes prior to pile driving, the
monitors will notify the on-site
construction manager to not begin until
the animal has moved outside the
designated radius.
• If a marine mammal approaches the
shutdown zone prior to initiation of pile
driving, the Corps cannot commence
activities until the marine mammal (a)
is observed to have left the Level A
harassment zone or (b) has not been
seen or otherwise detected within the
Level A harassment zone for 30
minutes.
• The waters will continue to be
scanned for at least 30 minutes after pile
driving has completed each day, and
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
53782
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
after each stoppage of 30 minutes or
greater.
Data Collection
We require that observers use
approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, the Corps will
record detailed information about any
implementation of shutdowns,
including the distance of animals to the
pile and description of specific actions
that ensued and resulting behavior of
the animal, if any. In addition, the Corps
will attempt to distinguish between the
number of individual animals taken and
the number of incidents of take. We
require that, at a minimum, the
following information be collected on
the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored
activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring
during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (e.g., percent
cover, visibility);
• Water conditions (e.g., sea state,
tide state);
• Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel
and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities
to marine mammals and distance from
the marine mammals to the observation
point;
• Locations of all marine mammal
observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
Reporting
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Corps will notify NMFS prior to
the initiation of the pile driving
activities. The Corps will 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 no comments are received
from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report will constitute the final
report. If comments are received, a final
report must be submitted within 30 days
after receipt of comments.
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, section
3(18) of the MMPA defines
‘‘harassment’’ as: ‘‘. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B
harassment].’’
All anticipated takes would be by
Level B harassment resulting from
vibratory pile driving/removal and
involving temporary changes in
behavior. Injurious or lethal takes are
not expected due to the expected source
levels and sound source characteristics
associated with the activity, and the
planned mitigation and monitoring
measures are expected to further
minimize the possibility of such take.
Given the many uncertainties in
predicting the quantity and types of
impacts of sound in every given
situation on marine mammals, it is
common practice to estimate how many
animals are likely to be present within
a particular distance of a given activity,
or exposed to a particular level of
sound, based on the available science.
This practice potentially
overestimates the numbers of marine
mammals taken for stationary activities,
as it is likely that some smaller number
of individuals may accrue a number of
incidences of harassment per individual
than for each incidence to accrue to a
new individual, especially if those
individuals display some degree of
residency or site fidelity and the
impetus to use the site (e.g., because of
foraging opportunities) is stronger than
the deterrence presented by the
harassing activity.
The Corps requested authorization for
the incidental taking of small numbers
of killer whale, Gray whale, harbor
porpoise, Steller sea lion, California sea
lion, and harbor seal near the MCR
project area that may result from
vibratory pile driving and removal
during construction activities associated
with the rehabilitation of Jetty A at the
MCR.
In order to estimate the potential
incidents of take that may occur
incidental to the specified activity, we
must first estimate the extent of the
sound field that may be produced by the
activity and then consider in
combination with information about
marine mammal density or abundance
in the project area. We provided
detailed information on applicable
sound thresholds for determining effects
to marine mammals as well as
describing the information used in
estimating the sound fields, the
available marine mammal density or
abundance information, and the method
of estimating potential incidences of
take, in our Federal Register notice of
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed authorization (80 FR 43739;
July 23, 2015).
Table 2 above illustrated that during
vibratory driving the120 dB Level B
harassment threshold could be exceeded
at 7,356 meters. Note that the actual area
ensonified by pile driving activities is
significantly constrained by local
topography relative to the identified
threshold radii.
The method used for calculating
potential exposures to vibratory pile
driving noise for each threshold was
estimated using local marine mammal
data sets, the Biological Opinion, best
professional judgment from state and
federal agencies, and data from IHA
estimates on similar projects with
similar actions. All estimates are
conservative and include the following
assumptions:
• During construction, each species
could be present in the project area each
day. The potential for a take is based on
a 24-hour period. The model assumes
that there can be one potential take
(Level B harassment exposure) per
individual per 24-hours.
• All pilings installed at each site
would have an underwater noise
disturbance equal to the piling that
causes the greatest noise disturbance
(i.e., the piling furthest from shore)
installed with the method that has the
largest ZOI. The largest underwater
disturbance ZOI would be produced by
vibratory driving steel piles. The ZOIs
for each threshold are not spherical and
are truncated by land masses which
would dissipate sound pressure waves.
• Exposures were based on an
estimated 17 days of in-water work.
In absence of site specific underwater
acoustic propagation modeling, the
practical spreading loss model was used
to determine the ZOI.
Southern resident killer whales have
been observed offshore near the study
area and ZOI, but the Corps does not
have fine-scale details on frequency of
use. While killer whales do occur in the
Columbia River plume, where fresh
water from the river intermixes with salt
water from the ocean, they are rarely
seen in the interior of the Columbia
River Jetty system. The ensonified area
associated with the proposed action at
Jetty A does not extend out into the
open ocean where killer whales are
likely to be found. Furthermore, the
Corps has limited its pile installation
window in order to avoid peak salmon
runs and any overlap with the presence
of Southern residents. To ensure no
Level B acoustical harassment occurs,
the Corps will restrict pile installation
from October 1 until April 30 of each
season. However, this restriction was
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
enacted primarily for construction work
at the North and South jetties, where the
ensonified zone will radiate out towards
the open ocean. As such NMFS is not
anticipating any acoustic exposure to
Southern residents. Also note that in the
2011 Biological Opinion, NMFS issued
a not likely to adversely affect
determination. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that authorization of take for
Southern residents is not warranted.
Western Transient killer whales may
be traversing offshore over a greater
duration of time than the feeding
resident. They are rarely observed
inside of the jetty system. The
Southwest Fisheries Science Center
(SWFSC) stratum model under the
Marine Animal Monitor Model provides
an estimated density of 0.00070853
animals per km2for summer killer
whales for areas near MCR, which may
provide a surrogate proxy value for
assuming possible densities near the
jetties (Barlow et al. 2009, Halpin et al.
2009 at OBIS–SEAMAP). Given
anecdotal evidence (Griffith 2015) and
sightings recorded on the OBIS network
from surveys done in 2005 (Halpin et al.
2009, OBIS–SEAMAP 2015), this
density may be appropriate for the MCR
vicinity.
The following formula was used to
calculate exposure using
Exposure Estimate =
(0.000708DensityEstimate * 23.63ZOI Jetty
A * 17days) = 0.28 killer whale
exposures
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Where:
NDensityEstimate = Represents estimated density
of species within the 4.6-mile radius
(23.63 km2) encompassing the ZOI at
Jetty A; using the density model
suggested by NOAA (2015), this equates
to 0.000708 animals per km2(Barlow et
al. 2009).
Days = Total days of pile installation or
removal activity (∼17 days)
Given the low density and rare
occurrence of transient killer whales in
the ZOI, exposure of feeding or transient
killer whales to Level B acoustical
harassment from pile driving is unlikely
to occur. However, NMFS proposes to
authorize take of small number due to
the remote chance that transient orcas
remain in the vicinity to feed on
pinnipeds that frequent the haulouts at
the South Jetty.
NMFS believes that an authorized
take of 8 transients is warranted because
solitary killer whales are rarely
observed, and transient whales travel in
pods of 2–15 members. NMFS has
assumed a pod size of 8.
