Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair in Washington State, 50628-50638 [2017-23748]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
50628
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
information provided in the ADDRESSES
section. NIST will then provide each
interested party with a letter of interest
template, which the party must
complete and submit to NIST. Each
party’s letter of interest must include
the following information:
1. Whether the LTS to be tested is
commercially available now or at an
advanced productization stages so that
it would be commercially available by
the end of 2018.
2. Market the indoor LTS is targeting.
3. Given that large buildings will be
used for testing, whether the number of
units available to install in these
buildings is sufficient for the system to
go through a suite of tests, one building
at a time. (As a point of information, the
largest building to be used for testing
covers 100,000 square feet of space.)
4. The willingness and ability to send
an adequate number of staff members to
install and uninstall the indoor LTS in
test buildings and operate the
equipment to administer the tests under
NIST supervision for a period of about
3 days. If for any reason a LTS runs into
technical problems and cannot complete
the tests in each building in the allotted
time slot, NIST has designated the last
two days of the week as ‘‘make-up
days’’, where tests that were not
completed in their allotted time slots
can be redone. NIST will not be
responsible for shipping equipment to
NIST and back to your company.
5. Willingness to provide all data form
T&E activities to the NIST Consortium
Manager for purposes of this project.
6. A statement regarding whether the
LTS requires deployment of equipment
inside/outside a building in order to be
tested; please specify the types of
equipment that need to be deployed and
how many per every 10,000 square feet
of space.
7. If the LTS uses RF technology,
please specify the frequency band(s) and
power levels the LTS uses.
8. Whether the installation,
uninstallation, or operation of the LTS
is likely to cause damage of any type to
the buildings or furnishing during
testing.
Letters of interest may be submitted to
the LTS Testing Consortium Manager
electronically using the email address
provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Letters of interest must include the
name of the organization and the name
and contact information for an official
representing the organization. Letters of
interest must not include any
confidential information. NIST will not
treat any information provided in the
letters of interest as confidential or
proprietary. NIST will review the letters
of interest from each organization
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
received prior to the closing date
provided in the DATES section.
Eligibility will be determined based on
the information provided by the
organization in response to the above
request for specific information. NIST
will notify an applicant in writing of its
eligibility to participate in the LTS
Testing Consortium. To participate, the
eligible applicant will be required to
sign a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA) with
NIST. Each participant’s CRADA will
have identical terms and conditions that
are consistent with the requirements of
Title 15, United States Code, Chapter
63, Section 3710a (Cooperative Research
and Development Agreements). NIST
does not guarantee participation or any
other collaboration to any organization
submitting a Letter of Interest.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3710a.
Kevin Kimball,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2017–23807 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XF574
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to U.S. 101/
Chehalis River Bridge—Scour Repair
in Washington State
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given
that we have issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) to take small
numbers of marine mammals, by
harassment, incidental to U.S. 101/
Chehalis River Bridge—Scour Repair in
Washington State.
DATES: This authorization is valid from
July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as the
issued IHA, may be obtained online at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 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
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
50629
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
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.
Summary of Request
NMFS received a request from
WSDOT for an IHA to take marine
mammals incidental to U.S. 101/
Chehalis River Bridge—Scour Repair in
the State of 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.
In November 2016, WSDOT submitted
a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for
the possible harassment of small
numbers of marine mammal species
incidental to U.S. 101/Chehalis River
Bridge-Scour Repair in Washington
State, between July 16 to September 30,
2018. WSDOT subsequently updated its
project scope and submitted a revised
IHA application on July 5, 2017. NMFS
determined the IHA application was
complete on July 14, 2017. NMFS issued
an IHA to WSDOT to take by Level B
harassment of the following marine
mammal species: Harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina); California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus); Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus); gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus); and harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
WSDOT is proposing to repair an area
of scour associated with Pier 14 of the
U.S. 101 Chehalis River Bridge (Figures
1–3 and 1–4 in the IHA application).
The bridge foundation at Pier 14 is
‘‘scour critical’’ due to the bridge
foundation being unstable for calculated
scour depths. The southwest quadrant
of Pier 14 is undermined by scour void
as much as 8 feet deep, and some of the
untreated timber pilings have been
directly exposed to river/estuary water
since 2008. Marine borers may weaken
enough pilings to require more
extensive pier repair if this project is not
built in the near future. In addition, the
footing and seal are exposed at the other
three quadrants of Pier 14.
The purpose of the U.S. 101/Chehalis
River Bridge Project is to make the
bridge foundation stable for calculated
scour depths, protect the foundation
from further scour by removing debris,
filling the scour void under Pier 14 with
cementitious material (to protect the
pilings from marine borers), and filling
the scour hole and protecting the pier
with scour resistant material.
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 July 16
to September 30, 2018. The total worstcase time for pile installation and
removal is 50 hours over 12 days (Table
1).
Specified Geographic Region
The U.S. 101 Chehalis River Bridge is
located in the City of Aberdeen, Grays
Harbor County, Washington (Figure 1–1
in the IHA application). The bridge is
located in Township 17 North, Range 9
West, Section 9, where the Chehalis
River enters Grays Harbor. Land use in
the Aberdeen area is a mix of
residential, commercial, industrial, and
open space and/or undeveloped lands
(Figure 1–2 in the IHA application).
Detailed Description of In-Water Pile
Driving Associated With the U.S. 101
Chehalis River Bridge Repair Project
The proposed project involves noise
production that may affect marine
mammals: Vibratory hammer driving
and removal. Details of the pile driving
and pile removal activities are provided
in the Federal Register notice (82 FR
37426; August 10, 2017) for the
proposed IHA and is summarized in
Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL DURATIONS
Duration
(min)
per pile
Pile type
Pile size
(inch)
driving ................................
driving ................................
removal ..............................
removal ..............................
