Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair in Washington State, 53033-53048 [2018-22812]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
Dated: October 15, 2018.
James Maeder,
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the duties of Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2018–22841 Filed 10–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
state lead agency for purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), previously released a joint final
environmental impact review/
environmental impact statement (EIR/
EIS) that analyzes the potential effects
on the physical and human
environment of the proposed Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project.
II. Errata Document
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project; Notice of Availability of
Errata Document for the Final
Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement
Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of Errata
for the final environmental impact
report/environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has published
an errata document for the Final
Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/
EIS) for a permit application to NOAA’s
Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary (MBNMS) submitted by
California American Water Company
(CalAm) to construct and operate
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, a reverse osmosis (RO)
desalination facility project (Project) in
Monterey County, California. A notice
of availability (NOA) of the final EIR/
EIS was published in the Federal
Register on March 30, 2018 (83 FR
13737).
DATES: This notice is applicable October
19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the FEIR/EIS and
the Errata document can be downloaded
or viewed on the internet at https://
montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/
resmanissues/desal-projects.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Grimmer at 99 Pacific Ave., Bldg.
455a, Monterey, CA 93940, or call 831–
647–4253, or email: montereybay@
noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
I. Background
NOAA, as the Federal lead agency for
purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
The purpose of this notice is to inform
the public that the errata document for
the Final Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/
EIS) for the project is available for
public inspection. It is available
electronically on the website listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. It
is also available by email by writing to
the addresses identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this notice.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.; 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
Dated: September 13, 2018.
John Armor,
Director for the Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries.
[FR Doc. 2018–22863 Filed 10–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XG454
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to US 101/
Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair in
Washington State
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments on proposed authorization
and possible renewal.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to the US 101/Chehalis River
Bridge-Scour Repair Project in
Washington State. Pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to
incidentally take marine mammals
during the specified activities. NMFS is
also requesting comments on a possible
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53033
one-year renewal that could be issued
under certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end
of this notice. NMFS will consider
public comments prior to making any
final decision on the issuance of the
requested MMPA authorization and
agency responses will be summarized in
the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than November 19,
2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Physical
comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910
and electronic comments should be sent
to ITP.pauline@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments received
electronically, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF
file formats only. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob
Pauline, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic
copies of the application and supporting
documents may be obtained online at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce
(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53034
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
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
incidental take authorization may be
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in shorthand as
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth.
The National Defense Authorization
Act (Pub. L. 108–136) removed the
small numbers and specified
geographical region limitations
indicated above and amended the
definition of harassment as it applies to
a military readiness activity.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization)
with respect to potential impacts on the
human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental
harassment authorizations with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6A, which do
not individually or cumulatively have
the potential for significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment
and for which we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that
would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies
to be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
prior to concluding our NEPA process
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Summary of Request
On July 26, 2018, NMFS received a
request from WSDOT for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to US 101/
Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair in
the State of Washington. The
application was deemed adequate and
complete on September 21, 2018.
WSDOT’s request is for take of small
numbers of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina);
California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus); Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus); gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus); and harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by Level
B harassment only. Neither WSDOT nor
NMFS expects serious injury or
mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued an IHA to
WSDOT to incidentally take five species
of marine mammal by Level B
harassment. The IHA was issued on
October 10, 2017 (82 FR 50628;
November 1, 2017) and is valid from
July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.
However, WSDOT has made minor
changes to the project plan and delayed
the work by one year. Therefore,
WSDOT has requested that NOAA
Fisheries re-issue the IHA with the dates
changed to accommodate the analyzed
work with minor modifications to the
number of piles driven and removed as
well as the number of animals
authorized for take. No work was
conducted under the original IHA.
Description of the Proposed Activity
Overview
The proposed IHA would authorize
work for the US 101/Chehalis River
Bridge-Scour Repair Project in
Washington State between July 15, 2019
and February 15, 2020. Vibratory pile
driving will be required to remove and
install timber piles, steel sheets and
steel H-piles. Sound in the water from
vibratory driving may result in
behavioral harassment. NMFS
previously issued an IHA to WSDOT to
incidentally take five species of marine
mammal by Level B harassment on
October 18, 2017 (82 FR 50628;
November 1, 2017). That IHA is valid
from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.
However, WSDOT has made minor
changes to the project plan and delayed
the work by one year. Therefore,
WSDOT has requested that NMFS reissue the IHA with the dates changed to
accommodate the analyzed work with
minor modifications to the number of
piles driven and removed as well as the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
number of animals authorized for take.
No work was conducted or is planned
to occur under the original IHA.The
purpose of the US 101/Chehalis River
Bridge-Scour Repair Project is to make
the bridge foundation stable and protect
the foundation from further scour.
Bridge scour is the removal of sediment
such as sand and gravel from around
bridge abutments or piles. Scour, caused
by swiftly moving water, can scoop out
scour holes, compromising the integrity
of a structure. WSDOT plans to remove
debris from the scour area, fill the scour
void under Pier 14 with cement (to
protect the pilings from marine borers),
fill the scour hole, and protect the pier
with scour resistant material.
Note that WSDOT has made revisions
to the number and types of piles that
would be installed and removed under
the proposed 2019 IHA. The first change
is the removal of 44 timber piles (some
of which may be treated with creosote)
from the immediate vicinity of the scour
repair project. Additionally, 18 sheet
piles will be temporarily installed
adjacent to Pier 14, instead of the 44
sheet piles originally proposed.
Dates and Duration
Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water
work timing restrictions to protect
Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed
salmonids, planned WSDOT in-water
construction is limited each year to July
15 through February 15. For this project,
in-water construction is planned to take
place between July 15, 2019 and
September 30, 2019. The proposed IHA
would be effective from July 15, 2019 to
February 15, 2020. The estimated
maximum time period for pile
installation and removal is 37 hours
over 6 days (Table 1).
Specific Geographic Region
The US 101/Chehalis River Bridge is
located in the City of Aberdeen, Grays
Harbor County, Washington (Figure 1–1
in the IHA application). Grays Harbor is
an estuarine bay located 45 miles (72
km) north of the mouth of the Columbia
River, on the Southwest Pacific coast of
Washington state. 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 Specific Activity
Vibratory hammers are commonly
used in steel pile driving and removal
when appropriate sediments are found
at a specific project site. A pile is
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53035
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
typically placed into position using a
choker and crane, and then vibrated
between 1,200 and 2,400 vibrations per
minute. The vibrations liquefy the
sediment surrounding the pile allowing
it to penetrate to the required seating
depth, or to be removed.
Forty-four 14-inch diameter timber
piles/stubs located immediately north of
Pier 14 will be removed using a
vibratory hammer. If necessary, some
deteriorated piles may require cutting
below the ground level to minimize
turbidity. If use of a clamshell bucket is
required due to pile breakage, turbidity
curtains will be employed.
A steel template will be located
adjacent to or attached to Pier 14. The
template will likely be constructed
using six steel H piles which will be
installed using a vibratory hammer.
Using the template as a guide, 18 sheet
piles will be driven with a vibratory
hammer into the substrate to form a
temporary interlocked sheet pile wall
shoring system around the scour repair
area (Table 1). After the sheet piles have
been installed, the template will be
removed.
TABLE 1—PILE REMOVAL MITIGATION AND SCOUR REPAIR PILE SUMMARY
Method
Vibratory
Vibratory
Vibratory
Vibratory
Minutes
per pile
Total
minutes
Duration
(hours)
Piles per
day
Duration
(11-hour
work
days)
Removal ........................
Driving ...........................
Driving ...........................
Removal ........................
14-inch diameter timber ................
Sheet ............................................
H pile ............................................
H pile ............................................
44
18
6
6
30
30
30
30
1,320
540
180
180
22
9
3
3
22
10
6
6
2
2
1
1
Total .......................................
.......................................................
................
................
2,220
37
................
6.0
Once the shoring system is in place,
cementitious material will be tremie
pumped underwater inside the shoring
system to fill the voids between the
riverbed and the pier seal. A tremie is
a large metal hopper and pipe used to
distribute freshly mixed concrete over
an underwater site. The foot of the pipe
is kept below the concrete level, while
the upper level of the concrete in the
pipe is kept above the water level to
prevent the water diluting the concrete.
The concrete falls by gravity and is
continuously placed until the shaft is
full. This material will protect the
untreated wood pier piling from marine
borers. Following installation of the
cementitious sealing material, the
shoring system will be considered a
permanent feature of the scour repair.
The sheet piles will be cut off and
removed to the level of final concrete
placement. The final steps will be the
placement of scour resistant material,
such as rip rap, on and around the pier
and in the scour hole to protect the pier
from future erosion. The cutting of sheet
piles and placement of rip rap is not
anticipated to result in take.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Number
of piles
Pile type
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history, of the potentially
affected species. Additional information
regarding population trends and threats
may be found in NMFS’s Stock
Assessment Reports (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more
general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s
website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species with expected
potential for occurrence in the project
location and summarizes information
related to the population or stock,
including regulatory status under the
MMPA and ESA and potential
biological removal (PBR), where known.
For taxonomy, we follow Committee on
Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by the
MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing
that stock to reach or maintain its
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
optimum sustainable population (as
described in NMFS’s SARs). While no
mortality is anticipated or authorized
here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources
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 or survey 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. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’s U.S. 2017 SARs (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and draft
U.S. 2018 SARS (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). All values presented in Table
2 are the most recent available at the
time of publication.
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53036
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/MMPA
status;
Strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance (CV,
Nmin, most
recent
abundance
survey) 2
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Eschrichtiidae
Gray whale ..................
Eschrichtius robustus
Eastern North Pacific
N
20,990 (0.05,
20,125,
2011)
624 .............................
132
21,487 (0.44,
15,123,
2011)
151 .............................
≥3.0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
Harbor porpoise ..........
Phocoena phocoena ..
Northern Oregon/
Washington Coast.
N
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
California sea lion .......
Zalophus californianus
U.S. ............................
N
Steller sea lion ............
Eumetopias jubatus ....
Eastern U.S. ...............
N
296,750 (n/a,
153,337,
2011)
41,638 (n/a,
41,638,
2015) 4
9,200 ..........................
389
2,498 ..........................
108
Unk 5
Undet ..........................
10.6
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
Harbor seal .................
Phoca vitulina .............
Oregon/Washington
Coast.
N
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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases a CV is not applicable.
For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction
factor derived from knowledge of the species’ (or similar species’) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV.
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 Best estimate of pup and non-pup counts, which have not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance surveys.
5 Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
All species that could potentially
occur in the proposed survey areas are
included in Table 2.
Harbor Seals
Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs
and beaches, and feed in marine,
estuarine and occasionally fresh waters.
Harbor seals display strong fidelity for
haul out sites (Pitcher and Calkins 1979;
Pitcher and McAllister 1981). Harbor
seals in Grays Harbor are part of the
Oregon/Washington Coast Stock. In
Grays Harbor, pups are born from midApril through July (WDFW 2012). Of the
pinniped species that commonly occur
within the region of activity, harbor
seals are the most common and the only
pinniped that breeds and remains in the
inland marine waters of Washington
year-round (Calambokidis and Baird
1994). Harbor seals are non-migratory;
their local movements are associated
with such factors as tides, weather,
season, food availability and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944;
Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981). They are
not known to make extensive pelagic
migrations, although some long-distance
movements of tagged animals in Alaska
(108 miles) and along the U.S. west
coast (up to 342 miles) have been
recorded (Pitcher and McAllister 1981).