Based on anecdotal information and
sightings between 2006 and 2011
(Halpin et al. 2009 at OBIS SEAMAP
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
2015), gray whales may be in the
proximity of the proposed action area
and exposed to underwater acoustic
disturbances. However, no data exists
that is specific to presence and numbers
in the MCR vicinity and gray whale
density estimates were not available on
the SERDP or OBIS–SEAMAP web
model sites. Anecdotal evidence also
indicates gray whales have been seen at
MCR, but are not a common visitor, as
they mostly remain in the vicinity of the
further offshore shelf-break (Griffith
2015). According to NOAA’s Cetacean
Mapping classification of the MCR
vicinity pertaining to gray whale use, its
Biologically Important Area
categorization is indicated as a
migration corridor (https://
cetsound.noaa.gov/biologicallyimportant-area-map). As primarily
bottom feeders, gray whales are the most
coastal of all great whales; they
primarily feed in shallow continental
shelf waters and live much of their lives
within a few tens of kilometers of shore
(Barlow et. al. 2009 on OBIS—SEAMAP
2015).
The Pacific Coast Feeding Group or
northbound summer migrants would be
the most likely gray whales to be in the
vicinity of MCR. Since no information
pertaining to gray whale densities could
be identified, NMFS elected to apply
proxy data for estimating densities. As
a proxy, data pertinent to humpback
whales (0.0039 animals per km2) was
selected because both are baleen species
found near the MCR vicinity for the
same purposes (as a migration route or
temporary feeding zone). However, the
number of estimated exposures at Jetty
A was increased to account for the fact
that gray whales are more likely to be
in the nearshore environment than
humpback whales. This increase was
proposed strictly as a conservative
assumption to acknowledge the distinct
preference gray whales may have over
humpbacks for nearshore feeding.
The following formula was used to
calculate exposure:
Exposure Estimate = (0.0039DensityEstimate
* 23.63ZOI Jetty A * 17days) + 1 = 1.56
gray whale exposures
Migrating gray whales often travel in
groups of 2, although larger pods do
occur. For gray whales, NMFS believes
4 Level B authorized takes is reasonable.
Harbor porpoises are known to
occupy shallow, coastal waters and,
therefore, are likely to be found in the
vicinity of the MCR. They are known to
occur within the proposed project area,
however, density data for this region is
unavailable (Griffith 2015).
The SWFSC stratum model under the
Marine Animal Monitor Model provides
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53783
an estimated density per km2 of yearround porpoises for areas near northern
California, which may provide a
surrogate proxy value for assuming
possible densities near the jetties.
Though not in the project vicinity, the
range of 3.642 animals/km2(Barlow et
al. 2009, Halpin et al. 2009) is a
relatively high density compared to
values moving even further south along
the model boundaries, for which the
northern-most extent ends in California.
Given anecdotal evidence (Griffith 2015)
and sightings recorded on the OBIS
network from surveys done between
1989 and 2005, (Halpin et al. 2009,
OBIS–SEAMAP 2015), this higher
density may be appropriate for the MCR
vicinity, or may be conservative.
The formula previously described was
used to arrive at a take estimate for
harbor porpoise.
Exposure Estimate = (3.642DensityEstimate *
23.63ZOI Jetty A * 17days) = 1,464.
Based on the density model suggested
by NOAA (2015), the Corps has
provided a very conservative maximum
estimate of 1,464 harbor porpoise
disturbance exposures over the 17 days
of operation. However, this number of
potential exposures does not accurately
reflect the actual number of animals that
would potentially be taken for the MCR
jetty project. Rather, it is more likely
that the same pod may be exposed more
than once during the 17-day operating
window. The highest estimated number
of animals exposed on any single day
based on the modeled proxy density
(Barlow et al. 2009 at SERDP) and the
jetty with the greatest ZOI is 193
animals (from South Jetty Channel).
While the number of pods in the
vicinity of the MCR is unknown, the
size of the pods is usually assumed to
be significantly smaller than 193
animals. According to OBIS–SEAMAP
(2015 and Halpin et al. 2009), the
normal range of group size generally
consists of less than five or six
individuals, though aggregations into
large, loose groups of 50 to several
hundred animals could occur for
feeding or migration. Because the ZOI
only extends for a maximum of 7,256
meters (4.6 miles), it may also be
assumed that due to competition and
territorial circumstances only a limited
number of pods would be feeding in the
ZOI at any particular time. If the
modeled density calculations are
assumed, then this means anywhere
from 32 small pods to 2 large, 100animal pods might be feeding during
every day of pile installation. Given
these values seem an unrealistic
representation of use and pod densities
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
53784
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
within any one of the ZOIs, NMFS is
proposing an alternative calculation.
NMFS conservatively assumed that a
single, large feeding pod of 50 animals
forms within the ZOI for Jetty A on each
day of pile installation. Though this is
likely much higher than actual use by
multiple pods in the vicinity, it more
realistically represents a worst-case
scenario for the number of animals that
could potentially be affected by the
proposed work. This calculation also
assumes that it is a new pod of
individuals would be affected on each
installation day, which is also unlikely
given pod residency. Therefore, NMFS
is permitting a Level B take for 850
animals.
There are haulout sites on the South
Jetty used by pinnipeds, especially
Steller sea lions. It is likely that
pinnipeds that use the haulout area in
would be exposed to 120 dB threshold
acoustic threshold during pile driving
activities. The number of exposures
would vary based on weather
conditions, season, and daily
fluctuations in abundance. Based on a
survey by the Washington Department
of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) the number
of affected Steller sea lions could be
between 200–800 animals per month;
California sea lion numbers could range
from 1 to 500 per month and the
number of harbor seals could be as low
as 1 to as high as 57 per month.
Exposure and take estimates below are
based on past pinniped data from
WDFW (2000–2014 data), which had a
more robust monthly sampling
frequency relative to Oregon
Department of Fish &Wildlife (ODFW)
counts. The exception to this was for
harbor seal counts, for which ODFW
(also 2000–2014 data) had more
sampling data in certain months.
Therefore, ODFW harbor seal data was
used for the months of May and July.
Exposure estimates are much higher
than take estimates. This is because
unlike the exposure estimate which
assumes all new individuals, the take
estimate request assumes that some of
the same individuals will remain in the
area and be exposed multiple times
during the short 17-day installation
period to complete and remove each
offloading facility (for a total of about 68
days). NMFS examined the estimated
monthly average number of animals
from 2000–2014 hauled on South Jetty
during May and June, which are the
most likely months for pile installation
as is shown in Table 3. There are no
anticipated airborne exposures since the
main haul out sites are not in close
proximity to Jetty A. Note that the
formula used by NMFS is different than
that employed by the Corps in their
application as NMFS is only analyzing
potential impacts associated with Jetty
A. To reiterate, these exposure estimates
assume a new individual is exposed
every day throughout each acoustic
disturbance, for the entire duration of
the project.
Exposure EstimateStellar = (Nest(May∂June/2)
* 17underwater/piles days) = 12,750 Steller
sea lions
Exposure EstimateCalifornia =
(Nest(May∂June/2) * 17underwater/piles days)
= 2,788 CA sea lions
Exposure EstimateHarbor = (Nest(May∂June/2)
* 17underwater/piles days)= 493 Harbor
porpoises
Where:
Nest = Estimated daily average number of
animals for May and June hauled out at
South Jetty based on WDFW data.