Steel H pile ......................................
Sheet pile .........................................
Steel H pile ......................................
Sheet pile .........................................
12
........................
12
........................
6
44
6
44
30
30
30
30
1
5
1
5
Total ...........................................
..........................................................
........................
........................
........................
12
Method
Vibratory
Vibratory
Vibratory
Vibratory
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue
an IHA was published in the Federal
Register on August 10, 2017 (82 FR
37426). During the 30-day public
comment period, NMFS received a
comment letter from the Marine
Mammal Commission (Commission). No
other comments were received. Specific
comments and responses are provided
below.
Comment 1: The Commission
recommends that NMFS (1) determine
whether action proponents would be
required to implement delay or shutdown procedures for vibratory pile
driving and removal and (2) include
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
Pile No.
standard mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures consistently for all
authorizations involving those actions.
Response: As stated in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (82
FR 37426, August 10, 2017), WSDOT is
required to implement delay and
shutdown measures if a marine mammal
is detected to approach the exclusion
zone. The language is further clarified
that after a shutdown measure, the
construction cannot be resumed until
the animal is seen leaving the exclusion
zone, or 30 minutes have passed since
the last sight of the animal within the
zone. These measures are consistent
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Duration
(days)
with all authorizations involving inwater pile driving.
Comment 2: The Commission states
that the method NMFS used to estimate
the numbers of takes during the
proposed activities, which summed
fractions of takes for each species across
project days, does not account for and
negates the intent of NMFS’s 24-hour
reset policy. The Commission states that
it noted NMFS developed criteria
associated with rounding and
recommend that NMFS share these with
the Commission.
Response: While for certain projects
NMFS has rounded to the whole
number for daily takes, for projects like
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
50630
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
this one, when the objective of take
estimation is to provide more accurate
assessments of potential impacts to
marine mammals for the entire project,
rounding in the middle of a calculation
would introduce large errors into the
process. In addition, while NMFS uses
a 24-hour reset for its take calculation to
ensure that individual animals are not
counted as a take more than once per
day, that fact does not make the
calculation and subsequent rounding of
take across the entire activity period
inherently incorrect. There is no need
for daily (24-hour) rounding in this case
because there is no daily limit of takes,
as long as total authorized takes of
marine mammal are not exceeded.
NMFS is working on general guidance
for take calculation and will share it
with the Commission in the near future.
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 Chehalis Bridge 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.
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.
Five species (with five managed
stocks) are considered to have the
potential to co-occur with the proposed
construction activities. 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).
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
N
11,233
66
7.2
N
N
296,750
71,562
9,200
2,498
389
108
N
4 11,036
1,641
43
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
Harbor porpoise ...................
Phocoena phocoena ...........
Washington inland waters ...
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. ........................
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Harbor seal ...........................
Phoca vitulina ......................
Washington northern inland
waters.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / 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
‘‘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 US 101/Chehalis
Bridge repair project are from noise
generated during in-water pile driving
and pile removal activities.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
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,
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 decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
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 Hertz (Hz) and 35
kilohertz (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
¨
(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. Five marine
mammal species (2 cetacean and 3
pinniped (2 otariid and 1 phocid)
species) have the reasonable potential to
co-occur with the proposed construction
activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present,
one species is classified as lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., gray whale),
and one is classified as high-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise).
The WSDOT’s US 101 Chehalis River
Bridge Project using in-water pile
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50631
driving and pile removal could
adversely affect marine mammal species
and stocks by exposing them to elevated
noise levels in the vicinity of the
activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for
a sufficient duration may result in
auditory effects such as a noise-induced
threshold shift (TS)—an increase in the
auditory threshold after exposure to
noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors
that influence the amount of threshold
shift include the amplitude, duration,
frequency content, temporal pattern,
and energy distribution of noise
exposure. The magnitude of hearing
threshold shift normally decreases over
time following cessation of the noise
exposure. The amount of TS just after
exposure is the initial TS. If the TS
eventually returns to zero (i.e., the
threshold returns to the pre-exposure
value), it is a temporary threshold shift
(TTS) (Southall et al., 2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of
hearing)—When animals exhibit
reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds
must be louder for an animal to detect
them) following exposure to an intense
sound or sound for long duration, it is
referred to as a noise-induced TS. An
animal can experience TTS) or
permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS
can last from minutes or hours to days
(i.e., there is complete recovery), can
occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e.,
an animal might only have a temporary
loss of hearing sensitivity between the
frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can
be of varying amounts (for example, an
animal’s hearing sensitivity might be
reduced initially by only 6 dB or
reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent,
but some recovery is possible. PTS can
also occur in a specific frequency range
and amount as mentioned above for
TTS.
For marine mammals, published data
are limited to the captive bottlenose
dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and
Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran 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 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
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
50632
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
exposure. Because the airgun noise is a
broadband impulse, one cannot directly
determine the equivalent of root mean
square (rms) SPL from the reported
peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a
conservative conversion factor of 16 dB
for broadband signals from seismic
surveys (McCauley, et al., 2000) to
correct for the difference between peakto-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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
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 Chehalis Bridge repair
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 US 101
Chehalis River Bridge Project, only the
120-dB level is considered for effects
analysis because WSDOT plans to use
vibratory pile driving and pile removal.
The biological significance of many of
these behavioral disturbances is difficult
to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However,
the consequences of behavioral
modification could be biologically
significant if the change affects growth,
survival, and/or reproduction, which
depends on the severity, duration, and
context of the effects.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat
The primary potential impacts to
marine mammal habitat are associated
with elevated sound levels produced by
vibratory pile removal and pile driving
in the area. However, other potential
impacts to the surrounding habitat from
physical disturbance are also possible.