In order to estimate abundance, aerial
surveys of harbor seals in Oregon and
Washington were conducted by the
National Marine Mammal Laboratory
(NMML) and the Oregon and
Washington Departments of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW and WDFW) during the
1999 pupping season. Total numbers of
hauled-out seals (including pups) were
counted during these surveys. In 1999,
the mean count of harbor seals
occurring along the Washington coast
was 10,430 (CV = 0.14) animals. In
1999, the mean count of harbor seals
occurring along the Oregon coast and in
the Columbia River was 5,735 (CV =
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0.14) animals. Combining these counts
results in 16,165 (CV = 0.10) harbor
seals in the Oregon/Washington Coast
stock. However, because the most recent
abundance estimate is >8 years old,
there is no current estimate of
abundance available for this stock and
the current population trend is
unknown.
The nearest documented harbor seal
haul out site to the US 101/Chehalis
River Bridge is a low-tide haul out
located seven miles to the west.
According to Jeffries, et al. (2000), all
haul outs in Grays Harbor are associated
with tidal flats; at high tide it is
assumed that these animals are foraging
elsewhere in the estuary.
California Sea Lion
California sea lions are found along
the west coast from the southern tip of
Baja California to southeast Alaska.
They breed mainly on offshore islands
from Southern California’s Channel
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Islands south to Mexico. Non-breeding
males often roam north in spring
foraging for food (Everitt et al. 1980).
Since the mid-1980s, increasing
numbers of California sea lions have
been documented feeding on fish along
the Washington coast and,more
recently, in the Columbia River as far
upstream as Bonneville Dam, 145 mi
(233 km) from the river mouth. All age
classes of males are seasonally present
in Washington waters (Jeffries, et al.
2000). California sea lions do not avoid
areas with heavy or frequent human
activity, but rather may approach
certain areas to investigate. This species
typically does not flush from a buoy or
haul out if approached. The nearest
documented California sea lion haul out
sites to the U.S. 101 Chehalis River
Bridge project site are at Split Rock, 35
miles north of the entrance to Grays
Harbor; and at the mouth of the
Columbia River, 46 miles south of the
entrance to Grays Harbor (Jeffries, et al.
2000). A few California sea lions may
haul out on docks and buoys in the
vicinity of the Westport marina,located
15 miles west of the project site.
Steller Sea Lion
The Steller sea lion is a pinniped and
the largest of the eared seals. Steller sea
lion populations that primarily occur
east of 144° W (Cape Suckling, Alaska)
comprise the Eastern Distinct
Population Segment (DPS), which was
de-listed and removed from the
Endangered Species List on November
4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). This stock is
found in the vicinity of Grays Harbor.
Steller sea lions congregate at rookeries
in California, Oregon, Washington, and
British Columbia for pupping and
breeding from late May to early June
(Gisiner 1985; NMFS 2016a). Rookeries
are usually located on beaches of
relatively remote islands, often in areas
exposed to wind and waves, where
access by humans and other mammalian
predators is difficult (WDFW 1993).
The nearest documented Steller sea
lion haul out sites to the U.S. 101
Chehalis River Bridge project site are at
Split Rock, 35 miles north of the
entrance to Grays Harbor; and at the
mouth of the Columbia River, 46 miles
south of the entrance to Grays Harbor
(Jeffries, et al. 2000). A few Steller sea
lions may haul out on buoys in the
vicinity of the Westport marina, located
15 miles west of the project site.
Gray Whale
During summer and fall, most whales
in the Eastern North Pacific population
feed in the Chukchi, Beaufort and
northwestern Bering Seas. An exception
to this is the relatively small number of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
whales (approximately 200) that
summer and feed along the Pacific coast
between Kodiak Island, Alaska and
northern California (Calambokidis et al.
2012), referred to as the ‘‘Pacific Coast
Feeding Group’’ (NMFS 2015a).
Gray whales are known to use Grays
Harbor. For example, during a 1996
survey 27 different whales were
recorded in the Harbor. (Calambokidis
and Guan 1997). However, between
1998 and 2010, gray whale numbers
peaked in the spring followed by
slightly lesser numbers in the fall in a
study area that included Grays Harbor
and coastal waters along the south
Washington coast. Note, that much of
the in-water pile driving work for the
proposed action is likely to occur during
summer months. (Calambokidis, et al.
2012)
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise inhabits
temporal, subarctic, and arctic waters.
Harbor porpoise are known to occur
year-round along the Oregon/
Washington coast. Aerial survey data
from coastal Oregon and Washington,
collected during all seasons, suggest that
harbor porpoise distribution varies by
depth. Although distinct seasonal
changes in abundance along the west
coast have been noted, and attributed to
possible shifts in distribution to deeper
offshore waters during late winter,
seasonal movement patterns are not
fully understood.
The Northern Oregon/Washington
Coast Stock of harbor porpoise may be
found near the project site. This stock
occurs in waters from Lincoln City,
Oregon to Cape Flattery Washington.
Little information exists on harbor
porpoise movements and stock structure
in Grays Harbor, although it is
suspected that in some areas harbor
porpoises migrate (based on seasonal
shifts in distribution).
Harbor porpoise primarily frequent
coastal waters and occur most
frequently in waters less than 328 ft
(100 m) deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010).
They may occasionally be found in
deeper offshore waters. Hall (WSDOT
2018) found that the highest numbers
were observed at water depths ranging
from 61 to 100 m. Harbor porpoises are
most often observed in small groups of
one to eight animals (Baird 2003).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53037
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 (2018)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 dB
threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. The
functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (note
that these frequency ranges correspond
to the range for the composite group,
with the entire range not necessarily
reflecting the capabilities of every
species within that group):
• Low-frequency cetaceans
(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger
toothed whales, beaked whales, and
most delphinids): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 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;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared
seals): Generalized hearing is estimated
to occur between 60 Hz and 39 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
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53038
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
(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 (2018) 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 survey
activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present,
one is classified as a low-frequency
cetacean (i.e., gray whale), and one is
classified as a high-frequency cetacean
(i.e., harbor porpoise).
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 includes a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment section,
and the Proposed Mitigation section, to
draw conclusions regarding the likely
impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and how those impacts on
individuals are likely to impact marine
mammal species or stocks.
The proposed River Bridge-Scour
repair project will utilize in-water
vibratory pile driving and pile removal
that 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 threshold shift
just after exposure is the initial
threshold shift. If the threshold shift
eventually returns to zero (i.e., the
threshold returns to the pre-exposure
value), it is a temporary threshold shift
(Southall et al. 2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of
hearing)—When animals exhibit
reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 TS. An animal can
experience temporary threshold shift
(TTS) or permanent threshold shift
(PTS). TTS can last from minutes or
hours to days (i.e., there is complete
recovery), can occur in specific
frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might
only have a temporary loss of hearing
sensitivity between the frequencies of 1
and 10 kHz), and can be of varying
amounts (for example, an animal’s
hearing sensitivity might be reduced
initially by only 6 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., 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a,
2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010;
Lucke et al., 2009; 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 SPL at
200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 mPa, which
corresponds to a sound exposure level
(SEL) of 164.5 dB re: 1 mPa2 s after
integrating exposure. Because the airgun
noise is a broadband impulse, one
cannot directly determine the
equivalent of rms SPL from the reported
peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a
conservative conversion factor of 16 dB
for broadband signals from seismic
surveys (McCauley et al. 2000) to
correct for the difference between 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. However, NMFS recognizes
that TTS of harbor porpoises is lower
than other cetacean species empirically
tested (Finneran and 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Masking—In addition, chronic
exposure to excessive, though not highintensity, noise could cause masking at
particular frequencies for marine
mammals that 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 activity 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 and Noren et al. 2009).
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur
over large temporal and spatial scales,
can potentially affect the species at
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
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).
Acoustic Effects, Airborne—
Pinnipeds that occur near the project
site could be exposed to airborne
sounds associated with pile driving that
have the potential to cause behavioral
harassment, depending on their distance
from pile driving activities. Cetaceans
are not expected to be exposed to
airborne sounds that would result in
harassment as defined under the
MMPA.
Airborne noise will primarily be an
issue for pinnipeds that are swimming
or hauled out near the project site
within the range of noise levels elevated
above the acoustic criteria. We
recognize that pinnipeds in the water
could be exposed to airborne sound that
may result in behavioral harassment
when looking with their heads above
water. Most likely, airborne sound
would cause behavioral responses
similar to those discussed above in
relation to underwater sound. For
instance, anthropogenic sound could
cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit
changes in their normal behavior, such
as reduction in vocalizations, or cause
them to temporarily abandon the area
and move further from the source.
However, these animals would
previously have been ‘taken’ because of
exposure to underwater sound above the
behavioral harassment thresholds,
which are in all cases larger than those
associated with airborne sound. Thus,
the behavioral harassment of these
animals is already accounted for in
these estimates of potential take.
Therefore, we do not believe that
authorization of incidental take
resulting from airborne sound for
pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne
sound is not discussed further here.
Behavioral disturbance—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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke
slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where noise sources are located;
and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds
flushing into water from haulouts or
rookeries).
The onset of behavioral disturbance
from anthropogenic noise depends on
both external factors (characteristics of
noise sources and their paths) and the
receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also
difficult to predict (Southall et al.,
2007). Currently NMFS uses a received
level of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) to predict
the onset of behavioral harassment from
impulse noises (such as impact pile
driving), and 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for
continuous noises (such as vibratory
pile driving). For the proposed project,
only 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) is considered
for effects analysis because only
vibratory pile driving and removal will
be employed.
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.
Habitat—The primary potential
impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels
produced by pile driving and removal
associated with marine mammal prey
species. However, other potential
impacts to the surrounding habitat from
physical disturbance are also possible.
Prey species for the various marine
mammals include marine invertebrates
and fish species. Short-term effects
would occur to marine invertebrates
during removal of existing piles. This
effect is expected to be minor and shortterm on the overall population of
marine invertebrates in Grays Harbor.
Construction will also have temporary
effects on salmonids and other fish
species in the project area due to
disturbance, turbidity, noise, and the
potential resuspension of contaminants.
All in-water work will occur during the
designated in-water work window, to
minimize effects on juvenile salmonids.
SPLs from vibratory driving generally
do not have the potential to injure or
kill fish in the immediate area.
Experiments have shown that fish can
sense both the strength and direction of
sound (Hawkins and Horner 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53039
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; however, the
response threshold can depend on the
time of year and the fish’s physiological
condition (Engas et al. 1993). Any
disturbance to fish species would be
short-term and fish would return to
their pre-disturbance behavior once the
pile driving activity ceases. The
proposed construction would have
little, if any, impact on the abilities of
marine mammals to feed in the area
where construction work is proposed.
There are no critical habitats or other
biologically important areas near the
proposed project location, although
biologically important feeding and
migration areas for gray whales have
been established along the coast beyond
the mouth of Grays Harbor. However,
the project site is upriver to the east of
the Harbor, so there will be no impacts
to these areas. While harbor seals,
California sea lions, and other marine
mammals may be present, the area is not
an established rookery or breeding
ground for local populations.
Additionally, during construction
activity only a small fraction of the
available habitat would be ensonified.
Short-term turbidity is a water quality
effect of most in-water work, including
pile driving. Cetaceans are not expected
to be close enough to the Chehalis River
Bridge to experience turbidity, and any
pinnipeds will be transiting the terminal
area and could avoid localized areas of
turbidity. Therefore, the impact from
increased turbidity levels is expected to
be discountable to marine mammals.
For these reasons, any adverse effects
to marine mammal habitat in the area
from WSDOT’s proposed project would
be minor.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through this IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ 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
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53040
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
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 vibratory driving.
