Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Mukilteo Multimodal Construction Project in Washington State, 21793-21808 [2017-09417]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
Council address: New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director,
New England Fishery Management
Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Agenda
The Monkfish Advisory Panel will
discuss the potential continuation of
Amendment 6 to implement catch
shares in the monkfish fishery. They
will also discuss research priorities for
the monkfish RSA program. Other
business will be discussed as needed.
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
listed in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Council’s intent to take
final action to address the emergency.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at
(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to
the meeting date. This meeting will be
recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C.
1852, a copy of the recording is
available upon request.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 4, 2017.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–09433 Filed 5–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
RIN 0648–XF340
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Mukilteo
Multimodal Construction Project in
Washington State
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Proposed incidental harassment
authorization (IHA); request for
comments.
ACTION:
NMFS has received a request
from Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to Mukilteo Multimodal
Construction Project in Washington
State. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an IHA to incidentally take marine
mammals during the specified activities.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than June 9, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Physical
comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910
and electronic comments should be sent
to ITP.guan@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments received
electronically, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF
file formats only. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.htm without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the applications
and supporting documents, as well as a
list of the references cited in this
document, may be obtained online at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.htm. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21793
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth.
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’
means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill
any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
National Environmental Policy Act
Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5)(D)
authorization requires compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act.
NMFS preliminary determined the
issuance of the proposed IHA is
consistent with categories of activities
identified in CE B4 (issuance of
incidental harassment authorizations
under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA for which no serious injury or
mortality is anticipated) of the
Companion Manual for NAO 216–6A
and we have not identified any
extraordinary circumstances listed in
Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for
NAO 216–6A that would preclude this
categorical exclusion.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
prior to making a final decision as to
whether application of this CE is
appropriate in this circumstance.
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
21794
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
Summary of Request
NMFS received a request from
WSDOT for an IHA to take marine
mammals incidental to Mukilteo
Multimodal Project in Mukilteo,
Washington. WSDOT’s request was for
harassment only and NMFS concurs
that serious injury or mortality is not
expected to result from this activity.
Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
On April 7, 2016, WSDOT submitted
a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for
the possible harassment of small
numbers of marine mammal species
incidental to construction associated
with the Mukilteo Multimodal Project in
Mukilteo, Washington, between August
1, 2017, and July 31, 2018. WSDOT
subsequently updated its project scope
and submitted a revised IHA application
on April 10, 2017. NMFS determined
the IHA application was complete on
April 14, 2017. NMFS is proposing to
authorize the take by Level A and Level
B harassment of the following marine
mammal species: Harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus), northern elephant
seal (Mirounga angustirostris), killer
whale (Orcinus orca), gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and
Dall’s porpoise (P. dalli).
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The purpose of the Mukilteo
Multimodal Project is to provide safe,
reliable, and effective service and
connection for general-purpose
transportation, transit, high occupancy
vehicles (HOV), pedestrians, and
bicyclists traveling between Island
County and the Seattle/Everett
metropolitan area and beyond by
constructing a new ferry terminal. The
current Mukilteo Ferry Terminal has not
had significant improvements for almost
30 years and needs key repairs. The
existing facility is deficient in a number
of aspects, such as safety, multimodal
connectivity, capacity, and the ability to
support the goals of local and regional
long-range transportation and
comprehensive plans. The project is
intended to:
• Reduce conflicts, congestion, and
safety concerns for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motorists by improving
local traffic and safety at the terminal
and the surrounding area that serves
these transportation needs.
• Provide a terminal and supporting
facilities with the infrastructure and
operating characteristics needed to
improve the safety, security, quality,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness
of multimodal transportation.
• Accommodate future demand
projected for transit, HOV, pedestrian,
bicycle, and general-purpose traffic.
The proposed Mukilteo Multimodal
Project would involve in-water impact
and vibratory pile driving and vibratory
pile removal. Details of the proposed
construction project are provided below.
Dates and Duration
Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water
work timing restrictions to protect ESAlisted salmonids, planned WSDOT inwater construction is limited each year
to July 16 through February 15. For this
project, in-water construction is
planned to take place between August 1,
2017 and February 15, 2018. The total
worst-case time for pile installation and
removal is 175 days (Table 1).
Specified Geographic Region
The Mukilteo Ferry Terminal is
located in the City of Mukilteo,
Snohomish County, Washington. The
terminal is located in Township 28
North, Range 4 East, Section 3, in
Possession Sound. The new terminal
will be approximately 1,700 ft east of
the existing terminal in Township 28N,
Range 4E, Section 33 (Figure 1–2 of the
IHA application). Land use in the
Mukilteo area is a mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, and open space
and/or undeveloped lands.
Detailed Description of In-Water Pile
Driving Associated With Mukilteo
Multimodal Project
The proposed project has two
elements involving noise production
that may affect marine mammals:
Vibratory hammer driving and removal,
and impact hammer driving.
(1) Vibratory Hammer Driving and
Removal
Vibratory hammers are commonly
used in steel pile driving where
sediments allow, and involve the same
vibratory hammer used in pile removal.
The pile is placed into position using a
choker and crane, and then vibrated
between 1,200 and 2,400 vibrations per
minute. The vibrations liquefy the
sediment surrounding the pile allowing
it to penetrate to the required seating
depth, or to be removed. The type of
vibratory hammer that will be used for
the project will likely be an APE 400
King Kong (or equivalent) with a drive
force of 361 tons.
(2) Impact Hammer Installation
Impact hammers are used to install
plastic/steel core, wood, concrete, or
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
steel piles. An impact hammer is a steel
device that works like a piston. Impact
hammers are usually large, though small
impact hammers are used to install
small diameter plastic/steel core piles.
Impact hammers have guides (called a
lead) that hold the hammer in alignment
with the pile while a heavy piston
moves up and down, striking the top of
the pile, and drives it into the substrate
from the downward force of the hammer
on the top of the pile.
To drive the pile, the pile is first
moved into position and set in the
proper location using a choker cable or
vibratory hammer. Once the pile is set
in place, pile installation with an
impact hammer can take less than 15
minutes under good conditions, to over
an hour under poor conditions (such as
glacial till and bedrock, or exceptionally
loose material in which the pile
repeatedly moves out of position).
Impact hammer is also used for
‘‘proofing’’ after pile is driven using a
vibratory hammer to set the pile firmly.
Details of pile driving activities are
provided below and are summarized in
Table 1.
• Vibratory driving of 24-inch
temporary steel pile and steel piles for
a public fishing pier. Installation of each
pile will take approximately 60 minutes,
3 piles installed per day, with 117 piles
installed over 39 days.
• Vibratory removal of 69 temporary
24-inch diameter steel piles. This will
take approximately 15 minutes per pile,
with 3 piles removed per day over 23
days.
• Vibratory driving of 40 30-inch steel
piles. This will take approximately 60
minutes per pile, with 3 piles installed
per day over 14 days.
• Vibratory removal of 2 30-inch test
steel piles. This will take approximately
15 minutes per pile, with both piles
removed in 1 day.
• Vibratory removal of 7 30-inch
inner dolphin steel piles. This will take
approximately 15 minutes per pile, with
all 7 piles removed in 1 day.
• Vibratory driving of 6 36-inch steel
piles. This will take approximately 60
minutes per pile, with 3 piles installed
per day over 2 days.
• Vibratory driving of 2 78-inch
diameter drilled steel shafts. This will
take approximately 60 minutes to install
in one day.
• Vibratory driving of a 120-inch
diameter drilled steel shaft. This will
take approximately 60 minutes to install
in one day.
• Vibratory driving of 139 steel Hpiles. This will take approximately 30
minutes per pile, with 10 piles installed
per day over 14 days.
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
21795
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
• Vibratory driving of 90 temporary
steel sheet piles. This will take
approximately 30 minutes per pile, with
3 sheet piles installed per day over 30
days.
• Vibratory removal of 90 temporary
steel sheet piles. This will take
approximately 15 minutes per pile, with
6 piles removed per day over 15 days.
• Impact driving (proofing; 300
strikes per pile) of 68 temporary 24-inch
diameter steel piles. This will take
approximately 15 minutes per pile, with
3 piles installed per day over 23 days.
• Impact driving (proofing; 300
strikes per pile) of 5 30-inch diameter
steel piles. This will take approximately
15 minutes per pile, with all 5 piles
installed in 1 day.
• Impact driving with 3000 strikes
per pile of 25 30-inch diameter steel
piles. This will take approximately 15
minutes per pile, with 3 piles installed
per day over 9 days.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING DURATIONS
Method
Pile type
Vibratory driving .......................................................
Vibratory removal .....................................................
Vibratory driving .......................................................
Vibratory removal .....................................................
Vibratory removal .....................................................
Vibratory driving .......................................................
Vibratory driving .......................................................
Vibratory driving .......................................................
Vibratory driving .......................................................
Vibratory driving .......................................................
Vibratory removal .....................................................
Impact proofing .........................................................
Impact driving ...........................................................
Impact proofing .........................................................
Total ..................................................................
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting’’).
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
We have reviewed the applicants’
species information—which
summarizes available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, behavior and
life history, and auditory capabilities of
the potentially affected species—for
accuracy and completeness and refer the
reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the
applications, as well as to NMFS’s Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR;
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of
reprinting all of the information here.
Additional general information about
these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found
on NMFS’s Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
mammals/), or in the U.S. Navy’s
Marine Resource Assessments (MRA)
for relevant operating areas. The MRAs
are available online at:
www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_
services/ev/products_and_services/
marine_resources/marine_resource_
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Pile size
(inch)
Pile number
Duration
(days)
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
shaft .............
shaft .............
H-pile ...........
sheet ............
sheet ............
......................
......................
......................
24
24
30
30
30
36
78
120
12
........................
........................
24
30
30
117
69
40
2
7
6
2
1
139
90
90
68
25
5
60/3600
15/900
60/3600
30/1800
15/1800
60/3600
60/3600
60/3600
30/1800
30/1800
15/900
300
3000
300
39
23
14
1
1
2
2
1
14
30
15
23
9
1
...............................
........................
661
............................
175
assessments.html. Table 2 lists all
species with expected potential for
occurrence in Mukilteo project area and
summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including potential
biological removal (PBR), where known.
For taxonomy, we follow Committee on
Taxonomy (2016). PBR, defined by the
MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing
that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population, is
considered in concert with known
sources of ongoing anthropogenic
mortality to assess the population-level
effects of the anticipated mortality from
a specific project (as described in
NMFS’s SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and
annual serious injury and mortality are
included here as gross indicators of the
status of the species and other threats.
Species that could potentially occur in
the proposed survey areas but are not
expected to have reasonable potential to
be harassed by WSDOT’s Mukilteo
Multimodal project are described briefly
but omitted from further analysis. These
include extralimital species, which are
species that do not normally occur in a
PO 00000
Duration
(min./sec.) per
pile (vib.) or
strikes per pile
(impact)
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
given area but for which there are one
or more occurrence records that are
considered beyond the normal range of
the species. For status of species, we
provide information regarding U.S.
regulatory status under the MMPA and
ESA.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study area. NMFS’s stock abundance
estimates for most species represent the
total estimate of individuals within the
geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock.
Nine species (with 10 managed
stocks) are considered to have the
potential to co-occur with the proposed
construction activities. Extralimital
species or stocks unlikely to co-occur
with the Mukilteo project include
bottlenose dolphin, long-beaked
common dolphin, Risso’s dolphin,
Bryde’s whale, and minke whale. All
values presented in Table 2 are the most
recent available at the time of
publication and are available in the
2015 SARs (Carretta et al. 2016) and
draft 2016 SARs (available online at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
21796
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock
abundance
(CV, Nmin,
most recent
abundance
survey) 2
Annual M/SI 3
PBR
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Eschrichtiidae
Gray whale .....................
Eschrichtius robustus ....
Eastern North Pacific ....
N ..............
20,990
624
132
1,918
11.0
6.5
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
Humpback whale ...........
Megaptera novaeangliae
California/Oregon/Washington.
Y ..............
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae
Killer whale .....................
Orcinus orca ..................
Eastern North Pacific
Southern Resident.
West coast transient ......
Y ..............
78
0
0
N ..............
243
2.4
0
N ..............
11,233
66
7.2
N ..............
25,750
172
0.3
296,750
71,562
9,200
2,498
389
108
N ..............
4 11,036
1,641
43
N ..............
179,000
2,882
8.8
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
Harbor porpoise .............
Phocoena phocoena .....
Dall’s porpoise ...............
P. dalli ............................
Washington inland
waters.
California/Oregon/Washington.
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
California sea lion ..........
Steller sea lion ...............
Zalophus californianus ..
Eumetopias jubatus .......
U.S. ................................
Eastern U.S. ..................
N ..............
N ..............
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
Harbor seal ....................
Phoca vitulina ................
Elephant seal .................
Mirounga angustirostris
Washington northern inland waters.
California breeding ........
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is
not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct
human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future.
Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; N
min is the minimum
estimate of stock abundance.
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or
range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
4 Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
of the specified activity may impact
marine mammals and their habitat. The
‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment’’ section later in this
document will include a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact
Analysis and Determination’’ section
will consider the content of this section,
the ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Mitigation’’ section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts
of these activities on the reproductive
success or survivorship of individuals
and how those impacts on individuals
are likely to impact marine mammal
species or stocks.
Potential impacts to marine mammals
from the proposed Mukilteo ferry
terminal construction are from noise
generated during in-water pile driving
and pile removal activities.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we first provide background
information on marine mammal hearing
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
before discussing the potential effects of
the use of active acoustic sources on
marine mammals.
Marine Mammal Hearing—Hearing is
the most important sensory modality for
marine mammals underwater, and
exposure to anthropogenic sound can
have deleterious effects. To
appropriately assess the potential effects
of exposure to sound, it is necessary to
understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data
indicate that not all marine mammal
species have equal hearing capabilities
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings,
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007) recommended that marine
mammals be divided into functional
hearing groups based on directly
measured or estimated hearing ranges
on the basis of available behavioral
response data, audiograms derived
using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 dB
threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. The
functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (note
that these frequency ranges correspond
to the range for the composite group,
with the entire range not necessarily
reflecting the capabilities of every
species within that group):
• Low-frequency cetaceans
(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with
best hearing estimated to be from 100
Hz to 8 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger
toothed whales, beaked whales, and
most delphinids): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz,
with best hearing from 10 to less than
100 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans
(porpoises, river dolphins, and members
of the genera Kogia and
Cephalorhynchus; including two
members of the genus Lagenorhynchus,
on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true
seals): Generalized hearing is estimated
to occur between approximately 50 Hz
to 86 kHz, with best hearing between
1–50 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared
seals): Generalized hearing is estimated
to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz,
with best hearing between 2–48 kHz.