Duration = total days of pile installation or
removal activity for underwater
thresholds (17);
TABLE 3—AUTHORIZED TAKES OF PINNIPEDS DURING PILE INSTALLATION AT JETTY A
Steller
sea lion
California
sea lion
Harbor
seal
Avg 1
#
Avg 1
#
Avg 1 2
#
Month
April ..............................................................................................................................................
May ..............................................................................................................................................
June .............................................................................................................................................
July ...............................................................................................................................................
August ..........................................................................................................................................
September ...................................................................................................................................
October ........................................................................................................................................
Avg Daily Count (May+June/2) 3 .................................................................................................
Total Exposures over Duration 4 (17 days) ..........................................................................
587
824
676
358
324
209
384
750
12,750
99
125
202
1
115
249
508
164
2,788
........................
0
57
10
1
........................
........................
29
493
1
WDFW average daily count per month from 2000–2014.
ODFW average daily count per month for May and July 2000–2014 due to additional available sampling data.
Conservatively assumes each exposure is to new individual, all individuals are new arrivals each month, and no individual is exposed more
than one time.
4 Assumed 17 pile installation/removal days.
2
3
Analyses and Determinations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Negligible Impact Analysis
Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival’’
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of Level B harassment takes, alone, is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 must consider 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
harassment takes, the number of
estimated mortalities, effects on habitat,
and the status of the species.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
To avoid repetition, the discussion of
our analyses applies to all the species
listed in Table 4 given that the
anticipated effects of this pile driving
project on marine mammals are
expected to be relatively similar in
nature. There is no information about
the size, status, or structure of any
species or stock that would lead to a
different analysis for this activity, else
species-specific factors would be
identified and analyzed.
Pile driving activities associated with
the rehabilitation of Jetty A at the mouth
of the Columbia River, as outlined
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
53785
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
previously, have the potential to disturb
or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, the planned activities may
result in take, in the form of Level B
harassment (behavioral disturbance)
only, from underwater sounds generated
from pile driving. Potential takes could
occur if individuals of these species are
present in the ensonified zone when
pile driving is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality
is anticipated given the nature of the
activity and measures designed to
minimize the possibility of injury to
marine mammals. The potential for
these outcomes is minimized through
the construction method and the
implementation of the planned
mitigation measures. Specifically,
vibratory hammers will be the only
method of installation utilized. No
impact driving is planned. Vibratory
driving does not have significant
potential to cause injury to marine
mammals due to the relatively low
source levels produced (site-specific
acoustic monitoring data show no
source level measurements above 180
dB rms) and the lack of potentially
injurious source characteristics. The
likelihood that marine mammal
detection ability by trained observers is
high under the environmental
conditions described for the
rehabilitation of Jetty A at MCR further
enables the implementation of
shutdowns to avoid injury, serious
injury, or mortality.
The Corps’ proposed activities are
localized and of short duration. The
entire project area is limited to the Jetty
A area and its immediate surroundings.
Actions covered under the
Authorization would include installing
a maximum of 24 piles for use as
dolphins and a maximum of 93 sections
of Z or H piles for retention of rock fill
over 17 days. The piles would be a
maximum diameter of 24 inches and
would only be installed by vibratory
driving method. The possibility exists
that smaller diameter piles may be used
but for this analysis it is assumed that
24 inch piles will be driven.
These 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. Moreover, the
proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures are expected to reduce
potential exposures and behavioral
modifications even further.
Additionally, no important feeding and/
or reproductive areas for marine
mammals are known to be near the
proposed action area. Therefore, the
take resulting from the proposed project
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 project also is not expected to
have significant adverse effects on
affected marine mammals’ habitat, as
analyzed in detail in the ‘‘Anticipated
Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat’’
section. The project activities would not
modify existing marine mammal habitat.
The activities may cause some fish to
leave the area of disturbance, thus
temporarily impacting marine
mammals’ foraging opportunities in a
limited portion of the foraging range;
but, because of the short duration of the
activities and the relatively small area of
the habitat that may be affected, the
impacts to marine mammal habitat are
not expected to cause significant or
long-term negative consequences.
Effects on individuals that are taken
by Level B harassment, on the basis of
reports in the literature as well as
monitoring from other similar activities,
will likely be limited to reactions such
as increased swimming speeds,
increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring)
(e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; Lerma,
2014). Most likely, individuals will
simply move away from the sound
source and be temporarily displaced
from the areas of pile driving, although
even this reaction has been observed
primarily only in association with
impact pile driving. In response to
vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which
may become somewhat habituated to
human activity in industrial or urban
waterways) have been observed to orient
towards and sometimes move towards
the sound. The pile driving activities
analyzed here are similar to, or less
impactful than, numerous construction
activities conducted in other similar
locations, which have taken place with
no reported injuries or mortality to
marine mammals, and no known longterm adverse consequences from
behavioral harassment. Repeated
exposures of individuals to levels of
sound that may cause Level B
harassment are unlikely to result in
hearing impairment or to significantly
disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even
repeated Level B harassment of some
small subset of the overall stock is
unlikely to result in any significant
realized decrease in fitness for the
affected individuals, and thus would
not result in any adverse impact to the
stock as a whole. Level B harassment
will be reduced to the level of least
practicable impact through use of
mitigation measures described herein
and, if sound produced by project
activities is sufficiently disturbing,
animals are likely to simply avoid the
project area while the activity is
occurring.
In summary, this negligible impact
analysis is founded on the following
factors: (1) The possibility of injury,
serious injury, or mortality may
reasonably be considered discountable;
(2) the anticipated incidents of Level B
harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior
and; (3) the presumed efficacy of the
proposed mitigation measures in
reducing the effects of the specified
activity to the level of least practicable
impact. In combination, we believe that
these factors, as well as the available
body of evidence from other similar
activities, demonstrate that the potential
effects of the specified activity will have
only short-term effects on individuals.
The specified activity is not expected to
impact rates of recruitment or survival
and will therefore not result in
population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total
marine mammal take from the Corps’
rehabilitation of Jetty A at MCR will
have a negligible impact on the affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
TABLE 4—ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF SPECIES/STOCKS THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT
Total proposed
authorized
takes
Species
Killer whale (Western transient stock) .........................................................................................
Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific Stock) ...................................................................................
Harbor porpoise ...........................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
8
4
850
08SEN1
Abundance
243
18,017
21,487
Percentage of
total stock
3.2
<0.01
3.9
53786
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 4—ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF SPECIES/STOCKS THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT—Continued
Total proposed
authorized
takes
Species
Steller sea lion .............................................................................................................................
California sea lion ........................................................................................................................
Harbor seal ..................................................................................................................................