Based on the nature of the activity and
the anticipated effectiveness of the
mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown,
establishment and monitoring of
harassment zones) discussed in detail
below in Proposed Mitigation section),
Level A harassment is neither
anticipated nor proposed to be
authorized.
As described previously, no mortality
is anticipated or proposed to be
authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, 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. We note that while these
basic factors can contribute to a basic
calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional
information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes
available (e.g., previous monitoring
results or average group size). Below, we
describe the factors considered here in
more detail and present the proposed
take 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., 2012). 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) sources such as those
used here.
WSDOT’s proposed activity includes
the use of continuous (vibratory driving
and removal 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 (Version 2.0) (NMFS,
2018) 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). WSDOT’s proposed activity
includes the use non-impulsive
(vibratory driving) sources.
These thresholds are provided in
Table 3 below. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the
development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2018 Technical
Guidance, which may be accessed at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance.
TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS Onset acoustic thresholds*
(received level)
Hearing group
Impulsive
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ..............................................................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans .............................................................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ............................................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .....................................................
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .....................................................
Non-impulsive
Cell 1 .............................................
Lpk,flat: 219 dB
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB
Cell 3 .............................................
Lpk,flat: 230 dB
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB
Cell 5 .............................................
Lpk,flat: 202 dB
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB
Cell 7 .............................................
Lpk,flat: 218 dB
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB
Cell 9 .............................................
Lpk,flat: 232 dB
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB
Cell 2
LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
Cell 4
LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
Cell 6
LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
Cell 8
LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
Cell 10
LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should
also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s.
In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure
is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being
included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated
with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for
action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53041
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that will feed into identifying the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds, which include source levels
and transmission loss coefficient.
Reference sound source levels used by
WSDOT vibratory piling driving and
removal activities were derived from
several sources. WSDOT utilized inwater measurements generated by the
Greenbusch Group (2018) from the
WDOT Seattle Pier 62 project (83 FR
39709) to establish proxy sound source
levels for vibratory removal of 14-inch
timber piles. The results determined
unweighted rms ranging from 140 dB to
169 dB. WSDOT used the 75th
percentile of these values (161 dB rms
measured at 10 meters) as a proxy for
vibratory removal of 14-inch timber
piles at the Chehalis River Bridge.
However, NMFS reviewed the report by
the Greenbusch Group (2018) and
determined that the findings were
derived by pooling together all steel pile
and timber pile at various distance
measurements data together. The data
was not normalized to the standard 10
m distance. NMFS analyzed source
measurements at different distances for
all 63 individual timber piles that were
removed and normalized the values to
10 m. The results showed that the
median is 152 dB SPLrms. This value
was used as the source level for
vibratory removal of 14-inch timber
piles.
The proposed project includes
vibratory driving of 18 sheet piles as
well as vibratory driving and removal of
six steel H piles. Based on in-water
measurements at the Elliot Bay Seawall
Project, vibratory pile driving of steel
sheet piles generated a source level of
165 dB rms measured at 10 m
(Greenbush Group 2015). According to
CalTrans (2015), 150 dB rms at 10 m is
a typical source level for vibratory
driving and removal of steel H piles.
Level B Harassment Zones
The practical spreading model was
used by WSDOT to establish the Level
B harassment zones for all vibratory pile
installation and removal activities.
Practical spreading is described in full
detail below.
Pile driving generates underwater
noise that can potentially result in
disturbance to marine mammals in the
project area. Transmission loss (TL) is
the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out
from a source. TL parameters vary with
frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth,
water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography.
The general formula for underwater TL
is:
TL = B * log10 (R1/R2),
Where:
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from
the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the
initial measurement.
This formula neglects loss due to
scattering and absorption, which is
assumed to be zero here. The degree to
which underwater sound propagates
away from a sound source is dependent
on a variety of factors, most notably the
water bathymetry and presence or
absence of reflective or absorptive
conditions including in-water structures
and sediments. Spherical spreading
occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (freefield) environment not limited by depth
or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB
reduction in sound level for each
doubling of distance from the source (20
* log[range]). Cylindrical spreading
occurs in an environment in which
sound propagation is bounded by the
water surface and sea bottom, resulting
in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for
each doubling of distance from the
source (10 * log[range]). A practical
spreading value of 15 is often used
under conditions where water increases
with depth as the receiver moves away
from the shoreline, resulting in an
expected propagation environment that
would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions.
Utilizing the practical spreading loss
model, WSDOT determined the distance
and area where the noise will fall below
the behavioral effects threshold of 120
dB rms. The distances and areas are
shown in Table 4. Note that the
ensonified area is based on a GIS
analysis of the area accounting for
structures and landmasses which would
block underwater sound transmission.
TABLE 4—LEVEL B HARASSMENT ENSONIFIED AREA
Level B
harassment
zone isopleth
(meters)
Pile type
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
14-inch timber vibratory removal .............................................................................................................................
Steel sheet vibratory driving ....................................................................................................................................
Steel H-pile vibratory driving and removal ..............................................................................................................
Level A Harassment Zones
When the 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1,359
10,000
1,000
Area (km2)
0.93
2.04
0.67
where appropriate. For stationary
sources such as vibratory driving, NMFS
User Spreadsheet predicts the closest
distance at which, if a marine mammal
remained at that distance the whole
duration of the activity, it would not
incur PTS. User Spreadsheet inputs are
shown in Table 5 and outputs are
shown in Table 6. Note that since no
Level A harassment take is proposed,
the areas of Level A harassment zones
were not calculated.
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53042
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 5—PARAMETERS OF PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING ACTIVITY
[User spreadsheet input]
Spreadsheet Tab Used ..................
Source Level (rms SPL) ................
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)
Number of piles in 24-h period ......
Duration to drive a single pile (minutes).
Propagation (xLogR) ......................
Distance of source level measurement (meters).
14-inch timber
Sheet
H-Pile
A.1) Vibratory driving ....................
152 ................................................
2.5 .................................................
22 ..................................................
30 ..................................................
A.1) Vibratory driving ....................
165 ................................................
2.5 .................................................
9 ....................................................
30 ..................................................
A.1) Vibratory driving
150
2.5
6
30
15 ..................................................
10 ..................................................
15 ..................................................
10 ..................................................
15
10
TABLE 6—LEVEL A HARASSMENT ZONE ISOPLETHS
[User spreadsheet output]
PTS Isopleth
(meters)
Source type
Low-frequency
cetaceans
Mid-frequency
cetaceans
8.5
34.4
2.6
0.8
3
0.2
14-inch timber ......................................................................
Sheet pile .............................................................................
H-pile ....................................................................................
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.
There is little abundance or density
data available for marine mammal
species that are likely to occur within
Grays Harbor and which could
potentially be found in the Chehalis
River near the project site. In most
cases, WSDOT relied on density data
from the U.S. Navy Marine Species
Density Database (NMSDD) (U.S. Navy
2015). NMFS concurs that this, and the
exceptions described below, represent
the best available data for use here.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Harbor Seal
While the NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015)
estimates the density of harbor seals in
the waters offshore of Grays Harbor as
0.279 animals per square kilometer,
WSDOT relied on a study which
identified 44 harbor seal haul outs in
Grays Harbor and provided very rough
estimates of the number of seals at each
site. Twenty-seven haul outs had less
than 100 animals; 16 haul outs had 100–
500 animals; and two haul outs were
reported to support over 500 animals
(Jeffries et al. 2000). These data likely
represent the best estimate of harbor
seal numbers in Grays Harbor. Using
median numbers of each haul out
estimate range resulted in an estimated
7,150 harbor seals in Grays Harbor. The
area of the estuary during mean higher
high water (243 km2) was used to derive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
a density estimate of 29.4 harbor seals
per square kilometer.
California Sea Lion
Only 10 California sea lion strandings
have been documented between 2006
and 2015 (NMFS 2016c), and no haul
outs have been identified. Therefore, it
is expected that the density of California
sea lions in Grays Harbor is low. The
NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the
density of California sea lions in the
waters offshore of Grays Harbor as
ranging from 0.020 to 0.033 animals per
square kilometer in summer and fall.
The higher estimate is used as a
surrogate for Grays Harbor.
Steller Sea Lion
According to the NMFS National
Stranding Database, there were four
confirmed Steller sea lion strandings in
Grays Harbor between 2006 and 2015
(NMFS 2016c) and no haul outs have
been identified in Grays Harbor. The
NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the
density of Steller sea lions in the waters
offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.0145
animals per square kilometer. This
estimate is used as a surrogate for Grays
Harbor.
Gray Whale
Between 1998 and 2010, gray whale
numbers peaked in spring and fall in a
study area that included waters inside
Grays Harbor and coastal waters along
the south Washington coast
(Calambokidis, et al. 2012). However, no
density estimates are available for Grays
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Highfrequency
cetaceans
Phocid
pinnipeds
12.5
50.9
3.9
Otariid
pinnipeds
5.2
20.9
1.6
0.4
1.5
0.1
Harbor. The NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015)
estimates the density of gray whales in
nearshore waters near Grays Harbor as
0.00045 animal per square kilometer in
summer and fall. This density is used
for Grays Harbor.
Harbor Porpoise
The NMSDD (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 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 per
square kilometer. The higher density
estimate for waters offshore of Grays
Harbor (1.67) is used to estimate take.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information
provided above is brought together to
produce a quantitative take estimate.
No Level A harassment take is likely
because of the small injury zones and
relatively low average animal density in
the area. Since the largest Level A
harassment distance is only 50.9 m from
the source for high-frequency cetaceans
(harbor porpoise), NMFS considers that
WSDOT can effectively monitor such
small zones to implement shutdown
measures and avoid Level A harassment
takes. Therefore, no Level A harassment
take of marine mammal is proposed or
authorized.
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53043
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
NMFS used an estimated harbor seal
density of 29.4 animals/km2 in the US
101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair
Project area to estimate the following
number of Level B harassment
exposures that may occur:
• 14-inch timber pile removal: 29.4.
animals/km2 * 0.93 km2 * 2 days =
54.68
• Sheet pile installation: 29.4
animals/km2 * 2.04 km2 * 2 days=
119.95
• H-pile installation and removal: 29.4
animals/km2 * 0.67 km2 * 2 days =
39.39
Based on the sum of the equations
above, NMFS proposes to authorize 214
takes of harbor seals by Level B
harassment.
NMFS inserted the California sea lion
density of 0.033 animals/km2 into the
same equation used above for harbor
seals to estimate Level B harassment
exposures. Based on the sum of the
equations, an estimated 0.24 California
sea lions would be taken by Level B
harassment. Due to this low value,
NMFS conservatively proposes to
authorize the take of two California sea
lions each day of in-water activities,
resulting in 12 takes by Level B
harassment.
NMFS estimated take of Steller sea
lions by inserting a density of 0.0145
animals/km2 into the same equation
used above for harbor seals resulting in
0.10 takes of sea lions. Given the low
value, NMFS conservatively proposes to
authorize the take of two Steller sea
lions during each day of in-water
activities, resulting in 12 takes by Level
B harassment.
NMFS used the same equation that
was used for harbor seals to estimate
take for gray whales by inserting a
density value of 0.00045 animals/km2.
Since this resulted in a value less than
one, NMFS proposes to authorize Level
B harassment take of two gray whales
per day based on average group size.
A density value of 1.67 animal/km2
for harbor porpoises was plugged into
the harbor seal equation to arrive at an
estimated 12.1 takes. Therefore, NMFS
is proposing to authorize 12 harbor
porpoise takes by Level B harassment.