With regard to fish as a prey source
for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are
known to hear and react to sounds and
to use sound to communicate (Tavolga
et al., 1981) and possibly avoid
predators (Wilson and Dill, 2002).
Experiments have shown that fish can
sense both the strength and direction of
sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a
sound signal, and potentially react to it,
are the frequency of the signal and the
strength of the signal in relation to the
natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish
will react or alter its behavior is usually
well above the detection level. Fish
have been found to react to sounds
when the sound level increased to about
20 dB above the detection level of 120
dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response
threshold can depend on the time of
year and the fish’s physiological
condition (Engas et al., 1993). In
general, fish react more strongly to
pulses of sound (such as noise from
impact pile driving) rather than
continuous signals (such as noise from
vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al.,
1981), and a quicker alarm response is
elicited when the sound signal intensity
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
50633
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
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
authorized 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).
Authorized takes would be by Level B
harassment only, in the form of
disruption of behavioral patterns for
individual marine mammals resulting
from exposure to noise generated from
vibratory pile driving and removal.
Based on the nature of the activity and
the anticipated effectiveness of the
mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown
measures—discussed in detail below in
Mitigation section), Level A harassment
is neither anticipated nor authorized.
As described previously, no mortality
is anticipated or authorized for this
activity. Below we describe how the
take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we
estimate take by considering: (1)
Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS
believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be
behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing
impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above
these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within
these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the
number of days of activities. Below, we
describe these components in more
detail and present the take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science,
NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received
level of underwater sound above which
exposed marine mammals would be
reasonably expected to be behaviorally
harassed (equated to Level B
harassment) or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on
what the available science indicates and
the practical need to use a threshold
based on a factor that is both predictable
and measurable for most activities,
NMFS uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS predicts that marine
mammals are likely to be behaviorally
harassed in a manner we consider Level
B harassment when exposed to
underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
for continuous (e.g. vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1
mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive
(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
Applicant’s proposed activity
includes the use of continuous
(vibratory pile driving and removal)
source, and therefore the 120 dB re 1
mPa (rms) is applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive
sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance,
2016) identifies dual criteria to assess
auditory injury (Level A harassment) to
five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result
of exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Applicant’s proposed
activity includes the use non-impulsive
(vibratory pile driving and pile removal)
source.
These thresholds were developed by
compiling and synthesizing the best
available science and soliciting input
multiple times from both the public and
peer reviewers to inform the final
product, and are provided in the table
below. The references, analysis, and
methodology used in the development
of the thresholds are described in NMFS
2016 Technical Guidance, which may
be accessed at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/
guidelines.htm.
TABLE 3—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE SOUND UNDERWATER
PTS onset thresholds
Behavioral thresholds
Hearing group
Impulsive
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...........
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...........
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..........
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ..
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ..
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
219
230
202
218
232
Non-impulsive
dB,LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .........
dB,LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........
dB,LE,HF,24h: 155 dB .........
dB,LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ........
dB,LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ........
Impulsive
LE,LF,24h: 199 dB ..
LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
Lrms,flat: 160 dB .....
Non-impulsive
Lrms,flat: 120 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
50634
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
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.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that will feed into identifying the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds.
Source Levels
The project includes vibratory pile
driving and removal of steel H piles and
measurements at the Elliot Bay Seawall
Project (The Greenbush Group, 2015),
which is 165 dBrms and 180 dBpeak re 1
mPa at 10 m. For vibratory pile removal,
the source levels are conservatively
estimated using the pile driving source
levels as proxies.
A summary of source levels from
different pile driving and pile removal
activities is provided in Table 4.
sheet piles. The dimension of the H
piles is unknown, but not is expected to
be more than 12 inches (in).
Source levels for the steel H pile
vibratory driving are based on in-water
measurements reported by CALTRANS
(2015) of 12-in steel H pile, which are
150 dBrms and 165 dBpeak re 1 mPa at 10
meters (m). Source levels for the sheet
pile are based on in-water
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS
[At 10 m from source]
SEL
(dB re 1 μPa 2-s)
Method
Pile type/size
Vibratory driving/removal ........................................
Vibratory driving/removal ........................................
12-in steel H pile ....................................................
Sheet pile ...............................................................
These source levels are used to
compute the Level A injury zones and
to estimate the Level B harassment
zones. For Level A harassment zones,
since the peak source levels for both
pile driving are below the injury
thresholds, cumulative SEL were used
to do the calculations using the NMFS
acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016).
Estimating Injury Zones
When NMFS Technical Guidance
(2016) was published, in recognition of
the fact that ensonified area/volume
could be more technically challenging
to predict because of the duration
component in the new thresholds, we
SPLrms
(dB re 1 μPa)
150
165
150
165
these tools, and will qualitatively
address the output where appropriate.
For cumulative SEL (LE), distances to
marine mammal injury thresholds were
estimated using NMFS Optional User
Spreadsheet based on the noise
exposure guidance.
Isopleths to Level B behavioral zones
are based on rms SPL (SPLrms) that are
specific for non-impulse (vibratory pile
driving) sources. Distances to marine
mammal behavior thresholds were
calculated using practical spreading.
A summary of the measured and
modeled harassment zones is provided
in Table 5.
developed a User Spreadsheet that
includes tools to help predict a simple
isopleth that can be used in conjunction
with marine mammal density or
occurrence to help predict takes. We
note that because of some of the
assumptions included in the methods
used for these tools, we anticipate that
isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree,
which will result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A take. However,
these tools offer the best way to predict
appropriate isopleths when more
sophisticated 3D modeling methods are
not available, and NMFS continues to
develop ways to quantitatively refine
TABLE 5—DISTANCES TO HARASSMENT ZONES
Injury zone (m)
Pile type, size and pile driving method
LF
cetacean
Vibratory driving & removal, sheet pile, 10 piles/day ..............................