Small Numbers Analysis
Table 4 illustrates the number of
animals that could be exposed to
received noise levels that could cause
Level B behavioral harassment for the
proposed work associated with the
rehabilitation of Jetty A at MCR. The
analyses provided above represents
between <0.01%—20.9% of the
populations of these stocks that could
be affected by Level B behavioral
harassment. The numbers of animals
authorized to be taken for all species
would be considered small relative to
the relevant stocks or populations even
if each estimated taking occurred to a
new individual—an extremely unlikely
scenario. For pinnipeds occurring in the
vicinity of Jetty A, there will almost
certainly be overlap in individuals
present day-to-day, and these takes are
likely to occur only within some small
portion of the overall regional stock.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
mitigation and monitoring measures,
which are expected to reduce the
number of marine mammals potentially
affected by the proposed action, NMFS
finds that small numbers of marine
mammals will be taken relative to the
populations of the affected species or
stocks.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses
There are no subsistence uses of
marine mammals in the proposed
project area; and, thus, no subsistence
uses impacted by this action.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There are two marine mammal
species that are listed as endangered
under the ESA with confirmed or
possible occurrence in the study area:
humpback whale and Southern resident
killer whale. For the purposes of this
IHA, NMFS determined that take of
Southern resident killer whales was
highly unlikely given the rare
occurrence of these animals in the
project area. A similar conclusion was
reached for humpback whales. On
March 18, 2011, NMFS signed a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Sep 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
Biological Opinion concluding that the
proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
humpback whales and may affect, but is
not likely to adversely affect Southern
resident killer whales.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
The Corps issued the Final
Environmental Assessment Columbia
River at the Mouth, Oregon and
Washington Rehabilitation of the Jetty
System at the Mouth of the Columbia
River and Finding of No Significant
Impact in 2011. The environmental
assessment (EA) and finding of no
significant interest (FONSI) were
revised in 2012 with a FONSI being
signed on July 26, 2012. NMFS has
adopted the findings of the 2012 FONSI.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations,
we have issued an IHA to the Corps for
conducting the described activities
related to the rehabilitation of Jetty A at
the MCR from May 1, 2016 through
April 30, 2017 provided the previously
described mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: September 1, 2015.
Perry Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–22069 Filed 9–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD–2015–OS–0090]
Defense Personal Property Program
(DP3)
United States Transportation
Command (USTRANSCOM), DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
DoD has developed a Concept
of Operations (CONOPS) to test
expansion of the personal property
volume move criteria to include select
high-volume channel/traffic lanes.
Under the pilot test, personal property
shipments will be awarded both
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12,750
2,788
493
Abundance
Percentage of
total stock
63,160–78,198
296,750
24,732
20.2–16.3–1.0
0.01
2.0
directions (to/from) by the responsible
origin/destination Joint Personal
Property Shipping Office (JPPSO) on the
participating pilot lanes. The CONOPS
was developed utilizing general traffic
management principles in concert with
the Defense Transportation Regulation
(DTR) Part IV (DTR 4500.9R), and
Government household goods tariff
(400NG) (as amended).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 9, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Do not submit comments
directly to the point of contact under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or
mail your comments to any address
other than what is shown in this
section. Doing so will delay the posting
of the submission. You may submit
comments, identified by docket number
and title, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Department of Defense, Office
of the Deputy Chief Management
Officer, Directorate of Oversight and
Compliance, Regulatory and Audit
Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–9010.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this Federal Register
document. The general policy for
comments and other submissions from
members of the public is to make these
submissions available for public
viewing on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
Mr.
Jim Teague, United States
Transportation Command, TCJ5/4–PI,
508 Scott Drive, Scott Air Force Base, IL
62225–5357; (618) 220–4803.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The pilot
test CONOPS is available for review and
comment on the USTRANSCOM Web
site at https://www.transcom.mil/dtr/
coord/coordpartivfrn.cfm. Request
comments be submitted using the
downloadable comment-matrix-format
posted with the CONOPS. In
furtherance of DoD’s goal to develop
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53777-53786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22069]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD978
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Rehabilitation of Jetty A at
the Mouth of the Columbia River
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (the Corps) to incidentally harass, by
Level B harassment only, six species of marine mammals during
activities related to the rehabilitation of Jetty A at the mouth of the
Columbia River (MCR).
DATES: This authorization is effective from May 1, 2016 through April
30, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the Corps' application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review
of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period
on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must
either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as ``any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A
harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
Summary of Request
On February 13, 2015 NMFS received an application from the Corps
for the taking of marine mammals incidental to the rehabilitation of
Jetty A at the MCR. On June 9, 2015 NMFS received a revised
application. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and
complete on June 12, 2015. The Corps proposes to conduct in-water work
that may incidentally harass marine mammals (i.e., pile driving and
removal). The use of vibratory pile driving is expected to produce
underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in
behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Species with the expected
potential to be present during the project timeframe include killer
whale (Orcinus orca), Steller sea lion (Eumatopius jubatus), gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina richardii).
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
The Corps is seeking an IHA for the first year of pile installation
and, possibly, removal work at Jetty A related to construction and
maintenance of a barge offloading facility. The barge facility will be
used for activities associated with the rehabilitation of Jetty A. The
Corps is seeking this authorization by the end of August 2015 for
contract bid scheduling reasons.
Dates and Duration
Work on the first year of pile installation may begin as early as
May 2016 and would extend through September 2017. Because the work may
extend to two seasons the Corps has requested a Letter of Authorization
(LOA) that would come into effect immediately after the IHA expires for
the second year of pile maintenance and removal at Jetty A. The LOA
would also
[[Page 53778]]
cover rehabilitation work planned for the North and South Jetties.
Specific Geographic Region
This activity will take place at Jetty A at the MCR jetty system in
Pacific County, Washington.
Detailed Description of Activities
We provided a description of the proposed action in our Federal
Register notice announcing the proposed authorization (80 FR 43739;
July 23, 2015). Please refer to that document; we provide only summary
information here.
The scheduled rehabilitation of Jetty A would occur as part of the
Corps' Major Rehabilitation program for the MCR jetty system. During
the first year of the project, operators would install and potentially
remove up to 24 24-in steel piles and 93 sections of Z or H piles using
a vibratory hammer. USACE expects those activities to take 17 days and
would limit them to daylight hours only.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
Federal Register on July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43739). During the 30-day
public comment period, the Marine Mammal Commission submitted a letter.
The letter is available on the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. All comments specific to the
Corps' application that address the statutory and regulatory
requirements or findings NMFS must make to issue an IHA are addressed
in this section of the Federal Register notice.
Comment 1: The Commission recommends that a hydroacoustic
monitoring plan be incorporated in subsequent years of activity under
requested regulations, if and when issued. The Commission believes such
a plan is prudent due to the types and sizes of piles to be installed
and removed, the substrate of the environment, and the ambient sound
and sound propagation loss associated with a river mouth opening into
the open ocean.
Response 1: NMFS agrees that a hydroacoustic monitoring plan would
be valuable for defining potential injury and harassment zones during
future years of the jetty rehabilitation project. There is very limited
hydroacoustic data pertaining to the MCR. NMFS will work with the
applicant to devise a monitoring plan during the next application
cycle.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
There are six marine mammal species known to occur in the vicinity
of the MCR which may be subjected to Level B harassment. These are the
killer whale, Steller sea lion, gray whale, harbor porpoise, California
sea lion, and harbor seal.
We have reviewed the Corps' detailed species descriptions,
including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and
refer the reader to Section 3 of the Corps' application as well as the
proposed incidental harassment authorization published in the Federal
Register (80 FR 43739) instead of reprinting the information here.
Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts which provide information
regarding the biology and behavior of the marine resources that occur
in the vicinity of the MCR. We provided additional information for the
potentially affected stocks, including details of stock-wide status,
trends, and threats, in our Federal Register notice of proposed
authorization (80 FR 43739).
Table 1 lists marine mammal stocks that could occur in the vicinity
of the Jetty A project that may be subject to Level B harassment and
summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance.