Table 7 shows total number of
authorized Level B harassment takes
and take as a percentage of population
for each of the species.
TABLE 7—TAKE ESTIMATES AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE
Proposed
authorized
take
Level B
harassment
Species
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Harbor seal ..............................................................................................................................................................
California sea lion ....................................................................................................................................................
Steller sea lion .........................................................................................................................................................
Gray whale ...............................................................................................................................................................
Harbor porpoise .......................................................................................................................................................
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible
methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting
the least practicable impact on such
species or stock and its habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of
such species or stock for taking for
certain subsistence uses (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
Temporal and Seasonal Restrictions—
Timing restrictions would be used to
avoid in-water work when ESA-listed
salmonids are most likely to be present.
The combined work window for inwater work for the U.S. 101/Chehalis
River Bridge –Scour Project is July 15
through February 15. Furthermore, work
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
214
12
12
2
12
% population
1.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
may only occur during daylight hours,
when visual monitoring of marine
mammals can be effectively conducted.
Establishment of Shutdown Zone—
For all pile driving activities, WSDOT
will establish a shutdown zone. The
purpose of a shutdown zone is generally
to define an area within which
shutdown of activity would occur upon
sighting of a marine mammal (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the
defined area). In this case, shutdown
zones are intended to contain areas in
which sound pressure levels (SPLs)
equal or exceed acoustic injury criteria
for authorized species. If a marine
mammal is observed at or within the
shutdown zone, work must shut down
(stop work) until the individual has
been observed outside of the zone, or
has not been observed for at least 15
minutes for all marine mammals. A
determination that the shutdown zone is
clear must be made during a period of
good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown
zone and surrounding waters must be
visible to the naked eye). If a marine
mammal approaches or enters the
shutdown zone during activities or preactivity monitoring, all pile driving and
removal activities at that location must
be halted or delayed, respectively. If
pile driving or removal is halted or
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53044
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
delayed due to the presence of a marine
mammal, the activity may not resume or
commence until either the animal has
voluntarily left and been visually
confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or
15 minutes have passed without redetection of the animal. Pile driving and
removal activities include the time to
install or remove a single pile or series
of piles, as long as the time elapsed
between uses of the pile driving
equipment is no more than thirty
minutes. Shutdown zone sizes are
shown in Table 8.
TABLE 8—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES AND MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
[Meters]
Low-frequency
Cetaceans
Source type
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
14-inch timber removal ....................................................................................
Sheet pile installation .......................................................................................
H-pile installation and removal ........................................................................
For in-water heavy machinery
activities other than pile driving, if a
marine mammal comes within 10 m,
operations must cease and vessels must
reduce speed to the minimum level
required to maintain steerage and safe
working conditions. WSDOT must also
implement shutdown measures if the
cumulative total number of individuals
observed within the Level B harassment
monitoring zones for any particular
species reaches the number authorized
under the IHA and if such marine
mammals are sighted within the vicinity
of the project area and are approaching
the Level B Harassment/Monitoring
Zone during in-water construction
activities.
Establishment of Level B Harassment/
Monitoring Zones—WSDOT must
identify and establish Level B
harassment zones which are areas where
SPLs equal or exceed 120 dB rms.
Observation of monitoring zones
enables observers to be aware of and
communicate the presence of marine
mammals in the project area and outside
the shutdown zone and thus prepare for
potential shutdowns of activity.
Monitoring zones are also used to
document instances of Level B
harassment. Monitoring zone isopleths
are shown in Table 4.
Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the
start of daily in-water construction
activity, or whenever a break in pile
driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs,
the observer shall observe the shutdown
and monitoring zones for a period of 30
minutes. The shutdown zone shall be
cleared when a marine mammal has not
been observed within the zone for that
30-minute period. When a marine
mammal permitted for Level B
harassment take is present in the Level
B harassment zone, piling activities may
begin and Level B harassment take shall
be recorded. As stated above, if the
entire Level B harassment zone is not
visible at the start of construction, piling
driving activities can begin. If work
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
10
35
10
ceases for more than 30 minutes, the
pre-activity monitoring of both the Level
B harassment and shutdown zone shall
commence.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the
proposed 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
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth,
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that
requests for authorizations must include
the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge
of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density);
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Highfrequency
Cetaceans
15
50
10
Phocid
pinnipeds
Otariid
pinnipeds
10
20
10
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.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
WSDOT shall employ NMFSapproved protected species observers
(PSOs) to conduct marine mammal
monitoring for its US 101/Chehalis
River Bridge-Scour 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\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / 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.
WSDOT must ensure that observers
have the following additional
qualifications:
1. Ability to conduct field
observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols;
2. Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of
behaviors;
3. Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
4. Writing skills sufficient to prepare
a report of observations including but
not limited to the number and species
of marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times,
and reason for implementation of
mitigation (or why mitigation was not
implemented when required); and
marine mammal behavior; and
5. Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
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 monitoring zones from
different pile types, separate zones and
monitoring protocols corresponding to
each 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
shutdown and Level B harassment
zones. For vibratory pile driving and
pile removal of H piles and timber piles,
a total of three land-based PSOs will
monitor the shutdown and Level B
harassment zones.
within 30 days. Reports shall contain, at
minimum, the following:
• Date and time that monitored
activity begins and ends for each day
conducted (monitoring period);
• Construction activities occurring
during each daily observation period,
including how many and what type of
piles driven;
• Deviation from initial proposal in
pile numbers, pile types, average
driving times, etc.
• Weather parameters in each
monitoring period (e.g., wind speed,
percent cloud cover, visibility);
• Water conditions in each
monitoring period (e.g., sea state, tide
state);
• For each marine mammal sighting:
Æ Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
Æ Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel
and distance from pile driving activity;
Æ Location and distance from pile
driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals
to the observation point;
Æ Estimated amount of time that the
animals remained in the Level B
harassment zone
• Description of implementation of
mitigation measures within each
monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or
delay);
• Other human activity in the area
within each monitoring period;
• A summary of the following:
Æ Total number of individuals of each
species detected within the Level B
harassment zone;
Æ Total number of individuals of each
species detected within the shutdown
zone and the average amount of time
that they remained in that zone; and
Æ Daily average number of
individuals of each species
(differentiated by month as appropriate)
detected within the Level B harassment
zone.
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 (if issued),
whichever comes earlier. This report
would detail the monitoring protocol,
summarize the data recorded during
monitoring, and estimate the number of
marine mammals that may have been
harassed. NMFS would have an
opportunity to provide comments on the
report, and if NMFS has comments,
WSDOT would address the comments
and submit a final report to NMFS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53045
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).
NMFS has identified key qualitative
and quantitative factors which may be
employed to assess the level of analysis
necessary to conclude whether potential
impacts associated with a specified
activity should be considered negligible.
These include (but are not limited to)
the type and magnitude of taking, the
amount and importance of the available
habitat for the species or stock that is
affected, the duration of the anticipated
effect to the species or stock, and the
status of the species or stock. When an
evaluation of key factors shows that the
anticipated impacts of the specified
activity would clearly result in no
greater than a negligieble impact on all
affected species or stocks, additional
evaluation is not required. In this case,
the following factors are in place for all
affected species or stocks:
• No takes by Level A harassment are
anticipated or authorized;
• Takes by Level B harassment
constitute less than 5% of the best
available abundance estimates for all
stocks;
• Take would not occur in places
and/or times where take would be more
likely to accrue to impacts on
reproduction or survival, such as within
ESA-designated or proposed critical
habitat, biologically important areas
(BIA), or other habitats critical to
recruitment or survival (e.g., rookery);
• Take would occur over a short
timeframe (less than 30 days of active
pile driving required during the IHA
effective period);
• Take would occur over <25% of
species/stock range; and
• Stock is not known to be declining
or suffering from known contributors to
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53046
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
decline (e.g., unusual mortality event
(UME), oil spill effects).
Based on these factors, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
prescribed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total take from the proposed
activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of
the MMPA for specified activities other
than military readiness activities. The
MMPA does not define small numbers
and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares
the number of individuals taken to the
most appropriate estimation of
abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether
an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
NMFS has estimated that take for all
species authorized is less than two
percent of their respective stock
abundance (Table 7). Based on the
analysis contained herein of the
proposed activity (including the
proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily
finds that small numbers of marine
mammals will be taken relative to the
population size of the affected species
or stocks.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
the total taking of affected species or
stocks would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
No incidental take of ESA-listed
species is proposed for authorization or
expected to result from this activity.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
formal consultation under section 7 of
the ESA is not required for this action.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to WSDOT for conducting US
101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
Project between July 15, 2019, and
February 15, 2020, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. This section contains
a draft of the IHA itself. The wording
contained in this section is proposed for
inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Authorization is valid from
July 15, 2019, through February 15,
2020.
2. This Authorization is valid only for
activities associated with in-water
construction work at the US 101/
Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair
Project in the State of Washington.
3. General Conditions.
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the
possession of WSDOT, its designees,
and work crew personnel operating
under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species and number of
authorized Level B harassment takes are
provided in Table 7.
(c) The taking by serious injury or
death of any of the species listed in
condition 3(b), or any taking of any
other species of marine mammal not
listed in condition 3(b) of the
Authorization is prohibited and may
result in the modification, suspension,
or revocation of this IHA.
(d) WSDOT must conduct briefings
between construction supervisors and
crews, marine mammal monitoring
team, and WSDOT staff prior to the start
of all pile driving, and when new
personnel join the work, in order to
explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures.
4. Mitigation Measures.
The holder of this Authorization is
required to implement the following
mitigation measures:
(a) In-water construction work must
occur only during daylight hours.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery
activities other than pile driving, if a
marine mammal comes within 10
meters (m), operations must cease and
vessels must reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions.
(c) Pre-activity marine mammal
monitoring must take place from 30
minutes prior to initiation of pile
driving and removal. Post-activity
marine mammal monitoring must
continue through 30 minutes postcompletion of pile driving and removal.
Pile driving and removal may
commence at the end of the 30-minute
pre-activity monitoring period, provided
observers have determined that the
relevant shutdown zone (Table 8) is
clear of marine mammals.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(d) WSDOT must establish and
monitor shutdown zone and Level B
harassment zones:
i. Shutdown zone sizes for various
pile driving activities and marine
mammal hearing groups are shown in
Table 8.
ii. Level B harassment zone sizes are
shown in Table 3.
(e) If a marine mammal approaches or
enters the shutdown zone (Table 8)
during activities or pre-activity
monitoring, all pile driving activities at
that location must be halted or delayed,
respectively. If pile driving is halted or
delayed due to the presence of a marine
mammal, the activity may not resume or
commence until either the animal has
voluntarily left and been visually
confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or
15 minutes have passed without redetection of the animal. Pile driving
activities include the time to install or
remove a single pile or series of piles,
as long as the time elapsed between uses
of the pile driving equipment is no more
than thirty minutes.
(f) WSDOT must establish monitoring
locations and protocols as described
below. Please also refer to the Marine
Species Monitoring Plan (Monitoring
Plan; attached).
i. For vibratory pile driving of sheet
piles, a total of four land-based PSOs
must monitor the shutdown zone and
Level B harassment zone as depicted in
the Monitoring Plan.
ii. For vibratory pile removal of
timber piles and vibratory installation
and removal of H piles, a total of three
land-based PSOs must monitor the
shutdown and Level B harassment
zones.
5. Monitoring.
The holder of this Authorization is
required to conduct marine mammal
monitoring during pile driving and
removal.