Vibratory driving & removal, steel H pile, 6 piles/day .............................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the
information about the presence, density,
or group dynamics of marine mammals
that will inform the take calculations.
In most cases, marine mammal
density data are from the U.S. Navy
Marine Species Density Database (U.S.
Navy 2015). Harbor seal density is based
on a counts of harbor seals at 44 lowtide haul outs in Grays Harbor by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
MF
cetacean
HF
cetacean
36.9
2.6
3.3
0.2
54.6
3.9
Jeffries, et al. (2000), the estimated
density of harbor seals in the US 101
Chehalis River Bridge project area is
29.4 animals per square kilometer (km2).
The Navy Marine Species Density
Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the
density of California sea lions in the
waters offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.033
animals/km2. This estimate will be used
as a surrogate for Grays Harbor.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Phocid
22.4
1.6
Otariid
1.6
0.1
Behavior
zone
(m)
10,000
1,000
The Navy Marine Species Density
Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the
density of Steller sea lions in the waters
offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.0145
animals/km2. This estimate will be used
as a surrogate for Grays Harbor.
The Navy Marine Species Density
Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the
density of harbor porpoises in the
waters offshore of Grays Harbor as a
range between 0.69 and 1.67 animals
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
50635
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
per square kilometer. According to
Evenson, et al. (2016), the maximum
harbor porpoise density in the Strait of
Juan de Fuca (approximately 105 miles
north of Grays Harbor) in 2014 was
0.768 animals/km2. The higher density
estimate for waters offshore of Grays
Harbor (1.67) will be used for this
analysis.
According to counts conducted by
Calambokidis et al. (2012), 29 gray
whales were observed over a 12-year
gray whale, 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. Distances to and areas of different
harassment zones are listed in Tables 5
and 6. Total days for sheet pile driving
and removal are five days each, and the
total day for steel H pile driving and
removal is one day each.
period during the months of July
through September (the proposed period
of project activities). Based on this data,
an average of 2.25 gray whales may be
present in Grays Harbor/south
Washington coast during the 3-month
period.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information
provided above is brought together to
produce a quantitative take estimate.
For all marine mammal species except
TABLE 6—AREAS OF HARASSMENT ZONES
Injury zone (km2)
Pile type, size and pile driving method
LF
cetacean
MF
cetacean
HF
cetacean
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
Vibratory driving & removal, sheet pile, 10 piles/day ..............................
Vibratory driving & removal, steel H pile, 6 piles/day .............................
The results predicted that a total of
666 harbor seals, 1 California sea lion,
0 Steller sea lion, and 38 harbor
porpoise could be exposure to received
levels that would cause Level B
harassment. However, owing to the
prior observations that California sea
lion and Steller sea lion’s presence in
the project area, we adjusted the take
number of these species to 10.
For gray whales, the Level B takes
were estimate based on an average
sighting of 2.25 whales in Grays Harbor/
south Washington Coast during the
months of July through September
(Calambokidis et al., (2012) adjusted
upwards to 3 animals.
Phocid
Behavior
zone
(km2)
Otariid
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.13
0.67
Due to the extreme small injury zones
(maximum zone is 0.009 km2 for highfrequency cetacean), the calculation
predicted no animals would be exposed
to noise levels that could cause Level A
harassment, and therefore no Level A
take is authorized. A summary of
estimated marine mammal Level B takes
is listed in Table 7.
TABLE 7—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY BE EXPOSED TO RECEIVED NOISE LEVELS THAT CAUSE
LEVEL B HARASSMENT
Density
(animals/km2)
Species
Pacific harbor seal ...........................................................................................
California sea lion ............................................................................................
Steller sea lion .................................................................................................
Gray whale .......................................................................................................
Harbor porpoise ...............................................................................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on such species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses
(latter not applicable for this action).
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting such activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
29.4
0.033
0.0145
NA
1.67
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 consider two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned) the likelihood
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Estimated
Level B take
666
10
10
3
38
Abundance
Percentage
11,036
296,750
71,562
20,990
11,233
6.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned) and;
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
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
July 16, 2018, and September 30, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
50636
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
2. Establishing and Monitoring Level A,
Level B Harassment Zones, and
Exclusion Zones
Before the commencement of in-water
construction activities, which include
vibratory pile driving and pile removal,
WSDOT shall establish Level A
harassment zones where received
underwater SELcum could cause PTS (see
above).
WSDOT shall also establish Level B
harassment zones where received
underwater SPLs are higher than 120
dBrms re 1 mPa for non-impulsive noise
sources (vibratory pile driving and pile
removal).
WSDOT shall establish exclusion
zones within which marine mammals
could be taken by Level A harassment.
For Level A harassment zones that is
less than 10 m from the source, a
minimum of 10 m distance should be
established as an exclusion zone.
A summary of exclusion zones is
provided in Table 8.
TABLE 8—EXCLUSION ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES AND MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
Exclusion zone (m)
Pile type, size and pile driving method
LF cetacean
Vibratory driving and removal, sheet pile, 10 piles/day ......
Vibratory driving & removal, steel H pile, 6 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 Level A 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.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
3. 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 8. In-water pile driving may not
resume until the animal is seen leaving
the exclusion zone, or 30 minutes have
passed since the sighting of the animal
within the exclusion zone.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:11 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
MF cetacean
37
10
10
10
Level B harassment zone during inwater construction activities.