• The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
especially in the higher frequency range
¨
(Hemila et al., 2006; Kastelein et al.,
2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2016) for a review of
available information. Nine marine
mammal species (5 cetacean and 4
pinniped (2 otariid and 2 phocid)
species) have the reasonable potential to
co-occur with the proposed survey
activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present, 2
are classified as low-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 1
is classified as mid-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., killer whale), and 2 are classified
as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor
porpoise and Dall’s porpoise).
The WSDOT’s Mukilteo Multimodal
construction work using in-water pile
driving and pile removal could
adversely affect marine mammal species
and stocks by exposing them to elevated
noise levels in the vicinity of the
activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for
a sufficient duration may result in
auditory effects such as a noise-induced
threshold shift—an increase in the
auditory threshold after exposure to
noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors
that influence the amount of threshold
shift include the amplitude, duration,
frequency content, temporal pattern,
and energy distribution of noise
exposure. The magnitude of hearing
threshold shift normally decreases over
time following cessation of the noise
exposure. The amount of threshold shift
just after exposure is the initial
threshold shift. If the threshold shift
eventually returns to zero (i.e., the
threshold returns to the pre-exposure
value), it is a temporary threshold shift
(Southall et al., 2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of
hearing)—When animals exhibit
reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds
must be louder for an animal to detect
them) following exposure to an intense
sound or sound for long duration, it is
referred to as a noise-induced threshold
shift (TS). An animal can experience
temporary threshold shift (TTS) or
permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS
can last from minutes or hours to days
(i.e., there is complete recovery), can
occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e.,
an animal might only have a temporary
loss of hearing sensitivity between the
frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can
be of varying amounts (for example, an
animal’s hearing sensitivity might be
reduced initially by only 6 decibel (dB)
or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent,
but some recovery is possible. PTS can
also occur in a specific frequency range
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21797
and amount as mentioned above for
TTS.
For marine mammals, published data
are limited to the captive bottlenose
dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and
Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et
al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a,
2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010;
Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a,
2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b;
Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et al.,
2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For
pinnipeds in water, data are limited to
measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an
elephant seal, and California sea lions
(Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et
al., 2012b).
Lucke et al. (2009) found a threshold
shift (TS) of a harbor porpoise after
exposing it to airgun noise with a
received sound pressure level (SPL) at
200.2 dB (peak–to-peak) re: 1
micropascal (mPa), which corresponds to
a sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re:
1 mPa2 s after integrating exposure.
Because the airgun noise is a broadband
impulse, one cannot directly determine
the equivalent of rms SPL from the
reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However,
applying a conservative conversion
factor of 16 dB for broadband signals
from seismic surveys (McCauley, et al.,
2000) to correct for the difference
between peak-to-peak levels reported in
Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the
rms SPL for TTS would be
approximately 184 dB re: 1 mPa, and the
received levels associated with PTS
(Level A harassment) would be higher.
Therefore, based on these studies,
NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor
porpoises is lower than other cetacean
species empirically tested (Finneran &
Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002;
Kastelein and Jennings, 2012).
Marine mammal hearing plays a
critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of
environmental cues for purposes such
as predator avoidance and prey capture.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
serious (similar to those discussed in
auditory masking, below). For example,
a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small
amount of TTS in a non-critical
frequency range that occurs during a
time where ambient noise is lower and
there are not as many competing sounds
present. Alternatively, a larger amount
and longer duration of TTS sustained
during time when communication is
critical for successful mother/calf
interactions could have more serious
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21798
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
impacts. Also, depending on the degree
and frequency range, the effects of PTS
on an animal could range in severity,
although it is considered generally more
serious because it is a permanent
condition. Of note, reduced hearing
sensitivity as a simple function of aging
has been observed in marine mammals,
as well as humans and other taxa
(Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer
that strategies exist for coping with this
condition to some degree, though likely
not without cost.
In addition, chronic exposure to
excessive, though not high-intensity,
noise could cause masking at particular
frequencies for marine mammals, which
utilize sound for vital biological
functions (Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic
masking is when other noises such as
from human sources interfere with
animal detection of acoustic signals
such as communication calls,
echolocation sounds, and
environmental sounds important to
marine mammals. Therefore, under
certain circumstances, marine mammals
whose acoustical sensors or
environment are being severely masked
could also be impaired from maximizing
their performance fitness in survival
and reproduction.
Masking occurs at the frequency band
that the animals utilize. Therefore, since
noise generated from vibratory pile
driving is mostly concentrated at low
frequency ranges, it may have less effect
on high frequency echolocation sounds
by odontocetes (toothed whales).
However, lower frequency man-made
noises are more likely to affect detection
of communication calls and other
potentially important natural sounds
such as surf and prey noise. It may also
affect communication signals when they
occur near the noise band and thus
reduce the communication space of
animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and
cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote
et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur
over large temporal and spatial scales,
can potentially affect the species at
population, community, or even
ecosystem levels, as well as individual
levels. Masking affects both senders and
receivers of the signals and could have
long-term chronic effects on marine
mammal species and populations.
Recent science suggests that low
frequency ambient sound levels have
increased by as much as 20 dB (more
than three times in terms of sound
pressure level) in the world’s ocean
from pre-industrial periods, and most of
these increases are from distant
shipping (Hildebrand 2009). For
WSDOT’s Mukilteo Multimodal
construction activities, noises from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
vibratory pile driving and pile removal
contribute to the elevated ambient noise
levels in the project area, thus
increasing potential for or severity of
masking. Baseline ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of project area are high
due to ongoing shipping, construction
and other activities in the Puget Sound.
Finally, marine mammals’ exposure to
certain sounds could lead to behavioral
disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995),
such as: changing durations of surfacing
and dives, number of blows per
surfacing, or moving direction and/or
speed; reduced/increased vocal
activities; changing/cessation of certain
behavioral activities (such as socializing
or feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke
slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where noise sources are located;
and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds
flushing into water from haulouts or
rookeries).
The onset of behavioral disturbance
from anthropogenic noise depends on
both external factors (characteristics of
noise sources and their paths) and the
receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also
difficult to predict (Southall et al.,
2007). Currently NMFS uses a received
level of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) to predict
the onset of behavioral harassment from
impulse noises (such as impact pile
driving), and 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for
continuous noises (such as vibratory
pile driving). For the WSDOT’s
Mukilteo Multimodal construction
activities, both of these noise levels are
considered for effects analysis because
WSDOT plans to use both impact and
vibratory pile driving, as well as
vibratory pile removal.
The biological significance of many of
these behavioral disturbances is difficult
to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However,
the consequences of behavioral
modification could be biologically
significant if the change affects growth,
survival, and/or reproduction, which
depends on the severity, duration, and
context of the effects.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat
The primary potential impacts to
marine mammal habitat are associated
with elevated sound levels produced by
vibratory pile removal and pile driving
in the area. However, other potential
impacts to the surrounding habitat from
physical disturbance are also possible.
With regard to fish as a prey source
for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are
known to hear and react to sounds and
to use sound to communicate (Tavolga
et al. 1981) and possibly avoid predators
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(Wilson and Dill 2002). Experiments
have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound
(Hawkins 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a
sound signal, and potentially react to it,
are the frequency of the signal and the
strength of the signal in relation to the
natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish
will react or alter its behavior is usually
well above the detection level. Fish
have been found to react to sounds
when the sound level increased to about
20 dB above the detection level of 120
dB (Ona 1988); however, the response
threshold can depend on the time of
year and the fish’s physiological
condition (Engas et al., 1993). In
general, fish react more strongly to
pulses of sound (such as noise from
impact pile driving) rather than
continuous signals (such as noise from
vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al.,
1981), and a quicker alarm response is
elicited when the sound signal intensity
rises rapidly compared to sound rising
more slowly to the same level.
During the coastal construction only a
small fraction of the available habitat
would be ensonified at any given time.
Disturbance to fish species would be
short-term and fish would return to
their pre-disturbance behavior once the
pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the
proposed construction would have
little, if any, impact on marine
mammals’ prey availability in the area
where construction work is planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed
construction activity would avoid the
spawning season of the ESA-listed
salmonid species.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through this IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of whether the number of
takes is ‘‘small’’ and the negligible
impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i) has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
21799
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
Authorized takes would primarily be
by Level B harassment, as noise
generated from in-water impact pile
driving and vibratory pile driving and
pile removal has the potential to result
in disruption of behavioral patterns for
individual marine mammals. There is
also some potential for auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to result, primarily
for high frequency cetaceans (harbor
and Dall’s porpoises) and phocid seals
(harbor and northern elephant seals)
due to larger predicted auditory injury
zones. Auditory injury is unlikely to
occur for low- and mid-frequency
cetaceans and otarrids. The proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to minimize the severity of
such taking to the extent practicable.
Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Basis for Takes
where p(t) is acoustic pressure in pascal
or micropascal, and pref is reference
acoustic pressure equal to 1 mPa.
The cumulative SEL is the total sound
exposure over the entire duration of a
given day’s pile driving activity,
specifically, pile driving occurring
within a 24-hr period.
where p(t) is acoustic pressure in pascal
or micropascal, pref is reference acoustic
pressure equals to 1 mPa, t1 marks the
beginning of the time, and t2 the end of
time.
For onset of Level B harassment,
NMFS continues to use the root-meansquare (rms) sound pressure level
(SPLrms) at 120 dB re 1 mPa and 160 dB
re 1 mPa as the received levels from nonimpulse (vibratory pile driving and
removal) and impulse sources (impact
pile driving) underwater, respectively.
The SPLrms for pulses (such as those
from impact pile driving) should
contain 90 percent of the pulse energy,
and is calculated by
where p(t) is acoustic pressure in pascal
or micropascal, pref is reference acoustic
pressure equals to 1 mPa, t1 marks the
beginning of the time, and t2 the end of
time. In the case of an impulse noise, t1
marks the time of 5 percent of the total
energy window, and t2 the time of 95
percent of the total energy window.
Table 3 summarizes the current
NMFS marine mammal take criteria.
As discussed above, in-water pile
removal and pile driving (vibratory and
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 3—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE SOUND UNDERWATER
PTS Onset thresholds
Behavioral thresholds
Hearing Group
Impulsive
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ......................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ......................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Non-impulsive
Lpk,flat: 219 dB
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB
Lpk,flat: 230 dB
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
LE,LF,24h: 199 dB
Impulsive
Lrms,flat: 160 dB
LE,MF,24h: 198 dB
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
Non-impulsive
Lrms,flat: 120 dB
EN10MY17.001</GPH> EN10MY17.002</GPH>
Basis for Threshold Calculation
EN10MY17.000</GPH>
Take estimates are based on average
marine mammal density in the project
area multiplied by the area size of
ensonified zones within which received
noise levels exceed certain thresholds
(i.e., Level A and/or Level B
harassment) from specific activities,
then multiplied by the total number of
days such activities would occur.
Certain adjustments were made for
marine mammals whose local
abundance are known through longterm monitoring efforts. Therefore, their
local abundance data are used for take
calculation instead of general animal
density (see below).
impact) generate loud noises that could
potentially harass marine mammals in
the vicinity of WSDOT’s proposed
Mukilteo Multimodal project.
Under the NMFS’ Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Guidance), dual
criteria are used to assess marine
mammal auditory injury (Level A
harassment) as a result of noise
exposure (NMFS 2016). The dual
criteria under the Guidance provide
onset thresholds in instantaneous peak
SPLs (Lpk) as well as 24-hr cumulative
sound exposure levels (SELcum or LE)
that could cause PTS to marine
mammals of different hearing groups.
The peak SPL is the highest positive
value of the noise field, log transformed
to dB in reference to 1 mPa.
21800
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 3—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE SOUND UNDERWATER—Continued
PTS Onset thresholds
Behavioral thresholds
Hearing Group
Impulsive
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .....................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ..............
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ..............
Non-impulsive
Lpk,flat: 202 dB
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB
Lpk,flat: 218 dB
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB
Lpk,flat: 232 dB
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB
Impulsive
Non-impulsive
LE,HF,24h: 173 dB
LE,PW,24h: 201 dB
LE,OW,24h: 219 dB
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should
also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s.
In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure
is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being
included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated
with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for
action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
Sound Levels and Acoustic Modeling for
the Proposed Construction Activity
Source Levels
The project includes vibratory pile
driving and removal of 24-, 30-, and 36inch (in) steel piles, vibratory driving of
78- and 120-in steel shaft, vibratory
driving of steel H-piles, vibratory
driving and removal of steel sheet piles,
and impact pile driving and proofing of
24- and 30-in steel piles.
Source levels of the above pile driving
activities are based on measurements of
the same material types and same or
similar dimensions of piles measured at
Mukilteo or elsewhere. Specifically, the
source level for vibratory pile driving
and removal of the 24-in steel pile is
based on vibratory test pile driving of
the same pile at the Friday Harbor
(WSDOT, 2010a). The unweighted
SPLrms source level at 10 m from the pile
is 162 dB re 1 re 1 mPa. We consider that
using vibratory pile installation source
level as a proxy for vibratory pile
removal is conservative.
The source level for vibratory pile
driving and removal of the 30-in steel
pile is based on vibratory pile driving of
the same pile at Port Townsend
(WSDOT, 2010b). The unweighted
SPLrms source level at 10 m from the pile
is 174 dB re 1 re 1 mPa.
The source level for vibratory pile
driving the 36-in steel piles is based on
vibratory test pile driving of 36-in steel
piles at Port Townsend in 2010
(Laughlin 2011). Recordings of vibratory
pile driving were made at a distance of
10 m from the pile. The results show
that the unweighted SPLrms for vibratory
pile driving of 36-in steel pile was 177
dB re 1 mPa.