(a) Monitoring during pile driving and
removal must be conducted by NMFSapproved PSOs in a manner consistent
with the following:
i. Independent PSOs (i.e., not
construction personnel) who have no
other assigned tasks during monitoring
periods must be used.
ii. At least one PSO must have prior
experience working as a marine
mammal observer during construction
activities. Other PSOs may substitute
education (degree in biological science
or related field) or training for
experience.
iii. Where a team of three or more
PSOs are required, a lead observer or
monitoring coordinator must be
designated. The lead observer must have
prior experience working as a marine
mammal observer during construction.
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
iv. WSDOT must submit PSO CVs for
approval by NMFS prior to the onset of
pile driving.
v. WSDOT must ensure that observers
have the following additional
qualifications:
a. Ability to conduct field
observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols.
b. Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of
behaviors.
c. Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations.
d. Writing skills sufficient to prepare
a report of observations including but
not limited to the number and species
of marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times,
and reason for implementation of
mitigation (or why mitigation was not
implemented when required); and
marine mammal behavior.
e. Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
6. Reporting.
The holder of this Authorization is
required to submit marine mammal
monitoring and acoustic reports:
(a) WSDOT must submit a draft report
on all marine mammal monitoring
conducted under this Authorization
within ninety calendar days following
the completion of monitoring. A final
report must be submitted within thirty
days following resolution of comments
on the draft report from NMFS. The
marine mammal monitoring report must
contain, at minimum, the informational
elements described below:
i. Date and time that monitored
activity begins and ends for each day
conducted (monitoring period);
ii. Construction activities occurring
during each daily observation period,
including how many and what type of
piles driven;
iii. Deviation from initial proposal in
pile numbers, pile types, average
driving times, etc.
iv. Weather parameters in each
monitoring period (e.g., wind speed,
percent cloud cover, visibility);
v. Water conditions in each
monitoring period (e.g., sea state, tide
state);
vi. For each marine mammal sighting:
a. Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
b. Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
including bearing and direction of travel
and distance from pile driving activity;
c. Location and distance from pile
driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals
to the observation point;
d. Estimated amount of time that the
animals remained in the Level B
harassment zone;
vii. Description of implementation of
mitigation measures within each
monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or
delay);
viii. Other human activity in the area
within each monitoring period
ix. A summary of the following:
a. Total number of individuals of each
species detected within the Level B
harassment zone.
b. Total number of individuals of each
species detected within the Level A
harassment zone and the average
amount of time that they remained in
that zone.
c. Daily average number of
individuals of each species
(differentiated by month as appropriate)
detected within the Level B Zone, and
estimated as taken, if appropriate.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine
mammals:
i. In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by this IHA, such as serious
injury, or mortality, WSDOT must
immediately cease the specified
activities and report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the West Coast Region Stranding
Coordinator, NMFS. The report must
include the following information:
1. Time and date of the incident;
2. Description of the incident;
3. Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
4. Description of all marine mammal
observations and active sound source
use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
5. Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
6. Fate of the animal(s); and
7. Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
Activities must not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS will work with WSDOT to
determine what measures are necessary
to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. WSDOT may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS.
ii. In the event WSDOT discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines that the
cause of the injury or death is unknown
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53047
and the death is relatively recent (e.g.,
in less than a moderate state of
decomposition), WSDOT must
immediately report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the West Coast Region Stranding
Coordinator, NMFS. The report must
include the same information identified
in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may
continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS
will work with WSDOT to determine
whether additional mitigation measures
or modifications to the activities are
appropriate.
iii. In the event that WSDOT
discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer
determines that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the
activities authorized in the IHA (e.g.,
previously wounded animal, carcass
with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage),
WSDOT must report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the West Coast Region Stranding
Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of
the discovery. WSDOT must provide
photographs or video footage or other
documentation of the stranded animal
sighting to NMFS.
7. This Authorization may be
modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the
conditions prescribed herein, or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking
is having more than a negligible impact
on the species or stock of affected
marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this Notice of Proposed
IHA for the proposed project. We also
request comment on the potential for
renewal of this proposed IHA as
described in the paragraph below.
Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to
help inform our final decision on the
request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a second one-year IHA without
additional notice when (1) another year
of identical or nearly identical activities
as described in the Specified Activities
section is planned or (2) the activities
would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a second IHA would
allow for completion of the activities
beyond that described in the Dates and
Duration section, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to expiration of
the current IHA;
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
53048
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities
to be conducted beyond the initial dates
either are identical to the previously
analyzed activities or include changes
so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size)
that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, take estimates, or
mitigation and monitoring
requirements; and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized;
• Upon review of the request for
renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
remain the same and appropriate, and
the original findings remain valid.
Dated: October 15, 2018.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–22812 Filed 10–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XG549
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Take of Anadromous Fish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a
Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this
notice announces that NMFS is
preparing a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS) to supplement information in
the 2017 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for 10 Hatchery and
Genetic Management Plans (HGMP) for
salmon and steelhead hatchery
programs jointly submitted by the
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) with the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe and the Suquamish Tribe
(referred to as the co-managers), for
NMFS’s evaluation and determination
under Limit 6 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) 4(d) Rule for
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Oct 18, 2018
Jkt 247001
threatened salmon and steelhead. The
HGMPs specify the propagation of
salmon and steelhead in the DuwamishGreen River basin in Washington State.
The DSEIS will analyze an additional
alternative reflecting an increase in
hatchery production of juvenile
Chinook salmon.
DATES: Because NMFS has previously
requested (81 FR 26776, May 6, 2016)
and received information from the
public on issues to be addressed in the
EIS, and because the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) do not require additional
scoping for this DSEIS process (40 CFR
1502.9(c)(4)), NMFS is not asking for
further public scoping information and
comment at this time. Upon release of
the DSEIS, NMFS will provide a 45-day
public review/comment period.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the 2017 DEIS are
available from NMFS, Sustainable
Fisheries Division at 510 Desmond
Drive SE, Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503,
and on the web at https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
hatcheries/Duwamish-Green/duwgreen_hgmps_deis.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Leider, NMFS, by phone at (360)
753–4650, or email to steve.leider@
noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The WDFW, and the co-managers
have jointly submitted to NMFS HGMPs
for 10 hatchery programs in the
Duwamish-Green River basin in
Washington State. The HGMPs reviewed
in the DEIS were submitted to NMFS
from 2013 to 2015, pursuant to limit 6
of the 4(d) Rule for salmon and
steelhead. The hatchery programs
include releases of ESA-listed Chinook
salmon and winter-run steelhead into
the Duwamish-Green River basin. The
hatchery programs also release nonlisted coho and fall-run chum salmon
and summer-run steelhead into the
Duwamish-Green River basin. One
hatchery program releases coho salmon
into marine waters adjacent to the
Duwamish-Green River basin. Seven of
the programs are currently operating,
and three are new.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to
conduct environmental analyses of their
proposed major actions to determine if
the actions may affect the human
environment. NMFS’s action of
determining that implementation of the
co-managers’ HGMPs would not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of affected
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
threated ESUs under Limit 6 of the 4(d)
Rule for salmon and steelhead
promulgated under the ESA, is a major
Federal action subject to environmental
review under NEPA.
On May 4, 2016, NMFS announced its
intent to prepare an EIS and the 30-day
public scoping period ended on June 3,
2016. On November 3, 2017, NMFS
announced the release of a DEIS for
public comment. The DEIS includes an
analysis of the proposed action
identified in the 2016 NOI and the
anticipated environmental impacts.
Following an extension, the 75-day
public comment period ended on
January 19, 2018.
In light of subsequent information,
NMFS has determined that the Final EIS
would benefit from the analysis of an
expanded range of potential alternatives
for hatchery production of Chinook
salmon. The alternative to be analyzed
in the DSEIS is informed by the
applicant’s interest in increasing
hatchery production of juvenile
Chinook salmon, and NMFS’ analysis of
the status of endangered Southern
Resident Killer Whales and the
importance of Chinook salmon prey to
their food base. The DSEIS will analyze
an increased level of Chinook salmon
hatchery production and provide the
public with an opportunity for review
and comment. The DSEIS, in
conjunction with the 2017 DEIS, will
collectively evaluate the proposed
action and alternatives.
Alternatives
The alternatives analyzed in the 2017
DEIS are summarized in the DEIS Notice
of Intent (82 FR 26776, May 4, 2016).
The upcoming DSEIS will analyze an
alternative in which hatchery
production from the Soos Creek
Chinook salmon program would
produce an additional 2,000,000
juvenile Chinook salmon to be released
at Palmer Ponds in the Duwamish-Green
River basin.
Authority
The environmental review of the 10
salmon and steelhead HGMPs in the
Duwamish-Green River basin of
Washington State will be conducted in
accordance with requirements of the
NEPA of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), NEPA Regulations (40 CFR
parts 1500–1508), other appropriate
Federal laws and regulations, and
policies and procedures of NMFS for
compliance with those regulations.
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53033-53048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22812]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XG454
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour
Repair in Washington State
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for authorization to take marine
mammals incidental to the US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair
Project in Washington State. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an
incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine
mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting
comments on a possible one-year renewal that could be issued under
certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will
consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the
issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will
be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than November
19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments
should be sent to [email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities without change. All
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of
[[Page 53034]]
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 incidental
take authorization may be provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
The National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 108-136) removed
the small numbers and specified geographical region limitations
indicated above and amended the definition of harassment as it applies
to a military readiness activity.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality
of the human environment and for which we have not identified any
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On July 26, 2018, NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour
Repair in the State of Washington. The application was deemed adequate
and complete on September 21, 2018. WSDOT's request is for take of
small numbers of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus); Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); gray
whale (Eschrichtius robustus); and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
by Level B harassment only. Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expects serious
injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA
is appropriate. NMFS previously issued an IHA to WSDOT to incidentally
take five species of marine mammal by Level B harassment. The IHA was
issued on October 10, 2017 (82 FR 50628; November 1, 2017) and is valid
from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. However, WSDOT has made minor
changes to the project plan and delayed the work by one year.
Therefore, WSDOT has requested that NOAA Fisheries re-issue the IHA
with the dates changed to accommodate the analyzed work with minor
modifications to the number of piles driven and removed as well as the
number of animals authorized for take. No work was conducted under the
original IHA.
Description of the Proposed Activity
Overview
The proposed IHA would authorize work for the US 101/Chehalis River
Bridge-Scour Repair Project in Washington State between July 15, 2019
and February 15, 2020. Vibratory pile driving will be required to
remove and install timber piles, steel sheets and steel H-piles. Sound
in the water from vibratory driving may result in behavioral
harassment. NMFS previously issued an IHA to WSDOT to incidentally take
five species of marine mammal by Level B harassment on October 18, 2017
(82 FR 50628; November 1, 2017). That IHA is valid from July 1, 2018
through June 30, 2019. However, WSDOT has made minor changes to the
project plan and delayed the work by one year. Therefore, WSDOT has
requested that NMFS re-issue the IHA with the dates changed to
accommodate the analyzed work with minor modifications to the number of
piles driven and removed as well as the number of animals authorized
for take. No work was conducted or is planned to occur under the
original IHA.The purpose of the US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour
Repair Project is to make the bridge foundation stable and protect the
foundation from further scour. Bridge scour is the removal of sediment
such as sand and gravel from around bridge abutments or piles. Scour,
caused by swiftly moving water, can scoop out scour holes, compromising
the integrity of a structure. WSDOT plans to remove debris from the
scour area, fill the scour void under Pier 14 with cement (to protect
the pilings from marine borers), fill the scour hole, and protect the
pier with scour resistant material.