Based on our evaluation of the
required measures, NMFS has
determined that the prescribed
mitigation measures provide the means
effecting the least practicable impact on
the affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
HF cetacean
55
10
Phocid
Otariid
22
10
10
10
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas);
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Monitoring Measures
WSDOT shall employ NMFSapproved PSOs to conduct marine
mammal monitoring for its U.S. 101/
Chehalis Bridge Repair Project. The
purposes of marine mammal monitoring
are to implement mitigation measures
and learn more about impacts to marine
mammals from WSDOT’s construction
activities. The PSOs will observe and
collect data on marine mammals in and
around the project area for 30 minutes
before, during, and for 30 minutes after
all pile removal and pile installation
work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet
the following requirements:
1. Independent observers (i.e., not
construction personnel) are required;
2. At least one observer must have
prior experience working as an observer;
3. Other observers may substitute
education (undergraduate degree in
biological science or related field) or
training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more
observers are required, one observer
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
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 types, two different ZOIs and
different monitoring protocols
corresponding to a specific pile type
will be established.
• For vibratory pile driving and pile
removal of sheet piles, a total of four
land-based PSOs will monitor the
exclusion zones and Level B harassment
zone.
• For vibratory pile driving and pile
removal of H piles, a total of three landbased PSOs will monitor the exclusion
zones and Level B harassment zone.
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.
Reporting Measures
WSDOT is required to submit a draft
monitoring report within 90 days after
completion of the construction work or
the expiration of the IHA, 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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
listed above to NMFS as soon as
operationally feasible.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., 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
Chehalis Bridge repair 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.
For all marine mammal species, takes
that are anticipated and authorized are
expected to be limited to short-term
Level B harassment (behavioral) because
of the small scale (only a total of 100
piles to be installed and removed),
lower source levels (small piles by
vibratory pile driving and pile removal),
and short durations (maximum five
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50637
hours pile driving or pile removal per
day). 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. For these reasons,
these behavioral impacts are not
expected to affect marine mammals’
growth, survival, and reproduction,
especially considering the limited
geographic area that would be affected
in comparison to the much larger
habitat for marine mammals in the
Pacific Northwest.
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
Chehalis Bridge 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 Chehalis Bridge
would not adversely affect marine
mammal habitat.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our determination that the impacts
resulting from this activity are not
expected to adversely affect the species
or stock through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival:
• No injury, series injury, or mortality
is anticipated or authorized;
• All harassment is Level B
harassment in the form of short-term
behavioral modification; and
• No areas of specific importance to
affected species are impacted.
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
prescribed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total take
from the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
50638
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices
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 seven
percent of the population for all marine
mammals (Table 7).
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the prescribed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative
to the population size of the affected
species or stocks.
Department of the Navy
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)
No incidental take of ESA-listed
species is authorized or expected to
result from this activity. Therefore,
NMFS has determined that formal
consultation under section 7 of the ESA
is not required for this action.
Authorization
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
As a result of these determinations,
NMFS has issued an IHA to the
Washington State Department of
Transportation for the U.S. 101/Chehalis
River Bridge—Scour Repair in
Washington State, provided the
previously described mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: October 26, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–23748 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Oct 31, 2017
Jkt 244001
Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy
Board of Visitors
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of partially closed
meeting.
Dated: October 26, 2017.
E.K. Baldini,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate
General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register
Liaison Officer.
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2017–23809 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am]
ACTION:
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
The U.S. Naval Academy
Board of Visitors will meet to make such
inquiry, as the Board shall deem
necessary, into the state of morale and
discipline, the curriculum, instruction,
physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and
academic methods of the Naval
Academy.
SUMMARY:
The open session of the meeting
will be held on December 4, 2017, from
9:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. The executive
session held from 11:15 a.m. to 12:00
p.m., will be the closed portion of the
meeting.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD. The meeting will be
handicap accessible.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Commander Lawrence
Heyworth IV, USN, Executive Secretary
to the Board of Visitors, Office of the
Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy,
Annapolis, MD 21402–5000, 410–293–
1503.
DATES:
This
notice of meeting is provided per the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The executive
session of the meeting from 11:15 a.m.
to 12:00 p.m. on December 4, 2017, will
consist of discussions of new and
pending administrative/minor
disciplinary infractions and non-judicial
punishments involving midshipmen
attending the Naval Academy to include
but not limited to, individual honor/
conduct violations within the Brigade,
the disclosure of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy. For this
reason, the executive session of this
meeting will be closed to the public, as
the discussion of such information
cannot be adequately segregated from
other topics, which precludes opening
the executive session of this meeting to
the public. Accordingly, the Department
of the Navy/Assistant for
Administration has determined in
writing that the meeting shall be
partially closed to the public because
the discussions during the executive
session from 11:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
will be concerned with matters
protected under sections 552b(c) (5), (6),
and (7) of title 5, United States Code.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Assessment Governing Board
Quarterly Board Meeting
National Assessment
Governing Board, U.S. Department of
Education.
ACTION: Announcement of open and
closed meetings.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
agenda for the November 16–18, 2017
Quarterly Board Meeting of the National
Assessment Governing Board (hereafter
referred to as Governing Board). This
notice provides information to members
of the public who may be interested in
attending the meeting or providing
written comments related to the work of
the Governing Board. Notice of this
meeting is required under § 10(a)(2) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA).
SUMMARY:
The Quarterly Board Meeting
will be held on the following dates:
• November 16, 2017 from 11:15 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
• November 17, 2017 from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m.
• November 18, 2017 from 7:30 a.m.
to 12:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Washington Marriott
Georgetown, 1221 22nd Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20037.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer/
Designated Federal Official for the
Governing Board, 800 North Capitol
Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC
20002, telephone: (202) 357–6938, fax:
(202) 357–6945, email:
Munira.Mwalimu@ed.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority and Function:
The Governing Board is established
under the National Assessment of
Educational Progress Authorization Act,
Title III of Public Law 107–279. Written
comments may be submitted
electronically or in hard copy to the
attention of the Executive Officer/
Designated Federal Official (see contact
information noted above). Information
on the Governing Board and its work
can be found at www.nagb.gov.