Source level for vibratory pile driving
of the 78- and 120-in steel shaft is based
on measurements of 72-in steel piles
vibratory driving conducted by
CALTRANS. The unweighted SPLrms
source level ranged between 170 and
180 dB re 1 mPa at 10 m from the pile
(CALTRANS 2012). The value of 180 dB
is chosen to be more conservative.
The source level for vibratory pile
driving of steel H-piles is based on
measurements conducted by the
California Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS). The unweighted SPLrms
source level is 150 dB re 1 re 1 mPa at
10 m from the pile (CALTRANS, 2012).
The source level for vibratory sheet
pile driving and removal is based on
measurements at the Elliott Bay Seawall
Project. The unweighted SPLrms source
level is 164 dB re 1 re 1 mPa at 10 m
from the pile (Greenbusch 2015).
Source levels for impact pile driving
of the 24-in steel piles are based on
impact test pile driving of the same steel
pile during the Vashon Acoustic
Monitoring by WSDOT (Laughlin,
2015). The unweighted back-calculated
source levels at 10 m are 174 dB re 1
mPa2-s for single strike SEL (SELss) and
189 dB re 1 mPa for SPLrms.
Source levels for impact pile driving
of the 30-in steel pile are based on
impact test pile driving for the 36-in
steel pile at Mukilteo in November
2006. Recordings of the impact pile
driving that were made at a distance of
10 m from the pile were analyzed using
Matlab. The results show that the
unweighted source levels are 178 dB re
1 mPa2-s for SELss and 193 dB re 1 mPa
for SPLrms.
A summary of source levels from
different pile driving and pile removal
activities is provided in Table 4.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS
[At 10 m from source]
Pile type/size
(inch)
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Method
Vibratory
Vibratory
Vibratory
Vibratory
Vibratory
Vibratory
Vibratory
driving/removal ..........................................
driving/removal ..........................................
driving ........................................................
driving ........................................................
driving ........................................................
driving ........................................................
driving/removal ..........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
SEL (SELss
for impact
pile
driving),
dB re 1
μPa2-s
Steel, 24-in ...............................................................
Steel, 30-in ...............................................................
Steel, 36-in ...............................................................
Steel shaft, 78-in ......................................................
Steel shaft, 120-in ....................................................
Steel H-pile, 12-in .....................................................
Steel sheet ................................................................
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
162
174
177
180
180
150
164
10MYN1
SPLrms,
dB re 1 μPa2
162
174
177
180
180
150
164
21801
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS—Continued
[At 10 m from source]
SEL (SELss
for impact
pile
driving),
dB re 1
μPa2-s
Method
Pile type/size
(inch)
Impact driving ...........................................................
Impact driving ...........................................................
Steel, 24-in ...............................................................
Steel, 30-in ...............................................................
174
178
SPLrms,
dB re 1 μPa2
189
193
vibratory pile driving, broadband PSDs
were generated from a series of
continuous 1-second SEL. Broadband
PSDs were then adjusted based on
weighting functions of marine mammal
hearing groups (Finneran 2016) by using
the weighting function as a band-pass
filter. For impact pile driving,
cumulative exposures (Esum) were
computed by multiplying the single rms
pressure squared by rms pulse duration
for the specific strike, then by the
number of strikes (provided in Table 1)
required to drive one pile, then by the
number of piles to be driven in a given
day, as shown in the equation below:
where prms,i is the rms pressure, t is the
rms pulse duration for the specific
strike, Ns is the anticipated number of
strikes (provided in Table 1) needed to
install one pile, and N is the number of
total piles to be installed.
For vibratory pile driving, cumulative
exposures were computed by summing
1-second noise exposure by the duration
needed to drive on pile (provided in
Table 1), then by the number of piles to
be driven in a given day, as shown in
the equation below:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
EN10MY17.004</GPH> EN10MY17.005</GPH>
frequency components composing that
sound, in 1-Hz bins. Parseval’s theorem,
which states that the sum of the square
of a function is equal to the sum of the
square of its transform, was applied to
ensure that all energies within a strike
(for impact pile driving) or a given
period of time (for vibratory pile
driving) were captured through the fast
Fourier transform, an algorithm that
converts the signal from its original
domain (in this case, time series) to a
representation in frequency domain. For
impact pile driving, broadband PSDs
were generated from SPLrms time series
with a time window that contains 90
percent of each pulse energy. For
Estimating Injury Zones
Calculation and modeling of
applicable ensonified zones are based
on source measurements of comparable
types and sizes of piles driven by
different methods (impact vs. vibratory
hammers) as described above. As
mentioned earlier, isopleths for injury
zones are based on cumulative SEL (LE)
criteria.
For peak SPL (Lpk), distances to
marine mammal injury thresholds were
calculated using a simple geometric
spreading model using a transmission
loss coefficient of 15:
EN10MY17.003</GPH>
to calculate Level A exposure distances
based on cumulative SEL metric (see
below).
For other piles where no recording is
available, source modeling cannot be
performed. In such cases, the weighting
factor adjustment (WFA) recommended
by NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS
2016) was used to determine Level A
exposure distances.
where SLMeasure is the measured source
level in dB re 1 mPa, EL is the specific
received level of threshold, DMeasure is
the distance (m) from the source where
measurements were taken, and R is the
distance (radius) of the isopleth to the
source in meters.
For cumulative SEL (LE), distances to
marine mammal exposure thresholds
were computed using spectral modeling
that incorporates frequency specific
absorption. First, representative pile
driving sounds recorded during test pile
driving with impact and vibratory
hammers were used to generate power
spectral densities (PSDs), which
describe the distribution of power into
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
These source levels are used to
compute the Level A ensonified zones
and to estimate the Level B harassment
zones. For Level A harassment zones,
zones calculated using cumulative SEL
are all larger than those calculated using
SPLpeak, therefore, only zones based on
cumulative SEL for Level A harassment
are used.
Source spectrum of the 36-in steel
pile recording is used for spectral
modeling for the 24-, 30-, and 36-in steel
pile vibratory pile driving and removal
21802
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
where E1s is the 1-second noise
exposure, and Dt is the duration
(provided in Table 1) need to install 1
pile by vibratory piling.
Frequency-specific transmission
losses, TL(f), were then computed using
practical spreading along with
frequency-specific absorption
coefficients that were computed with
nominal seawater properties (i.e.,
salinity = 35 psu, pH = 8.0) at 15° C at
the surface by
where a(f) is dB/km, and R is the
distance (radius) of the specific isopleth
to the source in meters. For broadband
sources such as those from pile driving,
the transmission loss is the summation
of the frequency-specific results.
Approach to Estimate Behavioral Zones
calculated using a simple geometric
spreading equation as shown in
Equation (4).
A summary of the measured and
modeled harassment zones is provided
in Table 5. The maximum distance is
20,500 m from the source, since this is
where landmass intercepts underwater
sound propagation.
As mentioned earlier, isopleths to
Level B behavioral zones are based on
root-mean-square SPL (SPLrms) that are
specific for impulse (impact pile
driving) and non-impulse (vibratory pile
driving) sources. Distances to marine
mammal behavior thresholds were
TABLE 5—DISTANCES TO HARASSMENT ZONES
Injury zone (m)
Behavior zone
(m)
Pile type, size & pile driving method
LF cetacean
Vibratory removal, 24-in steel pile, 3
piles/day ...............................................
Vibratory driving, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/
day ........................................................
Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 2
piles/day ...............................................
Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 7
piles/day ...............................................
Vibratory driving, 30-in steel pile, 3 piles/
day ........................................................
Vibratory driving, 36-in steel pile, 3 piles/
day ........................................................
Vibratory driving, 78-in steel shaft, 1 pile/
day ........................................................
Vibratory driving, 120-in steel shaft, 1
pile/day .................................................
Vibratory driving, steel 12-in H-pile, 10
piles/day ...............................................
Vibratory driving, steel sheet, 3 piles/day
Vibratory removal, steel sheet, 6 piles/
day ........................................................
Impact proofing, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/
day ........................................................
Impact driving, 30-in steel pile, 3 piles/
day ........................................................
Impact proofing, 30-in steel pile, 5 piles/
day ........................................................
MF cetacean
HF cetacean
Phocid
Otariid
10
10
55
10
10
6,040
175
45
995
85
10
6,040
55
10
345
25
10
* 20,500
125
35
725
55
10
* 20,500
175
45
995
85
10
* 20,500
175
45
995
85
10
* 20,500
126
11
186
77
5
* 20,500
126
11
186
77
5
* 20,500
4
14
1
1
6
21
2
9
0
1
1,000
8,577
23
2
33
14
1
8,577
135
10
75
35
10
875
1,065
10
505
225
10
1,585
355
10
175
75
10
1,585
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Estimated Takes From Proposed
Construction Activity
Incidental take is estimated for each
species by estimating the likelihood of
a marine mammal being present within
a Level A or Level B harassment zone
during active pile driving or removal.
The Level A calculation includes a
duration component, along with an
assumption (which can lead to
overestimates in some cases) that
animals within the zone stay in that area
for the whole duration of the pile
driving activity within a day. For all
marine mammal species except harbor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
seals, California sea lions, and northern
elephant seals, estimated takes are
calculated based on ensonified area for
a specific pile driving activity
multiplied by the marine mammal
density in the action area, multiplied by
the number of pile driving (or removal)
days. In most cases, marine mammal
density data are from the U.S. Navy
Marine Species Density Database (Navy
2015). Harbor porpoise density is based
on a recent study by Jefferson et al.
(2016) for the Eastern Whidbey area
near the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal.
Harbor seal, northern elephant seal, and
California sea lion takes are based on
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
observations in the Mukilteo area, since
these data provide the best information
on distribution and presence of these
species that are often associated with
nearby haulouts (see below).
The Level A take total was further
adjusted by subtracting animals
expected to occur within the exclusion
zone, where pile driving activities are
suspended when an animal is observed
in or approaching the zone (see
Mitigation section). Further, the number
of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude
those already counted for Level A takes.
The harbor seal take estimate is based
on local seal abundance information
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
EN10MY17.006</GPH>
* Landmass intercepts at a distance of 20,500m from project area.
21803
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
from monitoring during the Mukilteo
pier removal project. Marine mammal
visual monitoring during Mukilteo Ferry
Terminal pier removal project showed
an average daily observation of 7 harbor
seals (WSDOT 2015). Based on a total of
175 pile driving days for the WSDOT
Mukilteo Multimodal Phase 2 project, it
is estimated that up to 1,225 harbor
seals could be exposed to noise levels
associated with ‘‘take’’. Since 9 days
would involve impact pile driving of 30in piles with Level A harassment zones
beyond the required shutdown zones
(225 m vs 160 m shutdown zone), we
consider that 63 harbor seals exposed
during these 9 days would experience
Level A harassment.
The California sea lion take estimate
is based on local sea lion abundance
information during the Mukilteo Ferry
Terminal pier removal project (WSDOT
2015). Marine mammal visual
monitoring during the Mukilteo pier
removal project indicates on average 7
sea lions were observed in the general
area of the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal per
day (WSDOT 2015). Based on a total of
175 pile driving days for the WSDOT
Mukilteo Multimodal project, it is
estimated that up to 1,225 California sea
lions could be exposed to noise levels
associated with ‘‘take’’. Since the Level
A harassment zones of otarids are all
very small (max. 10 m, Table 5), we do
not consider it likely that any sea lions
would be taken by Level A harassment.
Therefore, all California sea lion takes
estimated here are expected to be by
Level B harassment.
Northern elephant seal is not common
in the Mukilteo Multimodal Project
area, however, their presence has been
observed in Edmonds area just south of
Mukilteo (Huey, Pers. Comm. April
2017). Therefore, a potential take of 20
animals by Level B harassment during
the project period is assessed. Since
northern elephant seal is very
uncommon in the project area, we do
not consider it likely that any elephant
seal would be taken by Level A
harassment.
However, the method used in take
estimates does not account for single
individuals being taken multiple times
during the entire project period of 175
days. Therefore, the percent of marine
mammals that are likely to be taken for
a given population would be far less
than the ratio of numbers of animals
taken divided by the population size.
For harbor porpoise, the estimated
incidences of takes at 6,759 animals
would be 60.2% of the population, if
each single take were a unique
individual. However, this is highly
unlikely because the results of telemetry
and photo-identification studies in
Washington waters have demonstrated
that harbor porpoise shows site fidelity
to small areas for periods of time that
can extend between seasons (Hanson et
al. 1999; Hanson 2007a, 2007b). Based
on studies by Jefferson et al. (2016),
harbor porpoise abundance in the East
Whidbey region, which is adjunct to the
Mukilteo Ferry Terminal construction,
is 497, and harbor porpoise abundance
in the entire surrounding area of North
Puget Sound is 1,798.
For Southern Resident killer whales,
potential takes based on density
calculation showed that 4 animals could
be exposed to noise levels for Level B
harassment. However, mitigation
measures prescribed below will prevent
such takes.
A summary of estimated marine
mammal takes is listed in Table 6.
TABLE 6—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO RECEIVED NOISE LEVELS THAT CAUSE
LEVEL A OR LEVEL B HARASSMENT
Estimated
Level A take
Species
Pacific harbor seal ...............................................................
California sea lion ................................................................
Northern elephant seal ........................................................
Steller sea lion .....................................................................
Killer whale, transient ...........................................................
Killer whale, Southern Resident ..........................................
Gray whale ...........................................................................
Humpback whale .................................................................
Harbor porpoise ...................................................................
Dall’s porpoise .....................................................................
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible
methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, ‘‘and other means of effecting
the least practicable impact on such
species or stock and its habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of
such species or stock for taking’’ for
certain subsistence uses. NMFS
regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting such activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Estimated
Level B take
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
4
1,162
1,225
20
232
21
0
45
6
6,698
417
impact upon the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, we carefully balance two
primary factors: (1) The manner in
which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the
measure(s) is expected to reduce
impacts to marine mammals, marine
mammal species or stocks, and their
habitat, which considers the nature of
the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as
well as the likelihood that the measure
will be effective if implemented; and the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Estimated
total take
1,225
1,225
20
232
21
0
45
6
6,759
421
Abundance
Percentage
11,036
296,750
179,000
71,562
243
78
20,990
1,918
11,233
25,750
11.1
0.41
0.01
0.32
8.64
0
0.21
0.31
60.2
1.63
likelihood of effective implementation,
and; (2) the practicability of the
measures for applicant implementation,
which may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat
1. Time Restriction
Work would occur only during
daylight hours, when visual monitoring
of marine mammals can be conducted.