Taxonomically, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2014). Please see NMFS'
Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars,
for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance.
Table 1--List of Marine Mammal Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction That Occur in the Vicinity of the MCR Project
Area *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock(s) abundance Frequency of occurrence
Species estimate \1\ ESA status MMPA * status \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), 85................... Endangered..... Depleted and Infrequent/Rare.
Eastern N. Pacific, Southern Strategic.
Resident Stock.
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), 243.................. ............... Non-depleted... Rare.
Eastern N. Pacific, West
Coast Transient Stock.
Gray Whale (Eschrichtius 18,017 (173)......... Delisted/ Non-depleted... Rare.
robustus), Eastern North Recovered
Pacific Stock, (Pacific (1994).
Coast Feed Group).
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena 21,487............... ............... Non-depleted... Likely.
phocoena), Northern Oregon/
Washington Coast Stock.
Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias 63,160-78,198........ Delisted/ Depleted and Likely.
jubatus), Eastern U.S. Stock/ Recovered Strategic \2\.
DPS**. (2013).
California Sea Lion (Zalophus 296,750.............. ............... Non-depleted... Likely.
californianus), U.S. Stock.
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina 24,732 \4\........... ............... Non-depleted... Seasonal.
richardii), Oregon and
Washington Stock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NOAA/NMFS 2014 marine mammal stock assessment reports at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.
\2\ May be updated based on the recent delisting status.
\3\ Frequency defined here in the range of:
Rare--Few confirmed sightings, or the distribution of the species is near enough to the area that the
species could occur there.
Infrequent--Confirmed, but irregular sightings.
Likely--Confirmed and regular sightings of the species in the area year-round.
Seasonal--Confirmed and regular sightings of the species in the area on a seasonal basis.
\4\ Data is 8 years old. No current abundance estimates exist.
* MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act.
** DPS = Distinct population segment.
[[Page 53779]]
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
The Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR
43739), incorporated here by reference, provides a general background
on sound relevant to the specified activity as well as a detailed
description of marine mammal hearing and of the potential effects of
these construction activities on marine mammals.
Anticipated Effects on Habitat
We described potential impacts to marine mammal habitat in detail
in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization. In summary,
the project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat.
The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance,
thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a
limited portion of the foraging range. Because of the short duration of
the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be
affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative consequences for individual
marine mammals or their populations
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, ``and other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking'' for certain
subsistence uses.
Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with
practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment''). ZOIs are often used to
establish a mitigation zone around each pile (when deemed practicable)
to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals, and also provide
estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur.
ZOIs may vary between different diameter piles and types of
installation methods. The Corps will employ the following mitigation
measures:
(a) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews,
marine mammal monitoring team, and the Corps' staff prior to the start
of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in
order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving
(using, e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or
clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine
mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall
reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and
safe working conditions. This type of work could include the following
activities: (1) Movement of the barge to the pile location or (2)
positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing
the pile).
Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving
The following measures apply to the Corps' mitigation through
shutdown and disturbance zones:
Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities, the Corps will
establish a shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are intended to contain the
area in which SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB rms acoustic injury
criteria, with the purpose being to define an area within which
shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or
in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus
preventing injury of marine mammals. The estimated shutdown zone for
Level A injury to cetaceans would be 1 meter. The Corps, however, would
implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius for all marine mammals
around all vibratory pile driving and removal activities. These
precautionary measures are intended to further reduce the unlikely
possibility of injury from direct physical interaction with
construction operations.
Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which sound
pressure levels (SPLs) equal or exceed 120 dB rms (for continuous
sound) for pile driving installation and removal. Disturbance zones
provide utility for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e.,
shutdown zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for
areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones
enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine
mammals in the project area but outside the shutdown zone and thus
prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. However, the primary
purpose of disturbance zone monitoring is for documenting incidents of
Level B harassment. Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are
shown in Table 2. The shutdown zone for Level B injury wound extend
7,356 meters from the sound source. Given the size of the disturbance
zone for vibratory pile driving, it is impossible to guarantee that all
animals would be observed or to make comprehensive observations of
fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound. We discuss monitoring
objectives and protocols in greater depth in ``Monitoring and
Reporting.''
Table 2--Calculated Area Encompassed Within Zone of Influence at MCR Jetties for Underwater Marine Mammal Sound
Thresholds at Jetty A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater Area excluding land & jetty
Jetty threshold Distance--m (mi) masses--km\2\ (mi\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jetty A: ~ Station 78+50, Vibratory 0............................. 0
River Side. driving,
pinniped
injury (190
dB).
Vibratory 1 (3.3)....................... <0.000003 (0.000001)
driving,
cetacean
injury (180
dB).
Vibratory 7,356 (4.6 miles)............. 23.63 (9.12)
driving,
disturbance
(120 dB).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Restrictions--Work would occur only during daylight hours,
when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. In order
minimize impact to Southern resident killer whales, in-water work will
not be conducted during their primary feeding season extending from
October 1 until on or after May 1. Installation could occur from May 1
through September 30 each year.
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, observers
record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The
observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven,
is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a
distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from
the pile and the estimated ZOIs for relevant activities (i.e., pile
installation and removal). This information may then be used to
extrapolate observed
[[Page 53780]]
takes to reach an approximate understanding of actual total takes.
Soft Start--The use of a soft start procedure is believed to
provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing
a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full
capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from
the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This
procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify
the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation
across drivers. The project will utilize soft start techniques for all
vibratory pile driving. We require the Corps to initiate sound from
vibratory hammers for fifteen seconds at reduced energy followed by a
thirty-second waiting period, with the procedure repeated two
additional times. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each
day's pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile
driving of 20 minutes or longer.
Monitoring
Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring would be conducted before, during,
and after pile driving. In addition, observers shall record all
incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from
activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with
distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the
shutdown zone will not result in shutdown and that pile segment would
be completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters
the shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities would be
halted. Monitoring will take place from thirty minutes prior to
initiation through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving
activities. Pile driving activities include the time to remove a single
pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of
the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable
by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. One observer will
be placed on or near the drilling rig near Jetty A while a second
observer will be stationed on the opposite side of the observable zone
of influence on Clatsop Spit. Qualified observers are trained
biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Advanced education in biological science or related field
(undergraduate degree or higher required);
(c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound
of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine
mammal behavior; and
(g) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone
will be monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine
mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared
the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to
remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own volition)
and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone
may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, when the entire
shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog,
etc.).
If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' ability
to make observations within the marine mammal shutdown zone (e.g.
excessive wind or fog), pile installation will cease. Pile driving will
not be initiated until the entire shutdown zone is visible.
The waters will be scanned 30 minutes prior to commencing pile
driving at the beginning of each day, and prior to commencing pile
driving after any stoppage of 30 minutes or greater. If marine mammals
enter or are observed within the designated marine mammal shutdown zone
during or 30 minutes prior to pile driving, the monitors will notify
the on-site construction manager to not begin until the animal has
moved outside the designated radius.
If any marine mammal species are encountered during activities that
are not listed in Table 1 for authorized taking and are likely to be
exposed to sound pressure levels (SPLs) greater than or equal to 120 dB
re 1mPa (rms), then the Holder of this Authorization must stop pile
driving activities and report observations to NMFS' Office of Protected
Resources at (301) 847-8401.