The Governing Board is established to
formulate policy for the National
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50628-50638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23748]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XF574
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. 101/Chehalis River Bridge--
Scour Repair in Washington State
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to take small
numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to U.S. 101/
Chehalis River Bridge--Scour Repair in Washington State.
DATES: This authorization is valid from July 1, 2018, through June 30,
2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as the issued IHA, 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 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
[[Page 50629]]
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.
Summary of Request
NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA to take marine
mammals incidental to U.S. 101/Chehalis River Bridge--Scour Repair in
the State of 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.
In November 2016, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting an
IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of marine mammal
species incidental to U.S. 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair in
Washington State, between July 16 to September 30, 2018. WSDOT
subsequently updated its project scope and submitted a revised IHA
application on July 5, 2017. NMFS determined the IHA application was
complete on July 14, 2017. NMFS issued an IHA to WSDOT to take by Level
B harassment of the following marine mammal species: Harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina); California sea lion (Zalophus californianus); Steller sea
lion (Eumetopias jubatus); gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); and
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
WSDOT is proposing to repair an area of scour associated with Pier
14 of the U.S. 101 Chehalis River Bridge (Figures 1-3 and 1-4 in the
IHA application). The bridge foundation at Pier 14 is ``scour
critical'' due to the bridge foundation being unstable for calculated
scour depths. The southwest quadrant of Pier 14 is undermined by scour
void as much as 8 feet deep, and some of the untreated timber pilings
have been directly exposed to river/estuary water since 2008. Marine
borers may weaken enough pilings to require more extensive pier repair
if this project is not built in the near future. In addition, the
footing and seal are exposed at the other three quadrants of Pier 14.
The purpose of the U.S. 101/Chehalis River Bridge Project is to
make the bridge foundation stable for calculated scour depths, protect
the foundation from further scour by removing debris, filling the scour
void under Pier 14 with cementitious material (to protect the pilings
from marine borers), and filling the scour hole and protecting the pier
with scour resistant material.
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 July 16 to September 30, 2018. The total worst-case time for
pile installation and removal is 50 hours over 12 days (Table 1).
Specified Geographic Region
The U.S. 101 Chehalis River Bridge is located in the City of
Aberdeen, Grays Harbor County, Washington (Figure 1-1 in the IHA
application). The bridge is located in Township 17 North, Range 9 West,
Section 9, where the Chehalis River enters Grays Harbor. Land use in
the Aberdeen area is a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and
open space and/or undeveloped lands (Figure 1-2 in the IHA
application).
Detailed Description of In-Water Pile Driving Associated With the U.S.
101 Chehalis River Bridge Repair Project
The proposed project involves noise production that may affect
marine mammals: Vibratory hammer driving and removal. Details of the
pile driving and pile removal activities are provided in the Federal
Register notice (82 FR 37426; August 10, 2017) for the proposed IHA and
is summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving and Removal Durations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile size Duration (min) Duration
Method Pile type (inch) Pile No. per pile (days)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving............. Steel H pile.... 12 6 30 1
Vibratory driving............. Sheet pile...... .............. 44 30 5
Vibratory removal............. Steel H pile.... 12 6 30 1
Vibratory removal............. Sheet pile...... .............. 44 30 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ................ .............. .............. .............. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
Federal Register on August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37426). During the 30-day
public comment period, NMFS received a comment letter from the Marine
Mammal Commission (Commission). No other comments were received.
Specific comments and responses are provided below.
Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) determine
whether action proponents would be required to implement delay or shut-
down procedures for vibratory pile driving and removal and (2) include
standard mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures consistently
for all authorizations involving those actions.
Response: As stated in the Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA (82 FR 37426, August 10, 2017), WSDOT is required to implement
delay and shutdown measures if a marine mammal is detected to approach
the exclusion zone. The language is further clarified that after a
shutdown measure, the construction cannot be resumed until the animal
is seen leaving the exclusion zone, or 30 minutes have passed since the
last sight of the animal within the zone. These measures are consistent
with all authorizations involving in-water pile driving.
Comment 2: The Commission states that the method NMFS used to
estimate the numbers of takes during the proposed activities, which
summed fractions of takes for each species across project days, does
not account for and negates the intent of NMFS's 24-hour reset policy.
The Commission states that it noted NMFS developed criteria associated
with rounding and recommend that NMFS share these with the Commission.
Response: While for certain projects NMFS has rounded to the whole
number for daily takes, for projects like
[[Page 50630]]
this one, when the objective of take estimation is to provide more
accurate assessments of potential impacts to marine mammals for the
entire project, rounding in the middle of a calculation would introduce
large errors into the process. In addition, while NMFS uses a 24-hour
reset for its take calculation to ensure that individual animals are
not counted as a take more than once per day, that fact does not make
the calculation and subsequent rounding of take across the entire
activity period inherently incorrect. There is no need for daily (24-
hour) rounding in this case because there is no daily limit of takes,
as long as total authorized takes of marine mammal are not exceeded.
NMFS is working on general guidance for take calculation and will share
it with the Commission in the near future.
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 Chehalis Bridge 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.
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.
Five species (with five managed stocks) are considered to have the
potential to co-occur with the proposed construction activities. 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).
Table 2--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock
ESA/MMPA abundance
status; (CV, Nmin, Annual M/
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic most recent PBR SI \3\
(Y/N) \1\ abundance
survey) \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.................. Eschrichtius Eastern North N 20,990 624 132
robustus. Pacific.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise............. Phocoena Washington N 11,233 66 7.2
phocoena. inland waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion......... Zalophus U.S............ N 296,750 9,200 389
californianus.
Steller sea lion............ Eumetopias Eastern U.S.... N 71,562 2,498 108
jubatus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal................. Phoca vitulina. Washington N \4\ 11,036 1,641 43
northern
inland waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
[[Page 50631]]
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 ``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 US 101/
Chehalis Bridge repair project 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, 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 decibel (dB) threshold from the
normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits
for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be
biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al.