In addition, all in-water construction
will be limited to the period between
August 1, 2017, and February 15, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
21804
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
2. Use of Noise Attenuation Devices
To reduce impact on marine
mammals, WSDOT shall use a marine
pile driving energy attenuator (i.e., air
bubble curtain system), or other equally
effective sound attenuation method
(e.g., dewatered cofferdam) for all
impact pile driving.
3. Establishing and Monitoring Level A,
Level B Harassment Zones, and
Exclusion Zones
Before the commencement of in-water
construction activities, which include
impact pile driving and vibratory pile
driving and pile removal, WSDOT shall
establish Level A harassment zones
where received underwater SPLs or
SELcum could cause PTS (see above).
WSDOT shall also establish Level B
harassment zones where received
underwater SPLs are higher than 160
dBrms and 120 dBrms re 1 mPa for impulse
noise sources (impact pile driving) and
non-impulses noise sources (vibratory
pile driving and pile removal),
respectively.
WSDOT shall establish a maximum
160-m Level A exclusion zone for all
marine mammals except low-frequency
baleen whales. For Level A harassment
zones that are smaller than 160 m from
the source, WSDOT shall establish
exclusion zones that correspond to the
estimated Level A harassment distances,
but shall not be less than 10 m. For lowfrequency baleen whales, WSDOT shall
establish exclusion zones that
correspond to the actual Level A
harassment distances, but shall not be
less than 10 m.
A summary of exclusion zones is
provided in Table 7.
TABLE 7—EXCLUSION ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES AND MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS.
Injury zone
(m)
Pile type, size and pile driving method
LF cetacean
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Vibratory removal, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/day ...................
Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 2 piles/day ...................
Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 7 piles/day ...................
Vibratory driving, 24-, 30- & 36-in steel pile, 3 piles/day ....
Vibratory driving, 78-, 120-in steel shaft, 1 pile/day ............
Vibratory driving, steel 12-in H-pile, 10 piles/day ................
Vibratory driving, steel sheet, 3 piles/day ............................
Vibratory removal, steel sheet, 6 piles/day .........................
Impact proofing, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/day .......................
Impact driving, 30-in steel pile, 3 piles/day .........................
Impact proofing, 30-in steel pile, 5 piles/day .......................
NMFS-approved protected species
observers (PSO) shall conduct an initial
survey of the exclusion zones to ensure
that no marine mammals are seen
within the zones before pile driving and
pile removal of a pile segment begins. If
marine mammals are found within the
exclusion zone, pile driving of the
segment would be delayed until they
move out of the area. If a marine
mammal is seen above water and then
dives below, the contractor would wait
30 minutes. If no marine mammals are
seen by the observer in that time it can
be assumed that the animal has moved
beyond the exclusion zone.
If pile driving of a segment ceases for
30 minutes or more and a marine
mammal is sighted within the
designated exclusion zone prior to
commencement of pile driving, the
observer(s) must notify the pile driving
operator (or other authorized
individual) immediately and continue
to monitor the exclusion zone.
Operations may not resume until the
marine mammal has exited the
exclusion zone or 30 minutes have
elapsed since the last sighting.
4. Soft Start
A ‘‘soft-start’’ technique is intended to
allow marine mammals to vacate the
area before the impact pile driver
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
MF cetacean
10
55
125
175
126
4
14
23
135
1,065
355
10
10
35
45
11
1
1
2
10
10
10
reaches full power. Whenever there has
been downtime of 30 minutes or more
without impact pile driving, the
contractor will initiate the driving with
ramp-up procedures described below.
Soft start for impact hammers requires
contractors to provide an initial set of
three strikes from the impact hammer at
40 percent energy, followed by a 1minute waiting period, then two
subsequent three-strike sets. Each day,
WSDOT will use the soft-start technique
at the beginning of impact pile driving,
or if pile driving has ceased for more
than 30 minutes.
5. Shutdown Measures
WSDOT shall implement shutdown
measures if a marine mammal is
detected within an exclusion zone or is
about to enter an exclusion zone listed
in Table 6.
WSDOT shall also implement
shutdown measures if southern resident
killer whales are sighted within the
vicinity of the project area and are
approaching the Level B harassment
zone (or Zone of Influence, ZOI) during
in-water construction activities.
If a killer whale approaches the ZOI
during pile driving or removal, and it is
unknown whether it is a Southern
Resident killer whale or a transient
killer whale, it shall be assumed to be
a Southern Resident killer whale and
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
HF cetacean
55
160
160
160
160
6
21
33
75
160
160
Phocid
Otariid
10
25
55
85
77
2
9
14
35
160
75
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
10
10
10
WSDOT shall implement the shutdown
measure.
If a Southern Resident killer whale or
an unidentified killer whale enters the
ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or
pile removal shall be suspended until
the whale exits the ZOI to avoid further
level B harassment.
Further, WSDOT shall implement
shutdown measures if the number of
authorized takes for any particular
species reaches the limit under the IHA
(if issued) and if such marine mammals
are sighted within the vicinity of the
project area and are approaching the
Level B harassment zone during inwater construction activities.
6. Coordination With Local Marine
Mammal Research Network
Prior to the start of pile driving for the
day, the Orca Network and/or Center for
Whale Research will be contacted by
WSDOT to find out the location of the
nearest marine mammal sightings. The
Orca Sightings Network consists of a list
of over 600 (and growing) residents,
scientists, and government agency
personnel in the U.S. and Canada.
Sightings are called or emailed into the
Orca Network and immediately
distributed to other sighting networks
including: The NMFS Northwest
Fisheries Science Center, the Center for
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the
Whale Museum Hotline and the British
Columbia Sightings Network.
Sightings information collected by the
Orca Network includes detection by
hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote
Sensing Network is a system of
interconnected hydrophones installed
in the marine environment of Haro
Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to
study orca communication, in-water
noise, bottom fish ecology and local
climatic conditions. A hydrophone at
the Port Townsend Marine Science
Center measures average in-water sound
levels and automatically detects
unusual sounds. These passive acoustic
devices allow researchers to hear when
different marine mammals come into
the region. This acoustic network,
combined with the volunteer
(incidental) visual sighting network
allows researchers to document
presence and location of various marine
mammal species.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, as well
as other measures considered by NMFS,
all of which are described above, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the
proposed mitigation measures provide
the means effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on the affected species
or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth,
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking.’’ The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13)
indicate that requests for authorizations
must include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in
increased knowledge of the species and
of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are
expected to be present in the proposed
action area. Effective reporting is critical
both to compliance as well as ensuring
that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density).
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas).
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors.
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat).
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
WSDOT shall employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine
mammal monitoring for its Mukilteo
Multimodal Project. The PSOs will
observe and collect data on marine
mammals in and around the project area
for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30
minutes after all pile removal and pile
installation work. NMFS-approved
PSOs shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Independent observers (i.e., not
construction personnel) are required;
2. At least one observer must have
prior experience working as an observer;
3. Other observers may substitute
education (undergraduate degree in
biological science or related field) or
training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more
observers are required, one observer
should be designated as lead observer or
monitoring coordinator. The lead
observer must have prior experience
working as an observer; and
5. NMFS will require submission and
approval of observer CVs;
Monitoring of marine mammals
around the construction site shall be
conducted using high-quality binoculars
(e.g., Zeiss, 10 × 42 power). Due to the
different sizes of ZOIs from different
pile sizes, several different ZOIs and
different monitoring protocols
corresponding to a specific pile size will
be established.
• For Level A zones less than 160 m
and Level B zones less than 1,000 m
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21805
(i.e., vibratory 12-in H pile driving, 10
piles/day; impact proofing of 24-in steel
piles, 3 piles/day), two land-based PSOs
will monitor the exclusion zones and
Level B harassment zone.
• For Level A zones between 160 and
500 m, and Level B zones between 1,000
and 10,000 m (i.e., vibratory pile driving
and removal of 24-in steel piles, 3 piles/
day; vibratory driving and removal of
steel sheet; and impact proofing of 30in steel piles, 5 piles/day), 5 land-based
PSOs and 1 vessel-based PSO on a ferry
will monitor the Level A and Level B
harassment zones.
• For the rest of the pile driving and
pile removal scenario, 5 land-based
PSOs and 2 vessel-based PSOs on ferries
will monitor the Level A and Level B
harassment zones.
Locations of the land-based PSOs and
routes of monitoring vessels are shown
in WSDOT’s Marine Mammal
Monitoring Plan, which is available
online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm.
To verify the required monitoring
distance, the exclusion zones and ZOIs
will be determined by using a range
finder or hand-held global positioning
system device.
Proposed Reporting Measures
WSDOT would be required to submit
a draft monitoring report within 90 days
after completion of the construction
work or the expiration of the IHA (if
issued), whichever comes earlier. This
report would detail the monitoring
protocol, summarize the data recorded
during monitoring, and estimate the
number of marine mammals that may
have been harassed. NMFS would have
an opportunity to provide comments on
the report, and if NMFS has comments,
WSDOT would address the comments
and submit a final report to NMFS
within 30 days.
In addition, NMFS would require
WSDOT to notify NMFS’ Office of
Protected Resources and NMFS’ West
Coast Stranding Coordinator within 48
hours of sighting an injured or dead
marine mammal in the construction site.
WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the
Stranding Network with the species or
description of the animal(s), the
condition of the animal(s) (including
carcass condition, if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery,
observed behaviors (if alive), and photo
or video (if available).
In the event that WSDOT finds an
injured or dead marine mammal that is
not in the construction area, WSDOT
would report the same information as
listed above to NMFS as soon as
operationally feasible.
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21806
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as ‘‘an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival’’
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
of any responses (e.g., intensity,
duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as effects
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the
number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this
information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’s implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, this introductory
discussion of our analyses applies to all
the species listed in Table 7, given that
the anticipated effects of WSDOT’s
Mukilteo Multimodal Project activities
involving pile driving and pile removal
on marine mammals are expected to be
relatively similar in nature. There is no
information about the nature or severity
of the impacts, or the size, status, or
structure of any species or stock that
would lead to a different analysis by
species for this activity, or else speciesspecific factors would be identified and
analyzed.
Although a few marine mammal
species (63 harbor seals, 61 harbor
porpoises, and 4 Dall’s porpoise) are
estimated to experience Level A
harassment in the form of PTS if they
stay within the Level A harassment zone
during the entire pile driving for the
day, the degree of injury is expected to
be mild and is not likely to affect the
reproduction or survival of the
individual animals because most
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
animals will avoid the area, and thus
avoid injury. It is expected that, if
hearing impairments occurs, most likely
the affected animal would loss a few dB
in its hearing sensitivity, which in most
cases is not likely to affect its survival
and recruitment. Hearing impairment
that occur for these individual animals
would be limited to the dominant
frequency of the noise sources, i.e., in
the low-frequency region below 2 kHz.
Therefore, the degree of PTS is not
likely to affect the echolocation
performance of the two porpoise
species, which use frequencies mostly
above 100 kHz. Nevertheless, for all
marine mammal species, it is known
that in general animals avoid areas
where sound levels could cause hearing
impairment. Therefore it is not likely
that an animal would stay in an area
with intense noise that could cause
severe levels of hearing damage. In
addition, even if an animal receives a
TTS, the TTS would be a one-time event
from the exposure, making it unlikely
that the TTS would evolve into PTS.
Furthermore, Level A take estimates
were based on the assumption that the
animals are randomly distributed in the
project area and would not avoid
intense noise levels that could cause
TTS or PTS. In reality, animals tend to
avoid areas where noise levels are high
(Richardson et al., 1995).
For the rest of the three marine
mammal species, takes that are
anticipated and proposed to be
authorized are expected to be limited to
short-term Level B harassment
(behavioral and TTS). Marine mammals
present in the vicinity of the action area
and taken by Level B harassment would
most likely show overt brief disturbance
(startle reaction) and avoidance of the
area from elevated noise levels during
pile driving and pile removal and the
implosion noise. These behavioral
distances are not expected to affect
marine mammals’ growth, survival, and
reproduction due to the limited
geographic area that would be affected
in comparison to the much larger
habitat for marine mammals in the
Puget Sound. A few marine mammals
could experience TTS if they occur
within the Level B TTS ZOI. However,
as discussed earlier in this document,
TTS is a temporary loss of hearing
sensitivity when exposed to loud sound,
and the hearing threshold is expected to
recover completely within minutes to
hours. Therefore, it is not considered an
injury.
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’’
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
section. There is no ESA designated
critical area in the vicinity of the
Mukilteo Multimodal Project area. The
project activities would not
permanently modify existing marine
mammal habitat. The activities may kill
some fish and cause other fish to leave
the area temporarily, thus impacting
marine mammals’ foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the
foraging range; but, because of the short
duration of the activities and the
relatively small area of the habitat that
may be affected, the impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative
consequences. Therefore, given the
consideration of potential impacts to
marine mammal prey species and their
physical environment, WSDOT’s
proposed construction activity at
Mukilteo Ferry Terminal would not
adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total take from the proposed
activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
for specified activities other than
military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so,
in practice, NMFS compares the number
of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of
the relevant species or stock in our
determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals.
The estimated takes are below 12
percent of the population for all marine
mammals except harbor porpoise (Table
7). For harbor porpoise, the estimate of
6,759 incidences of takes would be 60.2
percent of the population, if each single
take were a unique individual.
However, this is highly unlikely because
the harbor porpoise in Washington
waters shows site fidelity to small areas
for periods of time that can extend
between seasons (Hanson et al. 1999;
Hanson 2007a, 2007b). For example,
Hanson et al. (1999) tracked a female
harbor porpoise for 215 days, during
which it remained exclusively within
the southern Strait of Georgia region.
Based on studies by Jefferson et al.
(2016), harbor porpoise abundance in
the East Whidbey region, which is
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
adjunct to the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal
construction, is 497, and harbor
porpoise abundance in the entire
surrounding area of North Puget Sound
is 1,798. Therefore, if the estimated
incidents of take accrued to all the
animals expected to occur in the entire
North Puget Sound area (1,798 animals),
it would be 16.01 percent of the
Washington inland water stock of the
harbor porpoise.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact
Subsistence Analysis and
Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
the total taking of affected species or
stocks would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Issuance of an MMPA authorization
requires compliance with the ESA for
any species that are listed or proposed
as threatened or endangered.