Note that WSDOT has made revisions to the number and types of piles
that would be installed and removed under the proposed 2019 IHA. The
first change is the removal of 44 timber piles (some of which may be
treated with creosote) from the immediate vicinity of the scour repair
project. Additionally, 18 sheet piles will be temporarily installed
adjacent to Pier 14, instead of the 44 sheet piles originally proposed.
Dates and Duration
Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water
work timing restrictions to protect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed
salmonids, planned WSDOT in-water construction is limited each year to
July 15 through February 15. For this project, in-water construction is
planned to take place between July 15, 2019 and September 30, 2019. The
proposed IHA would be effective from July 15, 2019 to February 15,
2020. The estimated maximum time period for pile installation and
removal is 37 hours over 6 days (Table 1).
Specific Geographic Region
The US 101/Chehalis River Bridge is located in the City of
Aberdeen, Grays Harbor County, Washington (Figure 1-1 in the IHA
application). Grays Harbor is an estuarine bay located 45 miles (72 km)
north of the mouth of the Columbia River, on the Southwest Pacific
coast of Washington state. 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 Specific Activity
Vibratory hammers are commonly used in steel pile driving and
removal when appropriate sediments are found at a specific project
site. A pile is
[[Page 53035]]
typically placed into position using a choker and crane, and then
vibrated between 1,200 and 2,400 vibrations per minute. The vibrations
liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile allowing it to penetrate to
the required seating depth, or to be removed.
Forty-four 14-inch diameter timber piles/stubs located immediately
north of Pier 14 will be removed using a vibratory hammer. If
necessary, some deteriorated piles may require cutting below the ground
level to minimize turbidity. If use of a clamshell bucket is required
due to pile breakage, turbidity curtains will be employed.
A steel template will be located adjacent to or attached to Pier
14. The template will likely be constructed using six steel H piles
which will be installed using a vibratory hammer. Using the template as
a guide, 18 sheet piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer into the
substrate to form a temporary interlocked sheet pile wall shoring
system around the scour repair area (Table 1). After the sheet piles
have been installed, the template will be removed.
Table 1--Pile Removal Mitigation and Scour Repair Pile Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration
Number Minutes Total Duration Piles per (11-hour
Method Pile type of piles per pile minutes (hours) day work
days)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Removal............ 14-inch 44 30 1,320 22 22 2
diameter
timber.
Vibratory Driving............ Sheet.......... 18 30 540 9 10 2
Vibratory Driving............ H pile......... 6 30 180 3 6 1
Vibratory Removal............ H pile......... 6 30 180 3 6 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............... ......... ......... 2,220 37 ......... 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the shoring system is in place, cementitious material will be
tremie pumped underwater inside the shoring system to fill the voids
between the riverbed and the pier seal. A tremie is a large metal
hopper and pipe used to distribute freshly mixed concrete over an
underwater site. The foot of the pipe is kept below the concrete level,
while the upper level of the concrete in the pipe is kept above the
water level to prevent the water diluting the concrete. The concrete
falls by gravity and is continuously placed until the shaft is full.
This material will protect the untreated wood pier piling from marine
borers. Following installation of the cementitious sealing material,
the shoring system will be considered a permanent feature of the scour
repair. The sheet piles will be cut off and removed to the level of
final concrete placement. The final steps will be the placement of
scour resistant material, such as rip rap, on and around the pier and
in the scour hole to protect the pier from future erosion. The cutting
of sheet piles and placement of rip rap is not anticipated to result in
take.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the project location and summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources 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 or survey 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. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. 2017 SARs (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and draft U.S. 2018
SARS (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports). All values presented in
Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication.
[[Page 53036]]
Table 2--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA
status; Stock abundance (CV, Annual M/SI
Common name Scientific name Stock Strategic Nmin, most recent PBR \3\
(Y/N) \1\ abundance survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale........................ Eschrichtius robustus Eastern North Pacific N 20,990 (0.05, 20,125, 624................. 132
2011)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise................... Phocoena phocoena.... Northern Oregon/ N 21,487 (0.44, 15,123, 151................. >=3.0
Washington Coast. 2011)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion............... Zalophus U.S.................. N 296,750 (n/a, 153,337, 9,200............... 389
californianus. 2011)
Steller sea lion.................. Eumetopias jubatus... Eastern U.S.......... N 41,638 (n/a, 41,638, 2,498............... 108
2015) \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal....................... Phoca vitulina....... Oregon/Washington N Unk \5\ Undet............... 10.6
Coast.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases a CV is not applicable. For certain stocks
of pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from
knowledge of the species' (or similar species') life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV.
\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\ Best estimate of pup and non-pup counts, which have not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance surveys.
\5\ Harbor seal estimate is based on data that are 8 years old, but this is the best available information for use here.
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 2.
Harbor Seals
Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs and beaches, and feed in
marine, estuarine and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals display
strong fidelity for haul out sites (Pitcher and Calkins 1979; Pitcher
and McAllister 1981). Harbor seals in Grays Harbor are part of the
Oregon/Washington Coast Stock. In Grays Harbor, pups are born from mid-
April through July (WDFW 2012). Of the pinniped species that commonly
occur within the region of activity, harbor seals are the most common
and the only pinniped that breeds and remains in the inland marine
waters of Washington year-round (Calambokidis and Baird 1994). Harbor
seals are non-migratory; their local movements are associated with such
factors as tides, weather, season, food availability and reproduction
(Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981). They are not
known to make extensive pelagic migrations, although some long-distance
movements of tagged animals in Alaska (108 miles) and along the U.S.
west coast (up to 342 miles) have been recorded (Pitcher and McAllister
1981).
In order to estimate abundance, aerial surveys of harbor seals in
Oregon and Washington were conducted by the National Marine Mammal
Laboratory (NMML) and the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW and WDFW) during the 1999 pupping season. Total numbers
of hauled-out seals (including pups) were counted during these surveys.
In 1999, the mean count of harbor seals occurring along the Washington
coast was 10,430 (CV = 0.14) animals. In 1999, the mean count of harbor
seals occurring along the Oregon coast and in the Columbia River was
5,735 (CV = 0.14) animals. Combining these counts results in 16,165 (CV
= 0.10) harbor seals in the Oregon/Washington Coast stock. However,
because the most recent abundance estimate is >8 years old, there is no
current estimate of abundance available for this stock and the current
population trend is unknown.
The nearest documented harbor seal haul out site to the US 101/
Chehalis River Bridge is a low-tide haul out located seven miles to the
west. According to Jeffries, et al. (2000), all haul outs in Grays
Harbor are associated with tidal flats; at high tide it is assumed that
these animals are foraging elsewhere in the estuary.
California Sea Lion
California sea lions are found along the west coast from the
southern tip of Baja California to southeast Alaska. They breed mainly
on offshore islands from Southern California's Channel
[[Page 53037]]
Islands south to Mexico. Non-breeding males often roam north in spring
foraging for food (Everitt et al. 1980). Since the mid-1980s,
increasing numbers of California sea lions have been documented feeding
on fish along the Washington coast and,more recently, in the Columbia
River as far upstream as Bonneville Dam, 145 mi (233 km) from the river
mouth. All age classes of males are seasonally present in Washington
waters (Jeffries, et al. 2000). California sea lions do not avoid areas
with heavy or frequent human activity, but rather may approach certain
areas to investigate. This species typically does not flush from a buoy
or haul out if approached. The nearest documented California sea lion
haul out sites to the U.S. 101 Chehalis River Bridge project site are
at Split Rock, 35 miles north of the entrance to Grays Harbor; and at
the mouth of the Columbia River, 46 miles south of the entrance to
Grays Harbor (Jeffries, et al. 2000). A few California sea lions may
haul out on docks and buoys in the vicinity of the Westport
marina,located 15 miles west of the project site.
Steller Sea Lion
The Steller sea lion is a pinniped and the largest of the eared
seals. Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur east of
144[deg] W (Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the Eastern Distinct
Population Segment (DPS), which was de-listed and removed from the
Endangered Species List on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). This stock
is found in the vicinity of Grays Harbor. Steller sea lions congregate
at rookeries in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia
for pupping and breeding from late May to early June (Gisiner 1985;
NMFS 2016a). Rookeries are usually located on beaches of relatively
remote islands, often in areas exposed to wind and waves, where access
by humans and other mammalian predators is difficult (WDFW 1993).
The nearest documented Steller sea lion haul out sites to the U.S.
101 Chehalis River Bridge project site are at Split Rock, 35 miles
north of the entrance to Grays Harbor; and at the mouth of the Columbia
River, 46 miles south of the entrance to Grays Harbor (Jeffries, et al.
2000). A few Steller sea lions may haul out on buoys in the vicinity of
the Westport marina, located 15 miles west of the project site.
Gray Whale
During summer and fall, most whales in the Eastern North Pacific
population feed in the Chukchi, Beaufort and northwestern Bering Seas.
An exception to this is the relatively small number of whales
(approximately 200) that summer and feed along the Pacific coast
between Kodiak Island, Alaska and northern California (Calambokidis et
al. 2012), referred to as the ``Pacific Coast Feeding Group'' (NMFS
2015a).
Gray whales are known to use Grays Harbor. For example, during a
1996 survey 27 different whales were recorded in the Harbor.
(Calambokidis and Guan 1997). However, between 1998 and 2010, gray
whale numbers peaked in the spring followed by slightly lesser numbers
in the fall in a study area that included Grays Harbor and coastal
waters along the south Washington coast. Note, that much of the in-
water pile driving work for the proposed action is likely to occur
during summer months. (Calambokidis, et al. 2012)
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic
waters. Harbor porpoise are known to occur year-round along the Oregon/
Washington coast. Aerial survey data from coastal Oregon and
Washington, collected during all seasons, suggest that harbor porpoise
distribution varies by depth. Although distinct seasonal changes in
abundance along the west coast have been noted, and attributed to
possible shifts in distribution to deeper offshore waters during late
winter, seasonal movement patterns are not fully understood.
The Northern Oregon/Washington Coast Stock of harbor porpoise may
be found near the project site. This stock occurs in waters from
Lincoln City, Oregon to Cape Flattery Washington. Little information
exists on harbor porpoise movements and stock structure in Grays
Harbor, although it is suspected that in some areas harbor porpoises
migrate (based on seasonal shifts in distribution).
Harbor porpoise primarily frequent coastal waters and occur most
frequently in waters less than 328 ft (100 m) deep (Hobbs and Waite
2010). They may occasionally be found in deeper offshore waters. Hall
(WSDOT 2018) found that the highest numbers were observed at water
depths ranging from 61 to 100 m. Harbor porpoises are most often
observed in small groups of one to eight animals (Baird 2003).
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 (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall
et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges
correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range
not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within
that group):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 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;
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 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
[[Page 53038]]
(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 (2018) 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 survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean
species that may be present, one is classified as a low-frequency
cetacean (i.e., gray whale), and one is classified as a high-frequency
cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise).
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 includes a quantitative analysis of the number
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive
success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
The proposed River Bridge-Scour repair project will utilize in-
water vibratory pile driving and pile removal that 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 threshold shift just
after exposure is the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift
eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-
exposure value), it is a temporary threshold shift (Southall et al.
2007).