(2007) retained. 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 Hertz (Hz) and 35
kilohertz (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.
Five marine mammal species (2 cetacean and 3 pinniped (2 otariid and 1
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the
proposed construction activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present, one species is classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., gray whale), and one is classified as high-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise).
The WSDOT's US 101 Chehalis River Bridge Project using in-water
pile driving and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal
species and stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the
vicinity of the activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift
(TS)--an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise
(Finneran et al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold
shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal
pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of
hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following
cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of TS just after exposure
is the initial TS. If the TS eventually returns to zero (i.e., the
threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is a temporary
threshold shift (TTS) (Southall et al., 2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced TS. An animal
can experience TTS) or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last
from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can
occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a
temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and
10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's
hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced
by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can
also occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above
for TTS.
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise (Finneran 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 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
[[Page 50632]]
exposure. Because the airgun noise is a broadband impulse, one cannot
directly determine the equivalent of root mean square (rms) SPL from
the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative
conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys
(McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-to-
peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL
for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, and the received
levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher.
Therefore, based on these studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor
porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically tested
(Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and
Jennings, 2012).
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note,
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall
et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-
intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions
(Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as
from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals
such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental
sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain
circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment
are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize.
Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly
concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high
frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However,
lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of
communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such
as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when
they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space
of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels
(e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual 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 Chehalis Bridge repair 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 US
101 Chehalis River Bridge Project, only the 120-dB level is considered
for effects analysis because WSDOT plans to use vibratory pile driving
and pile removal.
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity,
duration, and context of the effects.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile
removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts
to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of
sound (such as noise from impact pile driving) rather than continuous
signals (such as noise from vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al.,
1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal
intensity
[[Page 50633]]
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
authorized 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).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to noise generated from vibratory pile driving
and removal. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated
effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown measures--
discussed in detail below in Mitigation section), Level A harassment is
neither anticipated nor authorized.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering:
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these
components in more detail and present the take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g.
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
Applicant's proposed activity includes the use of continuous
(vibratory pile driving and removal) source, and therefore the 120 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) is applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
Applicant's proposed activity includes the use non-impulsive (vibratory
pile driving and pile removal) source.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are
provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology
used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016
Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
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 LE,LF,24h: 199 dB Lrms,flat: 160 dB Lrms,flat: 120
dB,LE,LF,24h: 183 dB. dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans... Lpk,flat: 230 LE,MF,24h: 198 dB
dB,LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.. Lpk,flat: 202 LE,HF,24h: 173 dB
dB,LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Lpk,flat: 218 LE,PW,24h: 201 dB
(Underwater). dB,LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Lpk,flat: 232 LE,OW,24h: 219 dB
(Underwater). dB,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.
[[Page 50634]]
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds.
Source Levels
The project includes vibratory pile driving and removal of steel H
piles and sheet piles. The dimension of the H piles is unknown, but not
is expected to be more than 12 inches (in).
Source levels for the steel H pile vibratory driving are based on
in-water measurements reported by CALTRANS (2015) of 12-in steel H
pile, which are 150 dBrms and 165 dBpeak re 1
[micro]Pa at 10 meters (m). Source levels for the sheet pile are based
on in-water measurements at the Elliot Bay Seawall Project (The
Greenbush Group, 2015), which is 165 dBrms and 180
dBpeak re 1 [micro]Pa at 10 m. For vibratory pile removal,
the source levels are conservatively estimated using the pile driving
source levels as proxies.
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 (dB re 1 SPLrms (dB re 1
Method Pile type/size [micro]Pa \2\-s) [micro]Pa)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving/removal.................. 12-in steel H pile........... 150 150
Vibratory driving/removal.................. Sheet pile................... 165 165
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These source levels are used to compute the Level A injury zones
and to estimate the Level B harassment zones. For Level A harassment
zones, since the peak source levels for both pile driving are below the
injury thresholds, cumulative SEL were used to do the calculations
using the NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016).
Estimating Injury Zones
When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition
of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically
challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new
thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine
mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way
to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling
methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to
quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the
output where appropriate.
For cumulative SEL (LE), distances to marine mammal
injury thresholds were estimated using NMFS Optional User Spreadsheet
based on the noise exposure guidance.
Isopleths to Level B behavioral zones are based on rms SPL
(SPLrms) that are specific for non-impulse (vibratory pile
driving) sources. Distances to marine mammal behavior thresholds were
calculated using practical spreading.
A summary of the measured and modeled harassment zones is provided
in Table 5.
Table 5--Distances to Harassment Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury zone (m)
------------------------------------------------------- Behavior
Pile type, size and pile driving method LF MF HF zone (m)
cetacean cetacean cetacean Phocid Otariid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving & removal, sheet pile, 10 36.9 3.3 54.6 22.4 1.6 10,000
piles/day....................................
Vibratory driving & removal, steel H pile, 6 2.6 0.2 3.9 1.6 0.1 1,000
piles/day....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations.
In most cases, marine mammal density data are from the U.S. Navy
Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015). Harbor seal density
is based on a counts of harbor seals at 44 low-tide haul outs in Grays
Harbor by Jeffries, et al. (2000), the estimated density of harbor
seals in the US 101 Chehalis River Bridge project area is 29.4 animals
per square kilometer (km\2\).
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates
the density of California sea lions in the waters offshore of Grays
Harbor as 0.033 animals/km\2\. This estimate will be used as a
surrogate for Grays Harbor.
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates
the density of Steller sea lions in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor
as 0.0145 animals/km\2\. This estimate will be used as a surrogate for
Grays Harbor.