The humpback whale and the killer
whale (southern resident distinct
population segment (DPS)) are the only
marine mammal species listed under the
ESA that could occur in the vicinity of
WSDOT’s proposed construction
project. Two DPSs of the humpback
whale stock, the Mexico DPS and the
Central America DPS, are listed as
threatened and endangered under the
ESA, respectively. NMFS’ Office of
Protected Resources has initiated
consultation with NMFS’ West Coast
Regional Office under section 7 of the
ESA on the issuance of an IHA to
WSDOT under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA for this activity.
NMFS will conclude the ESA
consultation prior to reaching a
determination regarding the proposed
issuance of the authorization.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to WSDOT for conducting
Mukilteo Multimodal Project phase 2
between August 1, 2016, and February
15, 2017, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
reporting requirements are incorporated.
This section contains a draft of the IHA
itself. The wording contained in this
section is proposed for inclusion in the
IHA (if issued).
1. This Authorization is valid from
August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2018.
2. This Authorization is valid only for
activities associated with in-water
construction work at the Mukilteo
Multimodal Project phase 2 in the State
of Washington.
3. (a) The species authorized taking
by, Level A and Level B harassment and
in the numbers shown in Table 6 are:
Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina),
northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris), California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus), Steller sea
lion (Eumetopias jubatus), killer whale
(Orcinus orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus), humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae), harbor porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena), and Dall’s
porpoise (P. dalli).
(b) The authorization for taking by
harassment is limited to the following
acoustic sources and from the following
activities:
• Impact pile driving;
• Vibratory pile driving; and
• Vibratory pile removal.
4. Prohibitions.
(a) The taking, by incidental
harassment only, is limited to the
species listed under condition 3(a)
above and by the numbers listed in
Table 6 of this notice. The taking by
death of these species or the taking by
harassment, injury or death of any other
species of marine mammal is prohibited
unless separately authorized or
exempted under the MMPA and may
result in the modification, suspension,
or revocation of this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal
is prohibited whenever the required
protected species observers (PSOs),
required by condition 7(a), are not
present in conformance with condition
7(a) of this Authorization.
5. Mitigation.
(a) Time Restriction. In-water
construction work shall occur only
during daylight hours.
(b) Establishment of Level A and
Level B Harassment Zones.
(A) Before the commencement of inwater pile driving/removal activities,
WSDOT shall establish Level A
harassment zones. The modeled Level A
zones are summarized in Table 5.
(B) Before the commencement of inwater pile driving/removal activities,
WSDOT shall establish Level B
harassment zones. The modeled Level B
zones are summarized in Table 5.
(C) Before the commencement of inwater pile driving/removal activities,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21807
WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones.
The proposed exclusion zones are
summarized in Table 7.
(c) Monitoring of marine mammals
shall take place starting 30 minutes
before pile driving begins until 30
minutes after pile driving ends.
(d) Soft Start.
(i) When there has been downtime of
30 minutes or more without pile
driving, the contractor will initiate the
driving with ramp-up procedures
described below.
(ii) Soft start for impact hammers
requires contractors to provide an initial
set of three strikes from the impact
hammer at 40 percent energy, followed
by a 1-minute waiting period, then two
subsequent three-strike sets. Each day,
WSDOT will use the soft-start technique
at the beginning of impact pile driving,
or if pile driving has ceased for more
than 30 minutes.
(e) Shutdown Measures.
(i) WSDOT shall implement
shutdown measures if a marine mammal
is detected within or to be approaching
the exclusion zones provided in Table 7
of this notice.
(ii) WSDOT shall implement
shutdown measures if southern resident
killer whales (SRKWs) are sighted
within the vicinity of the project area
and are approaching the Level B
harassment zone (zone of influence, or
ZOI) during in-water construction
activities.
(iii) If a killer whale approaches the
ZOI during pile driving or removal, and
it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or
a transient killer whale, it shall be
assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT
shall implement the shutdown measure
identified in 6(e)(ii).
(iv) If a SRKW enters the ZOI
undetected, in-water pile driving or pile
removal shall be suspended until the
SRKW exits the ZOI to avoid further
level B harassment.
(v) WSDOT shall implement
shutdown measures if the number of
any allotted marine mammal takes
reaches the limit under the IHA, if such
marine mammals are sighted within the
vicinity of the project area and are
approaching the Level B harassment
zone during pile removal activities.
(f) Coordination with Local Marine
Mammal Research Network.
Prior to the start of pile driving,
WSDOT will contact the Orca Network
and/or Center for Whale Research to get
real-time information on the presence or
absence of whales before starting any
pile driving.
6. Monitoring.
(a) Protected Species Observers.
WSDOT shall employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21808
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Notices
mammal monitoring for its construction
project. NMFS-approved PSOs will meet
the following qualifications.
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not
construction personnel) are required.
(ii) At least one observer must have
prior experience working as an observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute
education (undergraduate degree in
biological science or related field) or
training for experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more
observers are required, one observer
should be designated as lead observer or
monitoring coordinator. The lead
observer must have prior experience
working as an observer.
(v) NMFS will require submission and
approval of observer CVs.
(b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall
be present on site at all times during
pile removal and driving.
(i) A 30-minute pre-construction
marine mammal monitoring will be
required before the first pile driving or
pile removal of the day. A 30-minute
post-construction marine mammal
monitoring will be required after the last
pile driving or pile removal of the day.
If the constructors take a break between
subsequent pile driving or pile removal
for more than 30 minutes, then
additional 30-minute pre-construction
marine mammal monitoring will be
required before the next start-up of pile
driving or pile removal.
(iii) Marine mammal visual
monitoring will be conducted for
different ZOIs based on different sizes of
piles being driven or removed, as shown
in maps in WSDOT’s Marine Mammal
Monitoring Plan.
(A) For Level A zones less than 160
m and Level B zones less than 1,000 m
(i.e., vibratory 12-in H pile driving, 10
piles/day; impact proofing of 24-in steel
piles, 3 piles/day), two land-based PSOs
will monitor the exclusion zones and
Level B harassment zone.
(B) For Level A zones between 160
and 500 m, and Level B zones between
1,000 and 10,000 m (i.e., vibratory pile
driving and removal of 24-in steel piles,
3 piles/day; vibratory driving and
removal of steel sheet; and impact
proofing of 30-in steel piles, 5 piles/
day), 5 land-based PSOs and 1 vesselbased PSO on a ferry will monitor the
Level A and Level B harassment zones.
(C) For the rest of the pile driving and
pile removal scenario, 5 land-based
PSOs and 2 vessel-based PSOs on ferries
will monitor the Level A and Level B
harassment zones.
(iv) If marine mammals are observed,
the following information will be
documented:
(A) Species of observed marine
mammals;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 May 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
(B) Number of observed marine
mammal individuals;
(C) Behavior of observed marine
mammals;
(D) Location within the ZOI; and
7. Reporting:
(a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with
a draft monitoring report within 90 days
of the conclusion of the construction
work or within 90 days of the expiration
of the IHA, whichever comes first. This
report shall detail the monitoring
protocol, summarize the data recorded
during monitoring, and estimate the
number of marine mammals that may
have been harassed.
(b) If comments are received from
NMFS Office of Protected Resources on
the draft report, a final report shall be
submitted to NMFS within 30 days
thereafter. If no comments are received
from NMFS, the draft report will be
considered to be the final report.
(c) In the unanticipated event that the
construction activities clearly cause the
take of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by this Authorization (if
issued), such as an injury, serious
injury, or mortality, WSDOT shall
immediately cease all operations and
immediately report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the West Coast Regional Stranding
Coordinators. The report must include
the following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
(ii) description of the incident;
(iii) status of all sound source use in
the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(iv) environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, sea state,
cloud cover, visibility, and water
depth);
(v) description of marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
(vi) species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
(vii) the fate of the animal(s); and
(viii) photographs or video footage of
the animal (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS shall work with WSDOT to
determine what is necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. WSDOT may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS
via letter, email, or telephone.
(E) In the event that WSDOT
discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines
that the cause of the injury or death is
unknown and the death is relatively
recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state
of decomposition as described in the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
next paragraph), WSDOT will
immediately report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the West Coast Regional Stranding
Coordinators. The report must include
the same information identified above.
Activities may continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with WSDOT
to determine whether modifications in
the activities are appropriate.
(F) In the event that WSDOT
discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines
that the injury or death is not associated
with or related to the activities
authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously
wounded animal, carcass with moderate
to advanced decomposition, or
scavenger damage), WSDOT shall report
the incident to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast
Regional Stranding Coordinators, within
24 hours of the discovery. WSDOT shall
provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS and
the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
WSDOT can continue its operations
under such a case.
8. This Authorization may be
modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the
conditions prescribed herein or if NMFS
determines the authorized taking is
having more than a negligible impact on
the species or stock of affected marine
mammals.
9. A copy of this Authorization must
be in the possession of each contractor
who performs the construction work at
the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the draft authorization, and any other
aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA
for the WSDOT’s Mukilteo Multimodal
Project Phase 2. Please include with
your comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform our
final decision on the request for MMPA
authorization.
Dated: May 4, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–09417 Filed 5–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21793-21808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09417]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XF340
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Mukilteo Multimodal Construction
Project in Washington State
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed incidental harassment authorization (IHA); request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to Mukilteo Multimodal Construction Project in Washington
State. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to incidentally
take marine mammals during the specified activities.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 9,
2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments
should be sent to ITP.guan@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm without change. All personal
identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt,
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
National Environmental Policy Act
Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5)(D) authorization requires compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act.
NMFS preliminary determined the issuance of the proposed IHA is
consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 (issuance
of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A and we have not
identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the
Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude this categorical
exclusion.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to making a final decision as to whether application of this CE
is appropriate in this circumstance.
[[Page 21794]]
Summary of Request
NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA to take marine
mammals incidental to Mukilteo Multimodal Project in Mukilteo,
Washington. WSDOT's request was for harassment only and NMFS concurs
that serious injury or mortality is not expected to result from this
activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
On April 7, 2016, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting an
IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of marine mammal
species incidental to construction associated with the Mukilteo
Multimodal Project in Mukilteo, Washington, between August 1, 2017, and
July 31, 2018. WSDOT subsequently updated its project scope and
submitted a revised IHA application on April 10, 2017. NMFS determined
the IHA application was complete on April 14, 2017. NMFS is proposing
to authorize the take by Level A and Level B harassment of the
following marine mammal species: Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina),
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris),
killer whale (Orcinus orca), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus),
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena), and Dall's porpoise (P. dalli).
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The purpose of the Mukilteo Multimodal Project is to provide safe,
reliable, and effective service and connection for general-purpose
transportation, transit, high occupancy vehicles (HOV), pedestrians,
and bicyclists traveling between Island County and the Seattle/Everett
metropolitan area and beyond by constructing a new ferry terminal. The
current Mukilteo Ferry Terminal has not had significant improvements
for almost 30 years and needs key repairs. The existing facility is
deficient in a number of aspects, such as safety, multimodal
connectivity, capacity, and the ability to support the goals of local
and regional long-range transportation and comprehensive plans. The
project is intended to:
Reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists by improving local traffic and
safety at the terminal and the surrounding area that serves these
transportation needs.
Provide a terminal and supporting facilities with the
infrastructure and operating characteristics needed to improve the
safety, security, quality, reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness
of multimodal transportation.
Accommodate future demand projected for transit, HOV,
pedestrian, bicycle, and general-purpose traffic.
The proposed Mukilteo Multimodal Project would involve in-water
impact and vibratory pile driving and vibratory pile removal. Details
of the proposed construction project are provided below.
Dates and Duration
Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water
work timing restrictions to protect ESA-listed salmonids, planned WSDOT
in-water construction is limited each year to July 16 through February
15. For this project, in-water construction is planned to take place
between August 1, 2017 and February 15, 2018. The total worst-case time
for pile installation and removal is 175 days (Table 1).
Specified Geographic Region
The Mukilteo Ferry Terminal is located in the City of Mukilteo,
Snohomish County, Washington. The terminal is located in Township 28
North, Range 4 East, Section 3, in Possession Sound. The new terminal
will be approximately 1,700 ft east of the existing terminal in
Township 28N, Range 4E, Section 33 (Figure 1-2 of the IHA application).
Land use in the Mukilteo area is a mix of residential, commercial,
industrial, and open space and/or undeveloped lands.
Detailed Description of In-Water Pile Driving Associated With Mukilteo
Multimodal Project
The proposed project has two elements involving noise production
that may affect marine mammals: Vibratory hammer driving and removal,
and impact hammer driving.
(1) Vibratory Hammer Driving and Removal
Vibratory hammers are commonly used in steel pile driving where
sediments allow, and involve the same vibratory hammer used in pile
removal. The pile is placed into position using a choker and crane, and
then vibrated between 1,200 and 2,400 vibrations per minute. The
vibrations liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile allowing it to
penetrate to the required seating depth, or to be removed. The type of
vibratory hammer that will be used for the project will likely be an
APE 400 King Kong (or equivalent) with a drive force of 361 tons.
(2) Impact Hammer Installation
Impact hammers are used to install plastic/steel core, wood,
concrete, or steel piles. An impact hammer is a steel device that works
like a piston. Impact hammers are usually large, though small impact
hammers are used to install small diameter plastic/steel core piles.
Impact hammers have guides (called a lead) that hold the hammer in
alignment with the pile while a heavy piston moves up and down,
striking the top of the pile, and drives it into the substrate from the
downward force of the hammer on the top of the pile.
To drive the pile, the pile is first moved into position and set in
the proper location using a choker cable or vibratory hammer. Once the
pile is set in place, pile installation with an impact hammer can take
less than 15 minutes under good conditions, to over an hour under poor
conditions (such as glacial till and bedrock, or exceptionally loose
material in which the pile repeatedly moves out of position).
Impact hammer is also used for ``proofing'' after pile is driven
using a vibratory hammer to set the pile firmly.
Details of pile driving activities are provided below and are
summarized in Table 1.
Vibratory driving of 24-inch temporary steel pile and
steel piles for a public fishing pier. Installation of each pile will
take approximately 60 minutes, 3 piles installed per day, with 117
piles installed over 39 days.