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound
for long duration, it is referred to as TS. An animal can experience
temporary threshold shift (TTS) or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS
can last from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete
recovery), can occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal
might only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the
frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for
example, an animal's hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by
only 6 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., 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a, 2010b;
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; 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 SPL at 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1
[mu]Pa, which corresponds to a sound exposure level (SEL) of 164.5 dB
re: 1 [mu]Pa2 s after integrating exposure. Because the airgun noise is
a broadband impulse, one cannot directly determine the equivalent of
rms SPL from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a
conservative conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from
seismic surveys (McCauley et al. 2000) to correct for the difference
between peak-to-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms
SPLs, the rms SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa,
and the received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would
be higher. However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor porpoises is
lower than other cetacean species empirically tested (Finneran and
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.
Masking--In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not
high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark
et al. 2009). 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 activity
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 and Noren
et al. 2009).
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial
scales, can potentially affect the species at
[[Page 53039]]
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).
Acoustic Effects, Airborne--Pinnipeds that occur near the project
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving
that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on
their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are not expected
to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as
defined under the MMPA.
Airborne noise will primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise
levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that
pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may
result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above
water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses
similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For
instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to
exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in
vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move
further from the source. However, these animals would previously have
been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the
behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than
those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment
of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of
potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of
incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is
warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.
Behavioral disturbance--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 proposed
project, only 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) is considered for effects
analysis because only vibratory pile driving and removal will be
employed.
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.
Habitat--The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by pile driving and
removal associated with marine mammal prey species. However, other
potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance
are also possible. Prey species for the various marine mammals include
marine invertebrates and fish species. Short-term effects would occur
to marine invertebrates during removal of existing piles. This effect
is expected to be minor and short-term on the overall population of
marine invertebrates in Grays Harbor. Construction will also have
temporary effects on salmonids and other fish species in the project
area due to disturbance, turbidity, noise, and the potential
resuspension of contaminants. All in-water work will occur during the
designated in-water work window, to minimize effects on juvenile
salmonids.
SPLs from vibratory driving generally do not have the potential to
injure or kill fish in the immediate area. Experiments have shown that
fish can sense both the strength and direction of sound (Hawkins and
Horner 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; however, the response
threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological
condition (Engas et al. 1993). Any disturbance to fish species would be
short-term and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once
the pile driving activity ceases. The proposed construction would have
little, if any, impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in
the area where construction work is proposed.
There are no critical habitats or other biologically important
areas near the proposed project location, although biologically
important feeding and migration areas for gray whales have been
established along the coast beyond the mouth of Grays Harbor. However,
the project site is upriver to the east of the Harbor, so there will be
no impacts to these areas. While harbor seals, California sea lions,
and other marine mammals may be present, the area is not an established
rookery or breeding ground for local populations. Additionally, during
construction activity only a small fraction of the available habitat
would be ensonified.
Short-term turbidity is a water quality effect of most in-water
work, including pile driving. Cetaceans are not expected to be close
enough to the Chehalis River Bridge to experience turbidity, and any
pinnipeds will be transiting the terminal area and could avoid
localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased
turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine mammals.
For these reasons, any adverse effects to marine mammal habitat in
the area from WSDOT's proposed project would be minor.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' 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
[[Page 53040]]
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 vibratory driving. Based on the nature of
the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation
measures (i.e., shutdown, establishment and monitoring of harassment
zones) discussed in detail below in Proposed Mitigation section), Level
A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Generally speaking, 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. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take
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., 2012). 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) sources such as those used here.
WSDOT's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory
driving and removal 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 (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 2018) 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).
WSDOT's proposed activity includes the use non-impulsive (vibratory
driving) sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Onset acoustic thresholds*
(received level)
Hearing group ---------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.... Cell 1............ Cell 2
Lpk,flat: 219 dB.. LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.... Cell 3............ Cell 4
Lpk,flat: 230 dB.. LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans... Cell 5............ Cell 6
Lpk,flat: 202 dB.. LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Cell 7............ Cell 8
(Underwater). Lpk,flat: 218 dB.. LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Cell 9............ Cell 10
(Underwater). Lpk,flat: 232 dB.. LE,OW,24h: 219 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.
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.
[[Page 53041]]
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
Reference sound source levels used by WSDOT vibratory piling
driving and removal activities were derived from several sources. WSDOT
utilized in-water measurements generated by the Greenbusch Group (2018)
from the WDOT Seattle Pier 62 project (83 FR 39709) to establish proxy
sound source levels for vibratory removal of 14-inch timber piles. The
results determined unweighted rms ranging from 140 dB to 169 dB. WSDOT
used the 75th percentile of these values (161 dB rms measured at 10
meters) as a proxy for vibratory removal of 14-inch timber piles at the
Chehalis River Bridge. However, NMFS reviewed the report by the
Greenbusch Group (2018) and determined that the findings were derived
by pooling together all steel pile and timber pile at various distance
measurements data together. The data was not normalized to the standard
10 m distance. NMFS analyzed source measurements at different distances
for all 63 individual timber piles that were removed and normalized the
values to 10 m. The results showed that the median is 152 dB SPLrms.
This value was used as the source level for vibratory removal of 14-
inch timber piles.
The proposed project includes vibratory driving of 18 sheet piles
as well as vibratory driving and removal of six steel H piles. Based on
in-water measurements at the Elliot Bay Seawall Project, vibratory pile
driving of steel sheet piles generated a source level of 165 dB rms
measured at 10 m (Greenbush Group 2015). According to CalTrans (2015),
150 dB rms at 10 m is a typical source level for vibratory driving and
removal of steel H piles.
Level B Harassment Zones
The practical spreading model was used by WSDOT to establish the
Level B harassment zones for all vibratory pile installation and
removal activities. Practical spreading is described in full detail
below.
Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result
in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss
(TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave
propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency,
temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water
depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The
general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * log10 (R1/R2),
Where:
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement.
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which
is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface,
resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of
distance from the source (20 * log[range]). Cylindrical spreading
occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the
water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound
level for each doubling of distance from the source (10 * log[range]).
A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions where
water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the
shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would
lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions.
Utilizing the practical spreading loss model, WSDOT determined the
distance and area where the noise will fall below the behavioral
effects threshold of 120 dB rms. The distances and areas are shown in
Table 4. Note that the ensonified area is based on a GIS analysis of
the area accounting for structures and landmasses which would block
underwater sound transmission.
Table 4--Level B Harassment Ensonified Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
harassment
Pile type zone isopleth Area (km\2\)
(meters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch timber vibratory removal........ 1,359 0.93
Steel sheet vibratory driving........... 10,000 2.04
Steel H-pile vibratory driving and 1,000 0.67
removal................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment Zones
When the 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. 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 stationary sources such as vibratory
driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which,
if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would not incur PTS. User Spreadsheet inputs are shown in
Table 5 and outputs are shown in Table 6. Note that since no Level A
harassment take is proposed, the areas of Level A harassment zones were
not calculated.
[[Page 53042]]
Table 5--Parameters of Pile Driving and Drilling Activity
[User spreadsheet input]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch timber Sheet H-Pile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used................. A.1) Vibratory driving. A.1) Vibratory driving. A.1) Vibratory driving
Source Level (rms SPL)............... 152.................... 165.................... 150
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz).... 2.5.................... 2.5.................... 2.5
Number of piles in 24-h period....... 22..................... 9...................... 6
Duration to drive a single pile 30..................... 30..................... 30
(minutes).
Propagation (xLogR).................. 15..................... 15..................... 15
Distance of source level measurement 10..................... 10..................... 10
(meters).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Level A Harassment Zone Isopleths
[User spreadsheet output]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Isopleth (meters)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source type High-
Low-frequency Mid-frequency frequency Phocid Otariid
cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans pinnipeds pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch timber.................. 8.5 0.8 12.5 5.2 0.4
Sheet pile...................... 34.4 3 50.9 20.9 1.5
H-pile.......................... 2.6 0.2 3.9 1.6 0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
There is little abundance or density data available for marine
mammal species that are likely to occur within Grays Harbor and which
could potentially be found in the Chehalis River near the project site.
In most cases, WSDOT relied on density data from the U.S. Navy Marine
Species Density Database (NMSDD) (U.S. Navy 2015). NMFS concurs that
this, and the exceptions described below, represent the best available
data for use here.
Harbor Seal
While the NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of harbor
seals in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.279 animals per
square kilometer, WSDOT relied on a study which identified 44 harbor
seal haul outs in Grays Harbor and provided very rough estimates of the
number of seals at each site. Twenty-seven haul outs had less than 100
animals; 16 haul outs had 100-500 animals; and two haul outs were
reported to support over 500 animals (Jeffries et al. 2000). These data
likely represent the best estimate of harbor seal numbers in Grays
Harbor. Using median numbers of each haul out estimate range resulted
in an estimated 7,150 harbor seals in Grays Harbor. The area of the
estuary during mean higher high water (243 km\2\) was used to derive a
density estimate of 29.4 harbor seals per square kilometer.
California Sea Lion
Only 10 California sea lion strandings have been documented between
2006 and 2015 (NMFS 2016c), and no haul outs have been identified.
Therefore, it is expected that the density of California sea lions in
Grays Harbor is low. The NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density
of California sea lions in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor as
ranging from 0.020 to 0.033 animals per square kilometer in summer and
fall. The higher estimate is used as a surrogate for Grays Harbor.
Steller Sea Lion
According to the NMFS National Stranding Database, there were four
confirmed Steller sea lion strandings in Grays Harbor between 2006 and
2015 (NMFS 2016c) and no haul outs have been identified in Grays
Harbor. The NMSDD (U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of Steller sea
lions in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.0145 animals per
square kilometer. This estimate is used as a surrogate for Grays
Harbor.
Gray Whale
Between 1998 and 2010, gray whale numbers peaked in spring and fall
in a study area that included waters inside Grays Harbor and coastal
waters along the south Washington coast (Calambokidis, et al. 2012).
However, no density estimates are available for Grays Harbor. The NMSDD
(U.S. Navy 2015) estimates the density of gray whales in nearshore
waters near Grays Harbor as 0.00045 animal per square kilometer in
summer and fall. This density is used for Grays Harbor.
Harbor Porpoise
The NMSDD (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 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 per square kilometer. The higher density estimate for waters
offshore of Grays Harbor (1.67) is used to estimate take.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
No Level A harassment take is likely because of the small injury
zones and relatively low average animal density in the area. Since the
largest Level A harassment distance is only 50.9 m from the source for
high-frequency cetaceans (harbor porpoise), NMFS considers that WSDOT
can effectively monitor such small zones to implement shutdown measures
and avoid Level A harassment takes. Therefore, no Level A harassment
take of marine mammal is proposed or authorized.
[[Page 53043]]
NMFS used an estimated harbor seal density of 29.4 animals/km\2\ in
the US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair Project area to estimate
the following number of Level B harassment exposures that may occur:
14-inch timber pile removal: 29.4. animals/km\2\ * 0.93
km\2\ * 2 days = 54.68
Sheet pile installation: 29.4 animals/km\2\ * 2.04 km\2\ *
2 days= 119.95
H-pile installation and removal: 29.4 animals/km\2\ * 0.67
km\2\ * 2 days = 39.39
Based on the sum of the equations above, NMFS proposes to authorize
214 takes of harbor seals by Level B harassment.
NMFS inserted the California sea lion density of 0.033 animals/
km\2\ into the same equation used above for harbor seals to estimate
Level B harassment exposures. Based on the sum of the equations, an
estimated 0.24 California sea lions would be taken by Level B
harassment. Due to this low value, NMFS conservatively proposes to
authorize the take of two California sea lions each day of in-water
activities, resulting in 12 takes by Level B harassment.