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates
the density of harbor porpoises in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor
as a range between 0.69 and 1.67 animals
[[Page 50635]]
per square kilometer. According to Evenson, et al. (2016), the maximum
harbor porpoise density in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (approximately
105 miles north of Grays Harbor) in 2014 was 0.768 animals/km\2\. The
higher density estimate for waters offshore of Grays Harbor (1.67) will
be used for this analysis.
According to counts conducted by Calambokidis et al. (2012), 29
gray whales were observed over a 12-year period during the months of
July through September (the proposed period of project activities).
Based on this data, an average of 2.25 gray whales may be present in
Grays Harbor/south Washington coast during the 3-month period.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. For all marine mammal
species except gray whale, 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. Distances to and areas of different
harassment zones are listed in Tables 5 and 6. Total days for sheet
pile driving and removal are five days each, and the total day for
steel H pile driving and removal is one day each.
Table 6--Areas of Harassment Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury zone (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------- Behavior
Pile type, size and pile driving method LF MF HF zone
cetacean cetacean cetacean Phocid Otariid (km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving & removal, sheet pile, 10 0.004 0.000 0.009 0.002 0.000 2.13
piles/day....................................
Vibratory driving & removal, steel H pile, 6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.67
piles/day....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results predicted that a total of 666 harbor seals, 1
California sea lion, 0 Steller sea lion, and 38 harbor porpoise could
be exposure to received levels that would cause Level B harassment.
However, owing to the prior observations that California sea lion and
Steller sea lion's presence in the project area, we adjusted the take
number of these species to 10.
For gray whales, the Level B takes were estimate based on an
average sighting of 2.25 whales in Grays Harbor/south Washington Coast
during the months of July through September (Calambokidis et al.,
(2012) adjusted upwards to 3 animals.
Due to the extreme small injury zones (maximum zone is 0.009 km\2\
for high-frequency cetacean), the calculation predicted no animals
would be exposed to noise levels that could cause Level A harassment,
and therefore no Level A take is authorized. A summary of estimated
marine mammal Level B takes is listed in Table 7.
Table 7--Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals That May Be Exposed to Received Noise Levels That Cause Level B
Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species (animals/ Estimated Abundance Percentage
km\2\) Level B take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific harbor seal............................. 29.4 666 11,036 6.03
California sea lion............................. 0.033 10 296,750 0.00
Steller sea lion................................ 0.0145 10 71,562 0.00
Gray whale...................................... NA 3 20,990 0.00
Harbor porpoise................................. 1.67 38 11,233 0.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned) and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
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 July 16, 2018, and
September 30, 2018.
[[Page 50636]]
2. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, and
Exclusion Zones
Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, which
include vibratory pile driving and pile removal, WSDOT shall establish
Level A harassment zones where received underwater SELcum
could cause PTS (see above).
WSDOT shall also establish Level B harassment zones where received
underwater SPLs are higher than 120 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa for
non-impulsive noise sources (vibratory pile driving and pile removal).
WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones within which marine mammals
could be taken by Level A harassment. For Level A harassment zones that
is less than 10 m from the source, a minimum of 10 m distance should be
established as an exclusion zone.
A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 8.
Table 8--Exclusion Zones for Various Pile Driving Activities and Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion zone (m)
Pile type, size and pile driving -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
method LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid Otariid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving and removal, 37 10 55 22 10
sheet pile, 10 piles/day.......
Vibratory driving & removal, 10 10 10 10 10
steel H pile, 6 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 Level A 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.
3. 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 8. In-water pile driving may not resume until the
animal is seen leaving the exclusion zone, or 30 minutes have passed
since the sighting of the animal within the exclusion zone.
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.
Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has
determined that the prescribed mitigation measures provide the means
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Monitoring Measures
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal
monitoring for its U.S. 101/Chehalis Bridge Repair Project. The
purposes of marine mammal monitoring are to implement mitigation
measures and learn more about impacts to marine mammals from WSDOT's
construction activities. The PSOs will observe and collect data on
marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before,
during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation
work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following requirements:
1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required;
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer;
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree
in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one
observer
[[Page 50637]]
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 types, two
different ZOIs and different monitoring protocols corresponding to a
specific pile type will be established.
For vibratory pile driving and pile removal of sheet
piles, a total of four land-based PSOs will monitor the exclusion zones
and Level B harassment zone.
For vibratory pile driving and pile removal of H piles, a
total of three land-based PSOs will monitor the exclusion zones and
Level B harassment zone.
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.
Reporting Measures
WSDOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90
days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the
IHA, 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.
In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that
is not in the construction area, WSDOT would report the same
information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses
applies to all the species listed in Table 7, given that the
anticipated effects of WSDOT's Chehalis Bridge repair 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.
For all marine mammal species, takes that are anticipated and
authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment
(behavioral) because of the small scale (only a total of 100 piles to
be installed and removed), lower source levels (small piles by
vibratory pile driving and pile removal), and short durations (maximum
five hours pile driving or pile removal per day). 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. For these reasons, these behavioral
impacts are not expected to affect marine mammals' growth, survival,
and reproduction, especially considering the limited geographic area
that would be affected in comparison to the much larger habitat for
marine mammals in the Pacific Northwest.
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 Chehalis Bridge
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 Chehalis Bridge
would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No injury, series injury, or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
All harassment is Level B harassment in the form of short-
term behavioral modification; and
No areas of specific importance to affected species are
impacted.
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 prescribed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total take from the proposed
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal
species or stocks.
[[Page 50638]]
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 seven percent of the population for
all marine mammals (Table 7).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS 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)
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected
to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that
formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this
action.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the
Washington State Department of Transportation for the U.S. 101/Chehalis
River Bridge--Scour Repair in Washington State, provided the previously
described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are
incorporated.
Dated: October 26, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-23748 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