Vibratory removal of 69 temporary 24-inch diameter steel
piles. This will take approximately 15 minutes per pile, with 3 piles
removed per day over 23 days.
Vibratory driving of 40 30-inch steel piles. This will
take approximately 60 minutes per pile, with 3 piles installed per day
over 14 days.
Vibratory removal of 2 30-inch test steel piles. This will
take approximately 15 minutes per pile, with both piles removed in 1
day.
Vibratory removal of 7 30-inch inner dolphin steel piles.
This will take approximately 15 minutes per pile, with all 7 piles
removed in 1 day.
Vibratory driving of 6 36-inch steel piles. This will take
approximately 60 minutes per pile, with 3 piles installed per day over
2 days.
Vibratory driving of 2 78-inch diameter drilled steel
shafts. This will take approximately 60 minutes to install in one day.
Vibratory driving of a 120-inch diameter drilled steel
shaft. This will take approximately 60 minutes to install in one day.
Vibratory driving of 139 steel H-piles. This will take
approximately 30 minutes per pile, with 10 piles installed per day over
14 days.
[[Page 21795]]
Vibratory driving of 90 temporary steel sheet piles. This
will take approximately 30 minutes per pile, with 3 sheet piles
installed per day over 30 days.
Vibratory removal of 90 temporary steel sheet piles. This
will take approximately 15 minutes per pile, with 6 piles removed per
day over 15 days.
Impact driving (proofing; 300 strikes per pile) of 68
temporary 24-inch diameter steel piles. This will take approximately 15
minutes per pile, with 3 piles installed per day over 23 days.
Impact driving (proofing; 300 strikes per pile) of 5 30-
inch diameter steel piles. This will take approximately 15 minutes per
pile, with all 5 piles installed in 1 day.
Impact driving with 3000 strikes per pile of 25 30-inch
diameter steel piles. This will take approximately 15 minutes per pile,
with 3 piles installed per day over 9 days.
Table 1--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving Durations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration (min./
sec.) per pile
Method Pile type Pile size Pile number (vib.) or Duration
(inch) strikes per pile (days)
(impact)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving............................ Steel.................................. 24 117 60/3600 39
Vibratory removal............................ Steel.................................. 24 69 15/900 23
Vibratory driving............................ Steel.................................. 30 40 60/3600 14
Vibratory removal............................ Steel.................................. 30 2 30/1800 1
Vibratory removal............................ Steel.................................. 30 7 15/1800 1
Vibratory driving............................ Steel.................................. 36 6 60/3600 2
Vibratory driving............................ Steel shaft............................ 78 2 60/3600 2
Vibratory driving............................ Steel shaft............................ 120 1 60/3600 1
Vibratory driving............................ Steel H-pile........................... 12 139 30/1800 14
Vibratory driving............................ Steel sheet............................ .............. 90 30/1800 30
Vibratory removal............................ Steel sheet............................ .............. 90 15/900 15
Impact proofing.............................. Steel.................................. 24 68 300 23
Impact driving............................... Steel.................................. 30 25 3000 9
Impact proofing.............................. Steel.................................. 30 5 300 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... ....................................... .............. 661 ................ 175
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see ``Proposed
Mitigation'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting'').
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
We have reviewed the applicants' species information--which
summarizes available information regarding status and trends,
distribution and habitat preferences, behavior and life history, and
auditory capabilities of the potentially affected species--for accuracy
and completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the
applications, as well as to NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of reprinting all of the
information here. Additional general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's Web
site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/), or in the U.S. Navy's
Marine Resource Assessments (MRA) for relevant operating areas. The
MRAs are available online at: www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html. Table 2 lists all species with
expected potential for occurrence in Mukilteo project area and
summarizes information related to the population or stock, including
potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR, defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population, is considered in
concert with known sources of ongoing anthropogenic mortality to assess
the population-level effects of the anticipated mortality from a
specific project (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality are included here as gross indicators of the status of the
species and other threats. Species that could potentially occur in the
proposed survey areas but are not expected to have reasonable potential
to be harassed by WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal project are described
briefly but omitted from further analysis. These include extralimital
species, which are species that do not normally occur in a given area
but for which there are one or more occurrence records that are
considered beyond the normal range of the species. For status of
species, we provide information regarding U.S. regulatory status under
the MMPA and ESA.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study area. NMFS's stock
abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that
stock.
Nine species (with 10 managed stocks) are considered to have the
potential to co-occur with the proposed construction activities.
Extralimital species or stocks unlikely to co-occur with the Mukilteo
project include bottlenose dolphin, long-beaked common dolphin, Risso's
dolphin, Bryde's whale, and minke whale. All values presented in Table
2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are
available in the 2015 SARs (Carretta et al. 2016) and draft 2016 SARs
(available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).
[[Page 21796]]
Table 2--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock
abundance (CV,
ESA/MMPA status; Nmin, most Annual M/SI
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) \1\ recent PBR \3\
abundance
survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale......................... Eschrichtius robustus. Eastern North Pacific. N.................. 20,990 624 132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale..................... Megaptera novaeangliae California/Oregon/ Y.................. 1,918 11.0 6.5
Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale....................... Orcinus orca.......... Eastern North Pacific Y.................. 78 0 0
Southern Resident.
West coast transient.. N.................. 243 2.4 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise.................... Phocoena phocoena..... Washington inland N.................. 11,233 66 7.2
waters.
Dall's porpoise.................... P. dalli.............. California/Oregon/ N.................. 25,750 172 0.3
Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion................ Zalophus californianus U.S................... N.................. 296,750 9,200 389
Steller sea lion................... Eumetopias jubatus.... Eastern U.S........... N.................. 71,562 2,498 108
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal........................ Phoca vitulina........ Washington northern N.................. \4\ 11,036 1,641 43
inland waters.
Elephant seal...................... Mirounga California breeding... N.................. 179,000 2,882 8.8
angustirostris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section
later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity.
The ``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section will
consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed Mitigation''
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals
and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal
species or stocks.
Potential impacts to marine mammals from the proposed Mukilteo
ferry terminal construction are from noise generated during in-water
pile driving and pile removal activities.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal
hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
Marine Mammal Hearing--Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic
sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the
potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data
indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing
capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999;
Au and Hastings,
[[Page 21797]]
2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine
mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly
measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked
potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no
direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed
for mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS
(2016) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal
hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the
approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized composite audiograms,
with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where
the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and
the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these
frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with
the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every
species within that group):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best
hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to
less than 100 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz,
with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best
hearing between 2-48 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from
Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid
species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of
hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information.
Nine marine mammal species (5 cetacean and 4 pinniped (2 otariid and 2
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the
proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean
species that may be present, 2 are classified as low-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 1 is classified as mid-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., killer whale), and 2 are classified as high-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise).
The WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal construction work using in-water
pile driving and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal
species and stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the
vicinity of the activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift--an
increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran et
al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift
include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern,
and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing
threshold shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the
noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift just after exposure is
the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift eventually returns
to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is
a temporary threshold shift (Southall et al., 2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced threshold shift
(TS). An animal can experience temporary threshold shift (TTS) or
permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to
days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific
frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of
hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can
be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity
might be reduced initially by only 6 decibel (dB) or reduced by 30 dB).
PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in
a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS.
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a, 2010b;
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a,
2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et
al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data
are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal,
and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al.,
2012b).
Lucke et al. (2009) found a threshold shift (TS) of a harbor
porpoise after exposing it to airgun noise with a received sound
pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 micropascal
([mu]Pa), which corresponds to a sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 1
[mu]Pa\2\ s after integrating exposure. Because the airgun noise is a
broadband impulse, one cannot directly determine the equivalent of rms
SPL from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a
conservative conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from
seismic surveys (McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference
between peak-to-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms
SPLs, the rms SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa,
and the received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would
be higher. Therefore, based on these studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS
of harbor porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically
tested (Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and
Jennings, 2012).
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious
[[Page 21798]]
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note,
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall
et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-
intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions
(Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as
from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals
such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental
sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain
circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment
are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize.
Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly
concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high
frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However,
lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of
communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such
as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when
they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space
of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels
(e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects
both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent
science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased
by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of sound pressure
level) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of
these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). For
WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal construction activities, noises from
vibratory pile driving and pile removal contribute to the elevated
ambient noise levels in the project area, thus increasing potential for
or severity of masking. Baseline ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of project area are high due to ongoing shipping, construction and
other activities in the Puget Sound.
Finally, marine mammals' exposure to certain sounds could lead to
behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), such as: changing
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g.,
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises
(such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for
continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the WSDOT's
Mukilteo Multimodal construction activities, both of these noise levels
are considered for effects analysis because WSDOT plans to use both
impact and vibratory pile driving, as well as vibratory pile removal.
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity,
duration, and context of the effects.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile
removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts
to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to
communicate (Tavolga et al. 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson
and Dill 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the
detection level of 120 dB (Ona 1988); however, the response threshold
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of
sound (such as noise from impact pile driving) rather than continuous
signals (such as noise from vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al.,
1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal
intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the
same level.
During the coastal construction only a small fraction of the
available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to
fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the
proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on marine
mammals' prey availability in the area where construction work is
planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid
the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the
negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
[[Page 21799]]
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as noise
generated from in-water impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving
and pile removal has the potential to result in disruption of
behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some
potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily
for high frequency cetaceans (harbor and Dall's porpoises) and phocid
seals (harbor and northern elephant seals) due to larger predicted
auditory injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for low-
and mid-frequency cetaceans and otarrids. The proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such
taking to the extent practicable. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Basis for Takes
Take estimates are based on average marine mammal density in the
project area multiplied by the area size of ensonified zones within
which received noise levels exceed certain thresholds (i.e., Level A
and/or Level B harassment) from specific activities, then multiplied by
the total number of days such activities would occur. Certain
adjustments were made for marine mammals whose local abundance are
known through long-term monitoring efforts. Therefore, their local
abundance data are used for take calculation instead of general animal
density (see below).
Basis for Threshold Calculation
As discussed above, in-water pile removal and pile driving
(vibratory and impact) generate loud noises that could potentially
harass marine mammals in the vicinity of WSDOT's proposed Mukilteo
Multimodal project.
Under the NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance), dual criteria
are used to assess marine mammal auditory injury (Level A harassment)
as a result of noise exposure (NMFS 2016). The dual criteria under the
Guidance provide onset thresholds in instantaneous peak SPLs
(Lpk) as well as 24-hr cumulative sound exposure levels
(SELcum or LE) that could cause PTS to marine
mammals of different hearing groups. The peak SPL is the highest
positive value of the noise field, log transformed to dB in reference
to 1 [mu]Pa.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY17.000
where p(t) is acoustic pressure in pascal or micropascal, and
pref is reference acoustic pressure equal to 1 [mu]Pa.
The cumulative SEL is the total sound exposure over the entire
duration of a given day's pile driving activity, specifically, pile
driving occurring within a 24-hr period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY17.001
where p(t) is acoustic pressure in pascal or micropascal,
pref is reference acoustic pressure equals to 1 [mu]Pa,
t1 marks the beginning of the time, and t2 the
end of time.
For onset of Level B harassment, NMFS continues to use the root-
mean-square (rms) sound pressure level (SPLrms) at 120 dB re
1 [mu]Pa and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa as the received levels from non-impulse
(vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulse sources (impact pile
driving) underwater, respectively. The SPLrms for pulses
(such as those from impact pile driving) should contain 90 percent of
the pulse energy, and is calculated by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY17.002
where p(t) is acoustic pressure in pascal or micropascal,
pref is reference acoustic pressure equals to 1 [mu]Pa,
t1 marks the beginning of the time, and t2 the
end of time. In the case of an impulse noise, t1 marks the
time of 5 percent of the total energy window, and t2 the
time of 95 percent of the total energy window.
Table 3 summarizes the current NMFS marine mammal take criteria.
Table 3--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Non-Explosive Sound Underwater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Onset thresholds Behavioral thresholds
Hearing Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans... Lpk,flat: 219 dB LE,LF,24h: 199 dB Lrms,flat: 160 dB Lrms,flat: 120 dB
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans... Lpk,flat: 230 dB LE,MF,24h: 198 dB
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB
[[Page 21800]]
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.. Lpk,flat: 202 dB LE,HF,24h: 173 dB
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Lpk,flat: 218 dB LE,PW,24h: 201 dB
(Underwater). LE,PW,24h: 185 dB
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Lpk,flat: 232 dB LE,OW,24h: 219 dB
(Underwater). LE,OW,24h: 203 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive
sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be
considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1[mu]Pa2s. In this
Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by
ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is being included to
indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative
sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways
(i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which
these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
Sound Levels and Acoustic Modeling for the Proposed Construction
Activity
Source Levels
The project includes vibratory pile driving and removal of 24-, 30-
, and 36-inch (in) steel piles, vibratory driving of 78- and 120-in
steel shaft, vibratory driving of steel H-piles, vibratory driving and
removal of steel sheet piles, and impact pile driving and proofing of
24- and 30-in steel piles.
Source levels of the above pile driving activities are based on
measurements of the same material types and same or similar dimensions
of piles measured at Mukilteo or elsewhere. Specifically, the source
level for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24-in steel pile is
based on vibratory test pile driving of the same pile at the Friday
Harbor (WSDOT, 2010a). The unweighted SPLrms source level at
10 m from the pile is 162 dB re 1 re 1 [mu]Pa. We consider that using
vibratory pile installation source level as a proxy for vibratory pile
removal is conservative.
The source level for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 30-
in steel pile is based on vibratory pile driving of the same pile at
Port Townsend (WSDOT, 2010b). The unweighted SPLrms source
level at 10 m from the pile is 174 dB re 1 re 1 [mu]Pa.
The source level for vibratory pile driving the 36-in steel piles
is based on vibratory test pile driving of 36-in steel piles at Port
Townsend in 2010 (Laughlin 2011). Recordings of vibratory pile driving
were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile. The results show that
the unweighted SPLrms for vibratory pile driving of 36-in
steel pile was 177 dB re 1 [mu]Pa.