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during
the course of vibratory pile driving operations, activity will be
halted and delayed until the animal has voluntarily left and been
visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone. If a marine mammal is seen
above water and then dives below, the contractor would wait 15 minutes
for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans. If no marine mammals are
seen by the observer in that time it will be assumed that the animal
has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive
a pile.
(3) Marine mammal presence within the Level B harassment zone will
be monitored, but vibratory driving will not be stopped if marine
mammals are found to be present. Any marine mammal documented within
the Level B harassment zone during vibratory driving would constitute a
Level B take (harassment), and will be recorded and reported as such.
Mitigation Conclusions
We have carefully evaluated the Corps' proposed mitigation measures
and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine
whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the
affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our
evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the
following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which,
and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure
is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the
proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse
impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for
applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current
[[Page 53781]]
science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the
general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment
only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat
during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Corps' proposed measures, including
information from monitoring of implementation of mitigation measures
very similar to those described here under previous IHAs from other
marine construction projects, we have determined that the proposed
mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result
in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the following:
(1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals,
both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
(2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with
specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;
(3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond
to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse
effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may
impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects
on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the
following methods:
[ssquf] Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared
to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other
pertinent information);
[ssquf] Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other
pertinent information);
[ssquf] Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas
with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
(4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
(5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of
certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
The Corps consulted with NMFS to create a marine mammal monitoring
plan as part of the IHA application for this project.
Visual Marine Mammal Observations
Two individuals meeting the minimum qualifications
previously identified will monitor the marine mammal buffer area and
Level B harassment zones during vibratory pile. Monitors will be
stationed on the drilling rig or Jetty A as well as on Clatsop Spit.
During vibratory pile driving, the area within 10 meters
of pile driving activity will be monitored and maintained as a marine
mammal buffer area in which pile installation will not commence or will
be suspended temporarily if any marine mammals are observed within or
approaching the area of potential disturbance. The Level B harassment
area will be monitored by 2 observers at locations listed above. The
monitoring staff will record any presence of marine mammals by species,
will document any behavioral responses noted, and record Level B takes
when sightings overlap with pile installation activities.
The individuals will scan the waters within each
monitoring zone activity using binoculars (Vector 10X42 or equivalent),
spotting scopes (Swarovski 20-60 zoom or equivalent), and visual
observation.
The area within which the Level B harassment thresholds
could be exceeded during vibratory pile driving will be monitored for
the presence of marine mammals. Marine mammal presence within these
zones, if any, will be monitored but pile driving activity will not be
stopped if marine mammals were found to be present. Any marine mammal
documented within the Level B harassment zone will constitute a Level B
take, and will be recorded and used to document the number of take
incidents.
If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the
observers' ability to make observations within the marine mammal buffer
zone (e.g. excessive wind or fog), pile installation will cease until
conditions allow the resumption of monitoring.
The waters will be scanned for 30 minutes before, during,
and 30 minutes after any and all pile driving and removal activities.
If marine mammals enter or are observed within the
designated marine mammal buffer zone (10 m) during or 30 minutes prior
to pile driving, the monitors will notify the on-site construction
manager to not begin until the animal has moved outside the designated
radius.
If a marine mammal approaches the shutdown zone prior to
initiation of pile driving, the Corps cannot commence activities until
the marine mammal (a) is observed to have left the Level A harassment
zone or (b) has not been seen or otherwise detected within the Level A
harassment zone for 30 minutes.
The waters will continue to be scanned for at least 30
minutes after pile driving has completed each day, and
[[Page 53782]]
after each stoppage of 30 minutes or greater.
Data Collection
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, the Corps will record detailed information about
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to
the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting
behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Corps will attempt to
distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the
number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the
following information be collected on the sighting forms:
Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
Other human activity in the area.
Reporting
The Corps will notify NMFS prior to the initiation of the pile
driving activities. The Corps will 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 no comments are received from
NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final
report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment];
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from
vibratory pile driving/removal and involving temporary changes in
behavior. Injurious or lethal takes are not expected due to the
expected source levels and sound source characteristics associated with
the activity, and the planned mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to further minimize the possibility of such take.
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types
of impacts of sound in every given situation on marine mammals, it is
common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present
within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a
particular level of sound, based on the available science.
This practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine
mammals taken for stationary activities, as it is likely that some
smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of
harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new
individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of
residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g.,
because of foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence
presented by the harassing activity.
The Corps requested authorization for the incidental taking of
small numbers of killer whale, Gray whale, harbor porpoise, Steller sea
lion, California sea lion, and harbor seal near the MCR project area
that may result from vibratory pile driving and removal during
construction activities associated with the rehabilitation of Jetty A
at the MCR.
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur
incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent
of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then
consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or
abundance in the project area. We provided detailed information on
applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals
as well as describing the information used in estimating the sound
fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information,
and the method of estimating potential incidences of take, in our
Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 43739; July
23, 2015).
Table 2 above illustrated that during vibratory driving the120 dB
Level B harassment threshold could be exceeded at 7,356 meters. Note
that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is
significantly constrained by local topography relative to the
identified threshold radii.
The method used for calculating potential exposures to vibratory
pile driving noise for each threshold was estimated using local marine
mammal data sets, the Biological Opinion, best professional judgment
from state and federal agencies, and data from IHA estimates on similar
projects with similar actions. All estimates are conservative and
include the following assumptions:
During construction, each species could be present in the
project area each day. The potential for a take is based on a 24-hour
period. The model assumes that there can be one potential take (Level B
harassment exposure) per individual per 24-hours.
All pilings installed at each site would have an
underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the
greatest noise disturbance (i.e., the piling furthest from shore)
installed with the method that has the largest ZOI. The largest
underwater disturbance ZOI would be produced by vibratory driving steel
piles. The ZOIs for each threshold are not spherical and are truncated
by land masses which would dissipate sound pressure waves.
Exposures were based on an estimated 17 days of in-water
work.
In absence of site specific underwater acoustic propagation modeling,
the practical spreading loss model was used to determine the ZOI.
Southern resident killer whales have been observed offshore near
the study area and ZOI, but the Corps does not have fine-scale details
on frequency of use. While killer whales do occur in the Columbia River
plume, where fresh water from the river intermixes with salt water from
the ocean, they are rarely seen in the interior of the Columbia River
Jetty system. The ensonified area associated with the proposed action
at Jetty A does not extend out into the open ocean where killer whales
are likely to be found. Furthermore, the Corps has limited its pile
installation window in order to avoid peak salmon runs and any overlap
with the presence of Southern residents. To ensure no Level B
acoustical harassment occurs, the Corps will restrict pile installation
from October 1 until April 30 of each season. However, this restriction
was
[[Page 53783]]
enacted primarily for construction work at the North and South jetties,
where the ensonified zone will radiate out towards the open ocean. As
such NMFS is not anticipating any acoustic exposure to Southern
residents. Also note that in the 2011 Biological Opinion, NMFS issued a
not likely to adversely affect determination. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that authorization of take for Southern residents is not
warranted.
