Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Astoria Waterfront Bridge Replacement Phase 2 Project, 68129-68143 [2019-26859]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
RTF; or PDF. Please include your name,
organization’s name (if any), and cite
‘‘iEdison RFI’’ in the subject line of all
correspondence.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
II. Request for Information
All responses that comply with the
requirements listed in the DATES and
ADDRESSES sections of this RFI will be
considered.
All submissions, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, will become part of the public
record and subject to public disclosure.
NIST reserves the right to publish
comments publicly, unedited and in
their entirety. Sensitive personal
information, such as account numbers
or Social Security numbers, or names of
other individuals, should not be
included. Submissions will not be
edited to remove any identifying or
contact information. Do not submit
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. Comments that contain
profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other
inappropriate language or content will
not be considered.
The following list of topics covers the
major areas about which NIST seeks
information. The listed areas are not
intended to limit the topics that may be
addressed by respondents so long as
they address the iEdison system,
including, but not limited to, specific
challenges and recommended
improvements. Responses may include
any topic believed to have implications
for NIST’s development of a redesigned
iEdison, regardless of whether the topic
is included in this document.
NIST is specifically interested in
receiving input from the extramural
community pertaining to the following
questions:
(1) What, if any, current features of
iEdison does your organization believe
should be retained in any updated
version?
(2) What challenges, if any, is your
organization experiencing in reporting
inventions in the iEdison system?
Where practicable, please provide
specific descriptions and/or screenshots
of user interface screens or error
messages.
(3) What improvements could be
made to the iEdison system that would
reduce your organization’s reporting
burdens, improve its experience, and
facilitate your organization’s ability to
comply with reporting requirements?
[RTID 0648–XR043]
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 202(c); DOO 30–2A.
Kevin A. Kimball,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2019–26860 Filed 12–12–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Astoria
Waterfront Bridge Replacement Phase
2 Project
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental
harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to the
City of Astoria to incidentally harass, by
Level A and Level B harassment, marine
mammals during construction activities
associated with Phase Two of the
Astoria Waterfront Bridge Replacement
project in Astoria, OR.
DATES: This Authorization is effective
from December 9, 2019 through
December 8, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leah Davis, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as a list
of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68129
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 definitions of all applicable
MMPA statutory terms cited above are
included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On June 3, 2019 NMFS received a
request from the City of Astoria (City)
for an IHA to take marine mammals
incidental to pile driving and
construction work in Astoria, Oregon.
The application was deemed adequate
and complete on October 17, 2019. The
City’s request was for take of a small
number of California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus) and harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina richardii) by Level A and Level
B harassment, and a small number of
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) by
Level B harassment only. Neither the
City nor NMFS expects serious injury or
mortality to result from this activity,
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
This IHA covers one year of a larger,
two-year project that involves removal
and replacement of six bridges on the
Astoria, Oregon waterfront. NMFS
previously issued an IHA to the City for
removal and replacement of three
bridges (83 FR 19243, May 2, 2018). The
City complied with all the requirements
(e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting) of the previous IHA and
information regarding their monitoring
results may be found in the Monitoring
and Mitigation Section. The monitoring
report exposed the need for clarification
of monitoring requirements, specifically
those involving Protected Species
Observer (PSO) coverage of Level A and
Level B zones. NMFS clarified those
requirements with the applicant.
Description of the Specified Activity
The City of Astoria, Oregon proposes
to remove and replace three bridges
connecting 6th, 8th, and 10th Streets
with waterfront piers near the mouth of
the Columbia River. The bridges are
currently supported by decayed timber
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
68130
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
piles. Among all three bridges, an
estimated 150 timber piles will be
removed as will other timber structural
elements and concrete footings. The
contractor will install 65 temporary 36inch steel casings to help guide the
installation of 65 permanent 24-inch
steel piles. Pile driving and removal
activities will be conducted using a
vibratory and impact hammer. The
contractor may need to conduct
preboring inside of the temporary
casings using a vibratory hammer and a
14-inch H-pile to prepare the new pile
sites. In the event that preboring is not
effective, the contractor may conduct
down-the-hole drilling inside of the 36inch piles to prepare the site for the
permanent piles. It is unlikely that the
contractor will need to conduct downthe-hole drilling, as it was not necessary
during Phase 1. However, in the event
that down-the-hole drilling is required,
this activity has been analyzed in regard
to both potential impulsive and
continuous characteristics (Reyff and
Heyvaert, 2019) as described in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA (84 FR 59773; November 6, 2019).)