Source level for vibratory pile driving of the 78- and 120-in steel
shaft is based on measurements of 72-in steel piles vibratory driving
conducted by CALTRANS. The unweighted SPLrms source level
ranged between 170 and 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m from the pile
(CALTRANS 2012). The value of 180 dB is chosen to be more conservative.
The source level for vibratory pile driving of steel H-piles is
based on measurements conducted by the California Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS). The unweighted SPLrms source
level is 150 dB re 1 re 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m from the pile (CALTRANS,
2012).
The source level for vibratory sheet pile driving and removal is
based on measurements at the Elliott Bay Seawall Project. The
unweighted SPLrms source level is 164 dB re 1 re 1 [mu]Pa at
10 m from the pile (Greenbusch 2015).
Source levels for impact pile driving of the 24-in steel piles are
based on impact test pile driving of the same steel pile during the
Vashon Acoustic Monitoring by WSDOT (Laughlin, 2015). The unweighted
back-calculated source levels at 10 m are 174 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s for
single strike SEL (SELss) and 189 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for
SPLrms.
Source levels for impact pile driving of the 30-in steel pile are
based on impact test pile driving for the 36-in steel pile at Mukilteo
in November 2006. Recordings of the impact pile driving that were made
at a distance of 10 m from the pile were analyzed using Matlab. The
results show that the unweighted source levels are 178 dB re 1
[mu]Pa\2\-s for SELss and 193 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for
SPLrms.
A summary of source levels from different pile driving and pile
removal activities is provided in Table 4.
Table 4--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving Source Levels
[At 10 m from source]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEL (SELss for
impact pile
Method Pile type/size (inch) driving), dB re SPLrms, dB re 1
1 [mu]Pa\2\-s [mu]Pa\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving/removal................... Steel, 24-in.................. 162 162
Vibratory driving/removal................... Steel, 30-in.................. 174 174
Vibratory driving........................... Steel, 36-in.................. 177 177
Vibratory driving........................... Steel shaft, 78-in............ 180 180
Vibratory driving........................... Steel shaft, 120-in........... 180 180
Vibratory driving........................... Steel H-pile, 12-in........... 150 150
Vibratory driving/removal................... Steel sheet................... 164 164
[[Page 21801]]
Impact driving.............................. Steel, 24-in.................. 174 189
Impact driving.............................. Steel, 30-in.................. 178 193
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These source levels are used to compute the Level A ensonified
zones and to estimate the Level B harassment zones. For Level A
harassment zones, zones calculated using cumulative SEL are all larger
than those calculated using SPLpeak, therefore, only zones based on
cumulative SEL for Level A harassment are used.
Source spectrum of the 36-in steel pile recording is used for
spectral modeling for the 24-, 30-, and 36-in steel pile vibratory pile
driving and removal to calculate Level A exposure distances based on
cumulative SEL metric (see below).
For other piles where no recording is available, source modeling
cannot be performed. In such cases, the weighting factor adjustment
(WFA) recommended by NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016) was used to
determine Level A exposure distances.
Estimating Injury Zones
Calculation and modeling of applicable ensonified zones are based
on source measurements of comparable types and sizes of piles driven by
different methods (impact vs. vibratory hammers) as described above. As
mentioned earlier, isopleths for injury zones are based on cumulative
SEL (LE) criteria.
For peak SPL (Lpk), distances to marine mammal injury
thresholds were calculated using a simple geometric spreading model
using a transmission loss coefficient of 15:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY17.003
where SLMeasure is the measured source level in dB re 1
[mu]Pa, EL is the specific received level of threshold,
DMeasure is the distance (m) from the source where
measurements were taken, and R is the distance (radius) of the isopleth
to the source in meters.
For cumulative SEL (LE), distances to marine mammal
exposure thresholds were computed using spectral modeling that
incorporates frequency specific absorption. First, representative pile
driving sounds recorded during test pile driving with impact and
vibratory hammers were used to generate power spectral densities
(PSDs), which describe the distribution of power into frequency
components composing that sound, in 1-Hz bins. Parseval's theorem,
which states that the sum of the square of a function is equal to the
sum of the square of its transform, was applied to ensure that all
energies within a strike (for impact pile driving) or a given period of
time (for vibratory pile driving) were captured through the fast
Fourier transform, an algorithm that converts the signal from its
original domain (in this case, time series) to a representation in
frequency domain. For impact pile driving, broadband PSDs were
generated from SPLrms time series with a time window that
contains 90 percent of each pulse energy. For vibratory pile driving,
broadband PSDs were generated from a series of continuous 1-second SEL.
Broadband PSDs were then adjusted based on weighting functions of
marine mammal hearing groups (Finneran 2016) by using the weighting
function as a band-pass filter. For impact pile driving, cumulative
exposures (Esum) were computed by multiplying the single rms
pressure squared by rms pulse duration for the specific strike, then by
the number of strikes (provided in Table 1) required to drive one pile,
then by the number of piles to be driven in a given day, as shown in
the equation below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY17.004
where prms,i is the rms pressure, [tau] is the rms pulse
duration for the specific strike, Ns is the anticipated
number of strikes (provided in Table 1) needed to install one pile, and
N is the number of total piles to be installed.
For vibratory pile driving, cumulative exposures were computed by
summing 1-second noise exposure by the duration needed to drive on pile
(provided in Table 1), then by the number of piles to be driven in a
given day, as shown in the equation below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY17.005
[[Page 21802]]
where E1s is the 1-second noise exposure, and [Delta]t is
the duration (provided in Table 1) need to install 1 pile by vibratory
piling.
Frequency-specific transmission losses, TL(f), were then computed
using practical spreading along with frequency-specific absorption
coefficients that were computed with nominal seawater properties (i.e.,
salinity = 35 psu, pH = 8.0) at 15[deg] C at the surface by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY17.006
where [alpha](f) is dB/km, and R is the distance (radius) of the
specific isopleth to the source in meters. For broadband sources such
as those from pile driving, the transmission loss is the summation of
the frequency-specific results.
Approach to Estimate Behavioral Zones
As mentioned earlier, isopleths to Level B behavioral zones are
based on root-mean-square SPL (SPLrms) that are specific for
impulse (impact pile driving) and non-impulse (vibratory pile driving)
sources. Distances to marine mammal behavior thresholds were calculated
using a simple geometric spreading equation as shown in Equation (4).
A summary of the measured and modeled harassment zones is provided
in Table 5. The maximum distance is 20,500 m from the source, since
this is where landmass intercepts underwater sound propagation.
Table 5--Distances to Harassment Zones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury zone (m)
Pile type, size & pile driving method -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Behavior zone
LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid (m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory removal, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/day........ 10 10 55 10 10 6,040
Vibratory driving, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/day........ 175 45 995 85 10 6,040
Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 2 piles/day........ 55 10 345 25 10 * 20,500
Vibratory removal, 30-in steel pile, 7 piles/day........ 125 35 725 55 10 * 20,500
Vibratory driving, 30-in steel pile, 3 piles/day........ 175 45 995 85 10 * 20,500
Vibratory driving, 36-in steel pile, 3 piles/day........ 175 45 995 85 10 * 20,500
Vibratory driving, 78-in steel shaft, 1 pile/day........ 126 11 186 77 5 * 20,500
Vibratory driving, 120-in steel shaft, 1 pile/day....... 126 11 186 77 5 * 20,500
Vibratory driving, steel 12-in H-pile, 10 piles/day..... 4 1 6 2 0 1,000
Vibratory driving, steel sheet, 3 piles/day............. 14 1 21 9 1 8,577
Vibratory removal, steel sheet, 6 piles/day............. 23 2 33 14 1 8,577
Impact proofing, 24-in steel pile, 3 piles/day.......... 135 10 75 35 10 875
Impact driving, 30-in steel pile, 3 piles/day........... 1,065 10 505 225 10 1,585
Impact proofing, 30-in steel pile, 5 piles/day.......... 355 10 175 75 10 1,585
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Landmass intercepts at a distance of 20,500m from project area.
Estimated Takes From Proposed Construction Activity
Incidental take is estimated for each species by estimating the
likelihood of a marine mammal being present within a Level A or Level B
harassment zone during active pile driving or removal. The Level A
calculation includes a duration component, along with an assumption
(which can lead to overestimates in some cases) that animals within the
zone stay in that area for the whole duration of the pile driving
activity within a day. For all marine mammal species except harbor
seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals, estimated
takes are calculated based on ensonified area for a specific pile
driving activity multiplied by the marine mammal density in the action
area, multiplied by the number of pile driving (or removal) days. In
most cases, marine mammal density data are from the U.S. Navy Marine
Species Density Database (Navy 2015). Harbor porpoise density is based
on a recent study by Jefferson et al. (2016) for the Eastern Whidbey
area near the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal. Harbor seal, northern elephant
seal, and California sea lion takes are based on observations in the
Mukilteo area, since these data provide the best information on
distribution and presence of these species that are often associated
with nearby haulouts (see below).
The Level A take total was further adjusted by subtracting animals
expected to occur within the exclusion zone, where pile driving
activities are suspended when an animal is observed in or approaching
the zone (see Mitigation section). Further, the number of Level B takes
was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes.
The harbor seal take estimate is based on local seal abundance
information
[[Page 21803]]
from monitoring during the Mukilteo pier removal project. Marine mammal
visual monitoring during Mukilteo Ferry Terminal pier removal project
showed an average daily observation of 7 harbor seals (WSDOT 2015).
Based on a total of 175 pile driving days for the WSDOT Mukilteo
Multimodal Phase 2 project, it is estimated that up to 1,225 harbor
seals could be exposed to noise levels associated with ``take''. Since
9 days would involve impact pile driving of 30-in piles with Level A
harassment zones beyond the required shutdown zones (225 m vs 160 m
shutdown zone), we consider that 63 harbor seals exposed during these 9
days would experience Level A harassment.
The California sea lion take estimate is based on local sea lion
abundance information during the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal pier removal
project (WSDOT 2015). Marine mammal visual monitoring during the
Mukilteo pier removal project indicates on average 7 sea lions were
observed in the general area of the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal per day
(WSDOT 2015). Based on a total of 175 pile driving days for the WSDOT
Mukilteo Multimodal project, it is estimated that up to 1,225
California sea lions could be exposed to noise levels associated with
``take''. Since the Level A harassment zones of otarids are all very
small (max. 10 m, Table 5), we do not consider it likely that any sea
lions would be taken by Level A harassment. Therefore, all California
sea lion takes estimated here are expected to be by Level B harassment.
Northern elephant seal is not common in the Mukilteo Multimodal
Project area, however, their presence has been observed in Edmonds area
just south of Mukilteo (Huey, Pers. Comm. April 2017). Therefore, a
potential take of 20 animals by Level B harassment during the project
period is assessed. Since northern elephant seal is very uncommon in
the project area, we do not consider it likely that any elephant seal
would be taken by Level A harassment.
However, the method used in take estimates does not account for
single individuals being taken multiple times during the entire project
period of 175 days. Therefore, the percent of marine mammals that are
likely to be taken for a given population would be far less than the
ratio of numbers of animals taken divided by the population size. For
harbor porpoise, the estimated incidences of takes at 6,759 animals
would be 60.2% of the population, if each single take were a unique
individual. However, this is highly unlikely because the results of
telemetry and photo-identification studies in Washington waters have
demonstrated that harbor porpoise shows site fidelity to small areas
for periods of time that can extend between seasons (Hanson et al.
1999; Hanson 2007a, 2007b). Based on studies by Jefferson et al.
(2016), harbor porpoise abundance in the East Whidbey region, which is
adjunct to the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal construction, is 497, and harbor
porpoise abundance in the entire surrounding area of North Puget Sound
is 1,798.
For Southern Resident killer whales, potential takes based on
density calculation showed that 4 animals could be exposed to noise
levels for Level B harassment. However, mitigation measures prescribed
below will prevent such takes.
A summary of estimated marine mammal takes is listed in Table 6.
Table 6--Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals That May Be Exposed to Received Noise Levels That Cause Level A or
Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Species Level A take Level B take total take Abundance Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific harbor seal............. 63 1,162 1,225 11,036 11.1
California sea lion............. 0 1,225 1,225 296,750 0.41
Northern elephant seal.......... 0 20 20 179,000 0.01
Steller sea lion................ 0 232 232 71,562 0.32
Killer whale, transient......... 0 21 21 243 8.64
Killer whale, Southern Resident. 0 0 0 78 0
Gray whale...................... 0 45 45 20,990 0.21
Humpback whale.................. 0 6 6 1,918 0.31
Harbor porpoise................. 61 6,698 6,759 11,233 60.2
Dall's porpoise................. 4 417 421 25,750 1.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, ``and other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking'' for certain
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental
take authorizations to include information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and
manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks
and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully balance two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat, which considers the nature of the potential
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as
the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and
the likelihood of effective implementation, and; (2) the practicability
of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such
things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military
readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation,
and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
1. Time Restriction
Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring
of marine mammals can be conducted. In addition, all in-water
construction will be limited to the period between August 1, 2017, and
February 15, 2018.
[[Page 21804]]
2. Use of Noise Attenuation Devices
To reduce impact on marine mammals, WSDOT shall use a marine pile
driving energy attenuator (i.e., air bubble curtain system), or other
equally effective sound attenuation method (e.g., dewatered cofferdam)
for all impact pile driving.
3. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, and
Exclusion Zones
Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, which
include impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile
removal, WSDOT shall establish Level A harassment zones where received
underwater SPLs or SELcum could cause PTS (see above).
WSDOT shall also establish Level B harassment zones where received
underwater SPLs are higher than 160 dBrms and 120
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa for impulse noise sources (impact pile
driving) and non-impulses noise sources (vibratory pile driving and
pile removal), respectively.
WSDOT shall establish a maximum 160-m Level A exclusion zone for
all marine mammals except low-frequency baleen whales. For Level A
harassment zones that are smaller than 160 m from the source, WSDOT
shall establish exclusion zones that correspond to the estimated Level
A harassment distances, but shall not be less than 10 m. For low-
frequency baleen whales, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones that
correspond to the actual Level A harassment distances, but shall not be
less than 10 m.
A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 7.
Table 7--Exclusion Zones for Various Pile Driving Activities and Marine Mammal Hearing Groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury zone (m)
Pile type, size and pile driving -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
method LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory removal, 24-in steel 10 10 55 10 10
pile, 3 piles/day..............