Western Transient killer whales may be traversing offshore over a
greater duration of time than the feeding resident. They are rarely
observed inside of the jetty system. The Southwest Fisheries Science
Center (SWFSC) stratum model under the Marine Animal Monitor Model
provides an estimated density of 0.00070853 animals per km\2\for summer
killer whales for areas near MCR, which may provide a surrogate proxy
value for assuming possible densities near the jetties (Barlow et al.
2009, Halpin et al. 2009 at OBIS-SEAMAP). Given anecdotal evidence
(Griffith 2015) and sightings recorded on the OBIS network from surveys
done in 2005 (Halpin et al. 2009, OBIS-SEAMAP 2015), this density may
be appropriate for the MCR vicinity.
The following formula was used to calculate exposure using
Exposure Estimate = (0.000708DensityEstimate *
23.63ZOI Jetty A * 17days) = 0.28 killer whale
exposures
Where:
NDensityEstimate = Represents estimated density of
species within the 4.6-mile radius (23.63 km\2\) encompassing the
ZOI at Jetty A; using the density model suggested by NOAA (2015),
this equates to 0.000708 animals per km\2\(Barlow et al. 2009).
Days = Total days of pile installation or removal activity (~17
days)
Given the low density and rare occurrence of transient killer
whales in the ZOI, exposure of feeding or transient killer whales to
Level B acoustical harassment from pile driving is unlikely to occur.
However, NMFS proposes to authorize take of small number due to the
remote chance that transient orcas remain in the vicinity to feed on
pinnipeds that frequent the haulouts at the South Jetty.
NMFS believes that an authorized take of 8 transients is warranted
because solitary killer whales are rarely observed, and transient
whales travel in pods of 2-15 members. NMFS has assumed a pod size of
8.
Based on anecdotal information and sightings between 2006 and 2011
(Halpin et al. 2009 at OBIS SEAMAP 2015), gray whales may be in the
proximity of the proposed action area and exposed to underwater
acoustic disturbances. However, no data exists that is specific to
presence and numbers in the MCR vicinity and gray whale density
estimates were not available on the SERDP or OBIS-SEAMAP web model
sites. Anecdotal evidence also indicates gray whales have been seen at
MCR, but are not a common visitor, as they mostly remain in the
vicinity of the further offshore shelf-break (Griffith 2015). According
to NOAA's Cetacean Mapping classification of the MCR vicinity
pertaining to gray whale use, its Biologically Important Area
categorization is indicated as a migration corridor (https://cetsound.noaa.gov/biologically-important-area-map). As primarily bottom
feeders, gray whales are the most coastal of all great whales; they
primarily feed in shallow continental shelf waters and live much of
their lives within a few tens of kilometers of shore (Barlow et. al.
2009 on OBIS--SEAMAP 2015).
The Pacific Coast Feeding Group or northbound summer migrants would
be the most likely gray whales to be in the vicinity of MCR. Since no
information pertaining to gray whale densities could be identified,
NMFS elected to apply proxy data for estimating densities. As a proxy,
data pertinent to humpback whales (0.0039 animals per km\2\) was
selected because both are baleen species found near the MCR vicinity
for the same purposes (as a migration route or temporary feeding zone).
However, the number of estimated exposures at Jetty A was increased to
account for the fact that gray whales are more likely to be in the
nearshore environment than humpback whales. This increase was proposed
strictly as a conservative assumption to acknowledge the distinct
preference gray whales may have over humpbacks for nearshore feeding.
The following formula was used to calculate exposure:
Exposure Estimate = (0.0039DensityEstimate *
23.63ZOI Jetty A * 17days) + 1 = 1.56 gray whale
exposures
Migrating gray whales often travel in groups of 2, although larger
pods do occur. For gray whales, NMFS believes 4 Level B authorized
takes is reasonable.
Harbor porpoises are known to occupy shallow, coastal waters and,
therefore, are likely to be found in the vicinity of the MCR. They are
known to occur within the proposed project area, however, density data
for this region is unavailable (Griffith 2015).
The SWFSC stratum model under the Marine Animal Monitor Model
provides an estimated density per km\2\ of year-round porpoises for
areas near northern California, which may provide a surrogate proxy
value for assuming possible densities near the jetties. Though not in
the project vicinity, the range of 3.642 animals/km\2\(Barlow et al.
2009, Halpin et al. 2009) is a relatively high density compared to
values moving even further south along the model boundaries, for which
the northern-most extent ends in California. Given anecdotal evidence
(Griffith 2015) and sightings recorded on the OBIS network from surveys
done between 1989 and 2005, (Halpin et al. 2009, OBIS-SEAMAP 2015),
this higher density may be appropriate for the MCR vicinity, or may be
conservative.
The formula previously described was used to arrive at a take
estimate for harbor porpoise.
Exposure Estimate = (3.642DensityEstimate *
23.63ZOI Jetty A * 17days) = 1,464.
Based on the density model suggested by NOAA (2015), the Corps has
provided a very conservative maximum estimate of 1,464 harbor porpoise
disturbance exposures over the 17 days of operation. However, this
number of potential exposures does not accurately reflect the actual
number of animals that would potentially be taken for the MCR jetty
project. Rather, it is more likely that the same pod may be exposed
more than once during the 17-day operating window. The highest
estimated number of animals exposed on any single day based on the
modeled proxy density (Barlow et al. 2009 at SERDP) and the jetty with
the greatest ZOI is 193 animals (from South Jetty Channel). While the
number of pods in the vicinity of the MCR is unknown, the size of the
pods is usually assumed to be significantly smaller than 193 animals.
According to OBIS-SEAMAP (2015 and Halpin et al. 2009), the normal
range of group size generally consists of less than five or six
individuals, though aggregations into large, loose groups of 50 to
several hundred animals could occur for feeding or migration. Because
the ZOI only extends for a maximum of 7,256 meters (4.6 miles), it may
also be assumed that due to competition and territorial circumstances
only a limited number of pods would be feeding in the ZOI at any
particular time. If the modeled density calculations are assumed, then
this means anywhere from 32 small pods to 2 large, 100-animal pods
might be feeding during every day of pile installation. Given these
values seem an unrealistic representation of use and pod densities
[[Page 53784]]
within any one of the ZOIs, NMFS is proposing an alternative
calculation.
NMFS conservatively assumed that a single, large feeding pod of 50
animals forms within the ZOI for Jetty A on each day of pile
installation. Though this is likely much higher than actual use by
multiple pods in the vicinity, it more realistically represents a
worst-case scenario for the number of animals that could potentially be
affected by the proposed work. This calculation also assumes that it is
a new pod of individuals would be affected on each installation day,
which is also unlikely given pod residency. Therefore, NMFS is
permitting a Level B take for 850 animals.
There are haulout sites on the South Jetty used by pinnipeds,
especially Steller sea lions. It is likely that pinnipeds that use the
haulout area in would be exposed to 120 dB threshold acoustic threshold
during pile driving activities. The number of exposures would vary
based on weather conditions, season, and daily fluctuations in
abundance. Based on a survey by the Washington Department of Fish &
Wildlife (WDFW) the number of affected Steller sea lions could be
between 200-800 animals per month; California sea lion numbers could
range from 1 to 500 per month and the number of harbor seals could be
as low as 1 to as high as 57 per month. Exposure and take estimates
below are based on past pinniped data from WDFW (2000-2014 data), which
had a more robust monthly sampling frequency relative to Oregon
Department of Fish &Wildlife (ODFW) counts. The exception to this was
for harbor seal counts, for which ODFW (also 2000-2014 data) had more
sampling data in certain months. Therefore, ODFW harbor seal data was
used for the months of May and July. Exposure estimates are much higher
than take estimates. This is because unlike the exposure estimate which
assumes all new individuals, the take estimate request assumes that
some of the same individuals will remain in the area and be exposed
multiple times during the short 17-day installation period to complete
and remove each offloading facility (for a total of about 68 days).