NMFS estimated take of Steller sea lions by inserting a density of
0.0145 animals/km\2\ into the same equation used above for harbor seals
resulting in 0.10 takes of sea lions. Given the low value, NMFS
conservatively proposes to authorize the take of two Steller sea lions
during each day of in-water activities, resulting in 12 takes by Level
B harassment.
NMFS used the same equation that was used for harbor seals to
estimate take for gray whales by inserting a density value of 0.00045
animals/km\2\. Since this resulted in a value less than one, NMFS
proposes to authorize Level B harassment take of two gray whales per
day based on average group size.
A density value of 1.67 animal/km\2\ for harbor porpoises was
plugged into the harbor seal equation to arrive at an estimated 12.1
takes. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to authorize 12 harbor porpoise
takes by Level B harassment.
Table 7 shows total number of authorized Level B harassment takes
and take as a percentage of population for each of the species.
Table 7--Take Estimates as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
authorized
Species take Level B % population
harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal............................. 214 1.9
California sea lion..................... 12 <0.01
Steller sea lion........................ 12 <0.01
Gray whale.............................. 2 <0.01
Harbor porpoise......................... 12 <0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (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
Temporal and Seasonal Restrictions--Timing restrictions would be
used to avoid in-water work when ESA-listed salmonids are most likely
to be present. The combined work window for in-water work for the U.S.
101/Chehalis River Bridge -Scour Project is July 15 through February
15. Furthermore, work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual
monitoring of marine mammals can be effectively conducted.
Establishment of Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities,
WSDOT will establish a shutdown zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone is
generally to define an area within which shutdown of activity would
occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area). In this case, shutdown zones are intended
to contain areas in which sound pressure levels (SPLs) equal or exceed
acoustic injury criteria for authorized species. If a marine mammal is
observed at or within the shutdown zone, work must shut down (stop
work) until the individual has been observed outside of the zone, or
has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for all marine mammals. A
determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a
period of good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown zone and
surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye). If a marine
mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during activities or pre-
activity monitoring, all pile driving and removal activities at that
location must be halted or delayed, respectively. If pile driving or
removal is halted or
[[Page 53044]]
delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not
resume or commence until either the animal has voluntarily left and
been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have
passed without re-detection of the animal. Pile driving and removal
activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or
series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile
driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes. Shutdown zone sizes
are shown in Table 8.
Table 8--Shutdown Zones for Various Pile Driving Activities and Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[Meters]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-
Source type Low-frequency frequency Phocid Otariid
Cetaceans Cetaceans pinnipeds pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch timber removal.......................... 10 15 10 10
Sheet pile installation......................... 35 50 20 10
H-pile installation and removal................. 10 10 10 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For in-water heavy machinery activities other than pile driving, if
a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations must cease and vessels
must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage
and safe working conditions. WSDOT must also implement shutdown
measures if the cumulative total number of individuals observed within
the Level B harassment monitoring zones for any particular species
reaches the number authorized under the IHA and if such marine mammals
are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching
the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone during in-water construction
activities.
Establishment of Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones--WSDOT must
identify and establish Level B harassment zones which are areas where
SPLs equal or exceed 120 dB rms. Observation of monitoring zones
enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine
mammals in the project area and outside the shutdown zone and thus
prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. Monitoring zones are also
used to document instances of Level B harassment. Monitoring zone
isopleths are shown in Table 4.
Pre-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30
minutes or longer occurs, the observer shall observe the shutdown and
monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone shall be
cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for
that 30-minute period. When a marine mammal permitted for Level B
harassment take is present in the Level B harassment zone, piling
activities may begin and Level B harassment take shall be recorded. As
stated above, if the entire Level B harassment zone is not visible at
the start of construction, piling driving activities can begin. If work
ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both
the Level B harassment and shutdown zone shall commence.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed 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
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs)
to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its US 101/Chehalis River
Bridge-Scour 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 53045]]
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.
WSDOT must ensure that observers have the following additional
qualifications:
1. Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols;
2. Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
3. Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
4. Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation
(or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine
mammal behavior; and
5. Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
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 monitoring zones from different pile
types, separate zones and monitoring protocols corresponding to each
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 shutdown and Level B
harassment zones. For vibratory pile driving and pile removal of H
piles and timber piles, a total of three land-based PSOs will monitor
the shutdown and Level B harassment zones.
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 (if issued), whichever comes earlier. This report would detail the
monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and
estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS
would have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if
NMFS has comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a final
report to NMFS within 30 days. Reports shall contain, at minimum, the
following:
Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for
each day conducted (monitoring period);
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile
types, average driving times, etc.
Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea
state, tide state);
For each marine mammal sighting:
[cir] Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
[cir] Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
[cir] Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
[cir] Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the
Level B harassment zone
Description of implementation of mitigation measures
within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay);
Other human activity in the area within each monitoring
period;
A summary of the following:
[cir] Total number of individuals of each species detected within
the Level B harassment zone;
[cir] Total number of individuals of each species detected within
the shutdown zone and the average amount of time that they remained in
that zone; and
[cir] Daily average number of individuals of each species
(differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the Level B
harassment zone.
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).
NMFS has identified key qualitative and quantitative factors which
may be employed to assess the level of analysis necessary to conclude
whether potential impacts associated with a specified activity should
be considered negligible. These include (but are not limited to) the
type and magnitude of taking, the amount and importance of the
available habitat for the species or stock that is affected, the
duration of the anticipated effect to the species or stock, and the
status of the species or stock. When an evaluation of key factors shows
that the anticipated impacts of the specified activity would clearly
result in no greater than a negligieble impact on all affected species
or stocks, additional evaluation is not required. In this case, the
following factors are in place for all affected species or stocks:
No takes by Level A harassment are anticipated or
authorized;
Takes by Level B harassment constitute less than 5% of the
best available abundance estimates for all stocks;
Take would not occur in places and/or times where take
would be more likely to accrue to impacts on reproduction or survival,
such as within ESA-designated or proposed critical habitat,
biologically important areas (BIA), or other habitats critical to
recruitment or survival (e.g., rookery);
Take would occur over a short timeframe (less than 30 days
of active pile driving required during the IHA effective period);
Take would occur over <25% of species/stock range; and
Stock is not known to be declining or suffering from known
contributors to
[[Page 53046]]
decline (e.g., unusual mortality event (UME), oil spill effects).
Based on these factors, and taking into consideration the
implementation of the prescribed monitoring and mitigation measures,
NMFS preliminarily finds that the total take from the proposed activity
will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or
spatial scale of the activities.
NMFS has estimated that take for all species authorized is less
than two percent of their respective stock abundance (Table 7). Based
on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including
the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated
take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the
affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact 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 proposed for
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is
not required for this action.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to WSDOT for conducting US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour
Repair Project between July 15, 2019, and February 15, 2020, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA
itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion
in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Authorization is valid from July 15, 2019, through February
15, 2020.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with
in-water construction work at the US 101/Chehalis River Bridge-Scour
Repair Project in the State of Washington.
3. General Conditions.
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of WSDOT, its
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of
this IHA.
(b) The species and number of authorized Level B harassment takes
are provided in Table 7.
(c) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species
listed in condition 3(b), or any taking of any other species of marine
mammal not listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization is prohibited
and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this
IHA.
(d) WSDOT must conduct briefings between construction supervisors
and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and WSDOT staff prior to the
start of all pile driving, and when new personnel join the work, in
order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
4. Mitigation Measures.
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measures:
(a) In-water construction work must occur only during daylight
hours.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery activities other than pile
driving, if a marine mammal comes within 10 meters (m), operations must
cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to
maintain steerage and safe working conditions.
(c) Pre-activity marine mammal monitoring must take place from 30
minutes prior to initiation of pile driving and removal. Post-activity
marine mammal monitoring must continue through 30 minutes post-
completion of pile driving and removal. Pile driving and removal may
commence at the end of the 30-minute pre-activity monitoring period,
provided observers have determined that the relevant shutdown zone
(Table 8) is clear of marine mammals.
(d) WSDOT must establish and monitor shutdown zone and Level B
harassment zones:
i. Shutdown zone sizes for various pile driving activities and
marine mammal hearing groups are shown in Table 8.
ii. Level B harassment zone sizes are shown in Table 3.
(e) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone
(Table 8) during activities or pre-activity monitoring, all pile
driving activities at that location must be halted or delayed,
respectively. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence
of a marine mammal, the activity may not resume or commence until
either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed
beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection
of the animal. Pile driving activities include the time to install or
remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed
between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty
minutes.
(f) WSDOT must establish monitoring locations and protocols as
described below. Please also refer to the Marine Species Monitoring
Plan (Monitoring Plan; attached).
i. For vibratory pile driving of sheet piles, a total of four land-
based PSOs must monitor the shutdown zone and Level B harassment zone
as depicted in the Monitoring Plan.
ii. For vibratory pile removal of timber piles and vibratory
installation and removal of H piles, a total of three land-based PSOs
must monitor the shutdown and Level B harassment zones.
5. Monitoring.
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine
mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal.
(a) Monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by
NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
i. Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who have no
other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used.
ii. At least one PSO must have prior experience working as a marine
mammal observer during construction activities. Other PSOs may
substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or
training for experience.
iii. Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead
observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer
during construction.
[[Page 53047]]
iv. WSDOT must submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS prior to the
onset of pile driving.
v. WSDOT must ensure that observers have the following additional
qualifications:
a. Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols.
b. Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals, including the identification of behaviors.
c. Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations.
d. Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation
(or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine
mammal behavior.
e. Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
6. Reporting.
The holder of this Authorization is required to submit marine
mammal monitoring and acoustic reports:
(a) WSDOT must submit a draft report on all marine mammal
monitoring conducted under this Authorization within ninety calendar
days following the completion of monitoring. A final report must be
submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the
draft report from NMFS. The marine mammal monitoring report must
contain, at minimum, the informational elements described below:
i. Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for each
day conducted (monitoring period);
ii. Construction activities occurring during each daily observation
period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
iii. Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile types,
average driving times, etc.
iv. Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind speed,
percent cloud cover, visibility);
v. Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea state,
tide state);
vi. For each marine mammal sighting:
a. Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine
mammals;
b. Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile
driving activity;
c. Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
d. Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the Level
B harassment zone;
vii. Description of implementation of mitigation measures within
each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay);
viii. Other human activity in the area within each monitoring
period
ix. A summary of the following:
a. Total number of individuals of each species detected within the
Level B harassment zone.
b. Total number of individuals of each species detected within the
Level A harassment zone and the average amount of time that they
remained in that zone.
c. Daily average number of individuals of each species
(differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the Level B
Zone, and estimated as taken, if appropriate.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
i. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA,
such as serious injury, or mortality, WSDOT must immediately cease the
specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
The report must include the following information:
1. Time and date of the incident;
2. Description of the incident;
3. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
4. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound
source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
5. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
6. Fate of the animal(s); and
7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities must not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with WSDOT to
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WSDOT may not
resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
ii. In the event WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal,
and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death
is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a
moderate state of decomposition), WSDOT must immediately report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast
Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the same
information identified in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work
with WSDOT to determine whether additional mitigation measures or
modifications to the activities are appropriate.
iii. In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), WSDOT must report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Region
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. WSDOT
must provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed
project. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this
proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with
your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help
inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA
without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly
identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section
is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section,
provided all of the following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to expiration of the current IHA;
[[Page 53048]]
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size)
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates,
or mitigation and monitoring requirements; and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized;
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate,
and the original findings remain valid.
Dated: October 15, 2018.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-22812 Filed 10-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P