Vibratory removal, 30-in steel 55 10 160 25 10
pile, 2 piles/day..............
Vibratory removal, 30-in steel 125 35 160 55 10
pile, 7 piles/day..............
Vibratory driving, 24-, 30- & 36- 175 45 160 85 10
in steel pile, 3 piles/day.....
Vibratory driving, 78-, 120-in 126 11 160 77 10
steel shaft, 1 pile/day........
Vibratory driving, steel 12-in H- 4 1 6 2 1
pile, 10 piles/day.............
Vibratory driving, steel sheet, 14 1 21 9 1
3 piles/day....................
Vibratory removal, steel sheet, 23 2 33 14 1
6 piles/day....................
Impact proofing, 24-in steel 135 10 75 35 10
pile, 3 piles/day..............
Impact driving, 30-in steel 1,065 10 160 160 10
pile, 3 piles/day..............
Impact proofing, 30-in steel 355 10 160 75 10
pile, 5 piles/day..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSO) shall conduct an
initial survey of the exclusion zones to ensure that no marine mammals
are seen within the zones before pile driving and pile removal of a
pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within the exclusion
zone, pile driving of the segment would be delayed until they move out
of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives
below, the contractor would wait 30 minutes. If no marine mammals are
seen by the observer in that time it can be assumed that the animal has
moved beyond the exclusion zone.
If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a
marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to
commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the pile
driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and
continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until
the marine mammal has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have
elapsed since the last sighting.
4. Soft Start
A ``soft-start'' technique is intended to allow marine mammals to
vacate the area before the impact pile driver reaches full power.
Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact
pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up
procedures described below.
Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an
initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent
three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at
the beginning of impact pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for
more than 30 minutes.
5. Shutdown Measures
WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is
detected within an exclusion zone or is about to enter an exclusion
zone listed in Table 6.
WSDOT shall also implement shutdown measures if southern resident
killer whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and
are approaching the Level B harassment zone (or Zone of Influence, ZOI)
during in-water construction activities.
If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or
removal, and it is unknown whether it is a Southern Resident killer
whale or a transient killer whale, it shall be assumed to be a Southern
Resident killer whale and WSDOT shall implement the shutdown measure.
If a Southern Resident killer whale or an unidentified killer whale
enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall
be suspended until the whale exits the ZOI to avoid further level B
harassment.
Further, WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of
authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the
IHA (if issued) and if such marine mammals are sighted within the
vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment
zone during in-water construction activities.
6. Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network
Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the Orca Network
and/or Center for Whale Research will be contacted by WSDOT to find out
the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings
Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents,
scientists, and government agency personnel in the U.S. and Canada.
Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately
distributed to other sighting networks including: The NMFS Northwest
Fisheries Science Center, the Center for
[[Page 21805]]
Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the Whale Museum Hotline and the
British Columbia Sightings Network.
Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes
detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a
system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine
environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca
communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology and local climatic
conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center
measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects
unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to
hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic
network, combined with the volunteer (incidental) visual sighting
network allows researchers to document presence and location of various
marine mammal species.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, all of which are described
above, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation
measures provide the means effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal
monitoring for its Mukilteo Multimodal Project. The PSOs will observe
and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for
30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal
and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required;
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer;
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree
in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an
observer; and
5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs;
Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be
conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power).
Due to the different sizes of ZOIs from different pile sizes, several
different ZOIs and different monitoring protocols corresponding to a
specific pile size will be established.
For Level A zones less than 160 m and Level B zones less
than 1,000 m (i.e., vibratory 12-in H pile driving, 10 piles/day;
impact proofing of 24-in steel piles, 3 piles/day), two land-based PSOs
will monitor the exclusion zones and Level B harassment zone.
For Level A zones between 160 and 500 m, and Level B zones
between 1,000 and 10,000 m (i.e., vibratory pile driving and removal of
24-in steel piles, 3 piles/day; vibratory driving and removal of steel
sheet; and impact proofing of 30-in steel piles, 5 piles/day), 5 land-
based PSOs and 1 vessel-based PSO on a ferry will monitor the Level A
and Level B harassment zones.
For the rest of the pile driving and pile removal
scenario, 5 land-based PSOs and 2 vessel-based PSOs on ferries will
monitor the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
Locations of the land-based PSOs and routes of monitoring vessels
are shown in WSDOT's Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, which is available
online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.
To verify the required monitoring distance, the exclusion zones and
ZOIs will be determined by using a range finder or hand-held global
positioning system device.
Proposed Reporting Measures
WSDOT would be required to submit a draft monitoring report within
90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of
the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. This report would detail
the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring,
and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.
NMFS would have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and
if NMFS has comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a
final report to NMFS within 30 days.
In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS' Office of
Protected Resources and NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within
48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the
construction site. WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the Stranding Network
with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the
animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and
photo or video (if available).
In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that
is not in the construction area, WSDOT would report the same
information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.
[[Page 21806]]
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as ``an impact resulting from
the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103).
A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses
applies to all the species listed in Table 7, given that the
anticipated effects of WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal Project activities
involving pile driving and pile removal on marine mammals are expected
to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the
nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of
any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis by species
for this activity, or else species-specific factors would be identified
and analyzed.
Although a few marine mammal species (63 harbor seals, 61 harbor
porpoises, and 4 Dall's porpoise) are estimated to experience Level A
harassment in the form of PTS if they stay within the Level A
harassment zone during the entire pile driving for the day, the degree
of injury is expected to be mild and is not likely to affect the
reproduction or survival of the individual animals because most animals
will avoid the area, and thus avoid injury. It is expected that, if
hearing impairments occurs, most likely the affected animal would loss
a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is not likely
to affect its survival and recruitment. Hearing impairment that occur
for these individual animals would be limited to the dominant frequency
of the noise sources, i.e., in the low-frequency region below 2 kHz.
Therefore, the degree of PTS is not likely to affect the echolocation
performance of the two porpoise species, which use frequencies mostly
above 100 kHz. Nevertheless, for all marine mammal species, it is known
that in general animals avoid areas where sound levels could cause
hearing impairment. Therefore it is not likely that an animal would
stay in an area with intense noise that could cause severe levels of
hearing damage. In addition, even if an animal receives a TTS, the TTS
would be a one-time event from the exposure, making it unlikely that
the TTS would evolve into PTS. Furthermore, Level A take estimates were
based on the assumption that the animals are randomly distributed in
the project area and would not avoid intense noise levels that could
cause TTS or PTS. In reality, animals tend to avoid areas where noise
levels are high (Richardson et al., 1995).
For the rest of the three marine mammal species, takes that are
anticipated and proposed to be authorized are expected to be limited to
short-term Level B harassment (behavioral and TTS). Marine mammals
present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B
harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle
reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during
pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise. These behavioral
distances are not expected to affect marine mammals' growth, survival,
and reproduction due to the limited geographic area that would be
affected in comparison to the much larger habitat for marine mammals in
the Puget Sound. A few marine mammals could experience TTS if they
occur within the Level B TTS ZOI. However, as discussed earlier in this
document, TTS is a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity when exposed
to loud sound, and the hearing threshold is expected to recover
completely within minutes to hours. Therefore, it is not considered an
injury.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in
the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section. There is
no ESA designated critical area in the vicinity of the Mukilteo
Multimodal Project area. The project activities would not permanently
modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may kill some
fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus impacting
marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the
foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities
and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the
impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant
or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given the consideration
of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species and their physical
environment, WSDOT's proposed construction activity at Mukilteo Ferry
Terminal would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total take from
the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of
individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of
the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
The estimated takes are below 12 percent of the population for all
marine mammals except harbor porpoise (Table 7). For harbor porpoise,
the estimate of 6,759 incidences of takes would be 60.2 percent of the
population, if each single take were a unique individual. However, this
is highly unlikely because the harbor porpoise in Washington waters
shows site fidelity to small areas for periods of time that can extend
between seasons (Hanson et al. 1999; Hanson 2007a, 2007b). For example,
Hanson et al. (1999) tracked a female harbor porpoise for 215 days,
during which it remained exclusively within the southern Strait of
Georgia region. Based on studies by Jefferson et al. (2016), harbor
porpoise abundance in the East Whidbey region, which is
[[Page 21807]]
adjunct to the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal construction, is 497, and harbor
porpoise abundance in the entire surrounding area of North Puget Sound
is 1,798. Therefore, if the estimated incidents of take accrued to all
the animals expected to occur in the entire North Puget Sound area
(1,798 animals), it would be 16.01 percent of the Washington inland
water stock of the harbor porpoise.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Subsistence Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with the ESA
for any species that are listed or proposed as threatened or
endangered.
The humpback whale and the killer whale (southern resident distinct
population segment (DPS)) are the only marine mammal species listed
under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity of WSDOT's proposed
construction project. Two DPSs of the humpback whale stock, the Mexico
DPS and the Central America DPS, are listed as threatened and
endangered under the ESA, respectively. NMFS' Office of Protected
Resources has initiated consultation with NMFS' West Coast Regional
Office under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to WSDOT
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity.
NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a
determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to WSDOT for conducting Mukilteo Multimodal Project phase
2 between August 1, 2016, and February 15, 2017, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The
wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA
(if issued).
1. This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2017, through July
31, 2018.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with
in-water construction work at the Mukilteo Multimodal Project phase 2
in the State of Washington.
3. (a) The species authorized taking by, Level A and Level B
harassment and in the numbers shown in Table 6 are: Pacific harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris),
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus), killer whale (Orcinus orca), gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and Dall's porpoise (P. dalli).
(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the
following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
Impact pile driving;
Vibratory pile driving; and
Vibratory pile removal.
4. Prohibitions.
(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the
species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in
Table 6 of this notice. The taking by death of these species or the
taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine
mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or exempted under the
MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of
this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the
required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition
7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this
Authorization.
5. Mitigation.
(a) Time Restriction. In-water construction work shall occur only
during daylight hours.
(b) Establishment of Level A and Level B Harassment Zones.
(A) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal
activities, WSDOT shall establish Level A harassment zones. The modeled
Level A zones are summarized in Table 5.
(B) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal
activities, WSDOT shall establish Level B harassment zones. The modeled
Level B zones are summarized in Table 5.
(C) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal
activities, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones. The proposed
exclusion zones are summarized in Table 7.
(c) Monitoring of marine mammals shall take place starting 30
minutes before pile driving begins until 30 minutes after pile driving
ends.
(d) Soft Start.
(i) When there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without pile
driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up
procedures described below.
(ii) Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide
an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent
energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent
three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at
the beginning of impact pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for
more than 30 minutes.
(e) Shutdown Measures.
(i) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is
detected within or to be approaching the exclusion zones provided in
Table 7 of this notice.
(ii) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if southern resident
killer whales (SRKWs) are sighted within the vicinity of the project
area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (zone of
influence, or ZOI) during in-water construction activities.
(iii) If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or
removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer
whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the
shutdown measure identified in 6(e)(ii).
(iv) If a SRKW enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or
pile removal shall be suspended until the SRKW exits the ZOI to avoid
further level B harassment.
(v) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any
allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA, if such
marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and
are approaching the Level B harassment zone during pile removal
activities.
(f) Coordination with Local Marine Mammal Research Network.
Prior to the start of pile driving, WSDOT will contact the Orca
Network and/or Center for Whale Research to get real-time information
on the presence or absence of whales before starting any pile driving.
6. Monitoring.
(a) Protected Species Observers.
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine
[[Page 21808]]
mammal monitoring for its construction project. NMFS-approved PSOs will
meet the following qualifications.
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required.
(ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate
degree in biological science or related field) or training for
experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
(v) NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
(b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall be present on site at all
times during pile removal and driving.
(i) A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be
required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A
30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required
after the last pile driving or pile removal of the day. If the
constructors take a break between subsequent pile driving or pile
removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional 30-minute pre-
construction marine mammal monitoring will be required before the next
start-up of pile driving or pile removal.
(iii) Marine mammal visual monitoring will be conducted for
different ZOIs based on different sizes of piles being driven or
removed, as shown in maps in WSDOT's Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan.
(A) For Level A zones less than 160 m and Level B zones less than
1,000 m (i.e., vibratory 12-in H pile driving, 10 piles/day; impact
proofing of 24-in steel piles, 3 piles/day), two land-based PSOs will
monitor the exclusion zones and Level B harassment zone.
(B) For Level A zones between 160 and 500 m, and Level B zones
between 1,000 and 10,000 m (i.e., vibratory pile driving and removal of
24-in steel piles, 3 piles/day; vibratory driving and removal of steel
sheet; and impact proofing of 30-in steel piles, 5 piles/day), 5 land-
based PSOs and 1 vessel-based PSO on a ferry will monitor the Level A
and Level B harassment zones.
(C) For the rest of the pile driving and pile removal scenario, 5
land-based PSOs and 2 vessel-based PSOs on ferries will monitor the
Level A and Level B harassment zones.
(iv) If marine mammals are observed, the following information will
be documented:
(A) Species of observed marine mammals;
(B) Number of observed marine mammal individuals;
(C) Behavior of observed marine mammals;
(D) Location within the ZOI; and
7. Reporting:
(a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within
90 days of the conclusion of the construction work or within 90 days of
the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes first. This report shall
detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have
been harassed.
(b) If comments are received from NMFS Office of Protected
Resources on the draft report, a final report shall be submitted to
NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS,
the draft report will be considered to be the final report.
(c) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities
clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by
this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or
mortality, WSDOT shall immediately cease all operations and immediately
report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the
following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) description of the incident;
(iii) status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
(iv) environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, sea
state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);
(v) description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(vi) species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(vii) the fate of the animal(s); and
(viii) photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is
available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with WSDOT to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WSDOT may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(E) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph),
WSDOT will immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators.
The report must include the same information identified above.
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with WSDOT to determine whether modifications
in the activities are appropriate.
(F) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), WSDOT shall report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional
Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. WSDOT shall
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine
Mammal Stranding Network. WSDOT can continue its operations under such
a case.
8. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each
contractor who performs the construction work at the Mukilteo Ferry
Terminal.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the WSDOT's
Mukilteo Multimodal Project Phase 2. Please include with your comments
any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final
decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
Dated: May 4, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-09417 Filed 5-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