NMFS examined the estimated monthly average number of animals from
2000-2014 hauled on South Jetty during May and June, which are the most
likely months for pile installation as is shown in Table 3. There are
no anticipated airborne exposures since the main haul out sites are not
in close proximity to Jetty A. Note that the formula used by NMFS is
different than that employed by the Corps in their application as NMFS
is only analyzing potential impacts associated with Jetty A. To
reiterate, these exposure estimates assume a new individual is exposed
every day throughout each acoustic disturbance, for the entire duration
of the project.
Exposure EstimateStellar = (Nest(May+June/2) *
17underwater/piles days) = 12,750 Steller sea lions
Exposure EstimateCalifornia = (Nest(May+June/2) *
17underwater/piles days) = 2,788 CA sea lions
Exposure EstimateHarbor = (Nest(May+June/2) *
17underwater/piles days)= 493 Harbor porpoises
Where:
Nest = Estimated daily average number of animals for May
and June hauled out at South Jetty based on WDFW data.
Duration = total days of pile installation or removal activity for
underwater thresholds (17);
Table 3--Authorized Takes of Pinnipeds During Pile Installation at Jetty A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea California Harbor seal
lion sea lion ---------------
Month --------------------------------
Avg \1\ # Avg \1\ # Avg \1\ \2\ #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April........................................................... 587 99 ..............
May............................................................. 824 125 0
June............................................................ 676 202 57
July............................................................ 358 1 10
August.......................................................... 324 115 1
September....................................................... 209 249 ..............
October......................................................... 384 508 ..............
Avg Daily Count (May+June/2) \3\................................ 750 164 29
Total Exposures over Duration \4\ (17 days)................. 12,750 2,788 493
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ WDFW average daily count per month from 2000-2014.
\2\ ODFW average daily count per month for May and July 2000-2014 due to additional available sampling data.
\3\ Conservatively assumes each exposure is to new individual, all individuals are new arrivals each month, and
no individual is exposed more than one time.
\4\ Assumed 17 pile installation/removal days.
Analyses and Determinations
Negligible Impact Analysis
Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of 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 must consider 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 harassment takes,
the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status
of the species.
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all
the species listed in Table 4 given that the anticipated effects of
this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be
relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the size,
status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a
different analysis for this activity, else species-specific factors
would be identified and analyzed.
Pile driving activities associated with the rehabilitation of Jetty
A at the mouth of the Columbia River, as outlined
[[Page 53785]]
previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, the planned activities may result in take, in the form of
Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater
sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if
individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when
pile driving is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the
nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the
possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these
outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the
implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically,
vibratory hammers will be the only method of installation utilized. No
impact driving is planned. Vibratory driving does not have significant
potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low
source levels produced (site-specific acoustic monitoring data show no
source level measurements above 180 dB rms) and the lack of potentially
injurious source characteristics. The likelihood that marine mammal
detection ability by trained observers is high under the environmental
conditions described for the rehabilitation of Jetty A at MCR further
enables the implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury, serious
injury, or mortality.
The Corps' proposed activities are localized and of short duration.
The entire project area is limited to the Jetty A area and its
immediate surroundings. Actions covered under the Authorization would
include installing a maximum of 24 piles for use as dolphins and a
maximum of 93 sections of Z or H piles for retention of rock fill over
17 days. The piles would be a maximum diameter of 24 inches and would
only be installed by vibratory driving method. The possibility exists
that smaller diameter piles may be used but for this analysis it is
assumed that 24 inch piles will be driven.
These 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. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to reduce potential exposures and
behavioral modifications even further. Additionally, no important
feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be
near the proposed action area. Therefore, the take resulting from the
proposed project 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 project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in
the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section. The
project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The
activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus
temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a
limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short
duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat
that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not
expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff,
2006; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from
the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile
driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only
in association with impact pile driving. In response to vibratory
driving, pinnipeds (which may become somewhat habituated to human
activity in industrial or urban waterways) have been observed to orient
towards and sometimes move towards the sound. The pile driving
activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than,
numerous construction activities conducted in other similar locations,
which have taken place with no reported injuries or mortality to marine
mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral
harassment. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that
may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing
impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even
repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock
is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness
for the affected individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse
impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment will be reduced to
the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation
measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities
is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the
project area while the activity is occurring.
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the
following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or
mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the
anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior and; (3) the presumed efficacy of
the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the
specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In
combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available
body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the
potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term
effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to
impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result
in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
the Corps' rehabilitation of Jetty A at MCR will have a negligible
impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Table 4--Estimated Percentage of Species/Stocks That May Be Exposed to Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total proposed
Species authorized Abundance Percentage of
takes total stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale (Western transient stock).......................... 8 243 3.2
Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific Stock)........................ 4 18,017 <0.01
Harbor porpoise................................................. 850 21,487 3.9
[[Page 53786]]
Steller sea lion................................................ 12,750 63,160-78,198 20.2-16.3-1.0
California sea lion............................................. 2,788 296,750 0.01
Harbor seal..................................................... 493 24,732 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Numbers Analysis
Table 4 illustrates the number of animals that could be exposed to
received noise levels that could cause Level B behavioral harassment
for the proposed work associated with the rehabilitation of Jetty A at
MCR. The analyses provided above represents between <0.01%--20.9% of
the populations of these stocks that could be affected by Level B
behavioral harassment. The numbers of animals authorized to be taken
for all species would be considered small relative to the relevant
stocks or populations even if each estimated taking occurred to a new
individual--an extremely unlikely scenario. For pinnipeds occurring in
the vicinity of Jetty A, there will almost certainly be overlap in
individuals present day-to-day, and these takes are likely to occur
only within some small portion of the overall regional stock.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures, which are expected to reduce the number of marine mammals
potentially affected by the proposed action, NMFS finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of
the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in the proposed
project area; and, thus, no subsistence uses impacted by this action.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There are two marine mammal species that are listed as endangered
under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area:
humpback whale and Southern resident killer whale. For the purposes of
this IHA, NMFS determined that take of Southern resident killer whales
was highly unlikely given the rare occurrence of these animals in the
project area. A similar conclusion was reached for humpback whales. On
March 18, 2011, NMFS signed a Biological Opinion concluding that the
proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
humpback whales and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
Southern resident killer whales.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The Corps issued the Final Environmental Assessment Columbia River
at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington Rehabilitation of the Jetty System
at the Mouth of the Columbia River and Finding of No Significant Impact
in 2011. The environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no
significant interest (FONSI) were revised in 2012 with a FONSI being
signed on July 26, 2012. NMFS has adopted the findings of the 2012
FONSI.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to the
Corps for conducting the described activities related to the
rehabilitation of Jetty A at the MCR from May 1, 2016 through April 30,
2017 provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: September 1, 2015.
Perry Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-22069 Filed 9-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P