The roadway and railway
superstructures will also be replaced,
and a temporary, above-water work
platform will be created for the
construction. The use of vibratory and
impact hammers for pile driving and
site preparation is expected to produce
underwater sound at levels that may
result in behavioral harassment or
auditory injury of marine mammals.
Human presence and use of general
construction equipment may also lead
to behavioral harassment of sea lions
hauled out along the riverbank below
the bridges.
The impacted area extends outward
from the three bridge sites to a
maximum distance of 21.54 km (13.28
mi). The project will occur over one
year beginning in December 2019, with
in-water activities expected to occur
over an estimated 21 days during the
months of December through April.
Work will occur during daylight hours.
A detailed description of the planned
project is provided in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (84
FR 59773; November 6, 2019). Since
that time, no changes have been made
to the planned construction activities.
Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to that
Federal Register notice for the
description of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue
an IHA to the City was published in the
Federal Register on November 6, 2019
(84 FR 59773). That notice described, in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
detail, the City’s proposed activity, the
marine mammal species that may be
affected by the activity, the anticipated
effects on marine mammals and their
habitat, proposed amount and manner
of take, and proposed mitigation,
monitoring and reporting measures.
During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received a comment letter
from the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission); the Commission’s
recommendations and our responses are
provided here, and the comments have
been posted online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltakeauthorizations-constructionactivities.
Comment 1: The Commission stated
that harbor seal takes were
underestimated given a haulout within
the Level B harassment zone
(Desdemona Sands) that is larger than a
haulout that boarders the Level B
harassment zone which was used to
estimate take. Based on information
NMFS received from the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW), NMFS estimates that up to
6,400 harbor seals may haul out at
Desdemona Sands. As such, the
Commission recommends that NMFS
authorize the taking of 6,400 individual
harbor seals to be taken no more than
21 times each rather than 1,197 harbor
seal takes.
Response: NMFS concurs and is
authorizing Level B harassment take of
up to 6,400 individuals. A portion of
those individuals will likely be taken on
multiple days, but no more than 21
days. For additional information, please
see the Estimated Take section, below.
Comment 2: The Commission
recommends that NMFS obtain more
recent pinniped haul-out count data
from WDFW and ODFW before
processing any additional
authorizations for activities occurring in
the Columbia River.
Response: When NMFS receives
another application for an IHA at a
location on the Columbia River we will
contact these agencies.
Comment 3: The Commission states
that NMFS’ standard 7-decibel (dB)
source level reduction when bubble
curtains are to be used during pile
driving is not appropriate because
bubble curtains that are placed
immediately around the pile do not
achieve consistent reductions in sound
levels because they cannot attenuate
ground-borne sound. The Commission
recommends that NMFS consult with
the relevant experts regarding the
appropriate source level reduction
factor to use to minimize far-field effects
on marine mammals for all relevant
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
incidental take authorizations and, until
the experts have been consulted, refrain
from using a source level reduction
factor when bubble curtains are to be
implemented.
Response: NMFS appreciates the
Commission’s input and directs the
reader to our recent response to a
similar comment, which can be found at
84 FR 64833 (November 25, 2019).
Comment 4: The Commission
recommends that NMFS condition the
final authorization to stipulate that pile
driving and removal can occur during
daylight hours only and include those
conditions consistently in all Federal
Register notices, draft authorizations,
and final authorizations that do not
involve activities occurring during
nighttime.
Response: The Federal Register notice
for the proposed action (84 FR 59773,
November 6, 2019) did not include a
description of the time of day that the
activity would take place. NMFS has
noted below, in the Changes from
Proposed IHA to Final IHA section, that
the applicant has indeed clarified their
intention for pile driving to occur
during daylight hours. NMFS agrees that
the Federal Register notice for a
proposed action should detail whether
an activity will take place during
daylight hours only, or whether an
activity may, or will, take place at night.
NMFS bases its determinations on how
an applicant describes their activities
and expects that an applicant will carry
out a project as it is described in the
associated application and Federal
Register notices. Additionally, NMFS
includes here a requirement that
‘‘should environmental conditions
deteriorate such that marine mammals
within the entire shutdown zone would
not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile
driving and removal must be delayed
until the PSO is confident marine
mammals within the shutdown zone
could be detected.’’ This requirement
implies that a shutdown zone should
either be visible due to daylight, or an
applicant must illuminate the shutdown
zone to allow sufficient visibility.
Therefore, NMFS does not agree that it
is necessary to stipulate that the activity
may only occur during daylight hours.
Comment 5: The Commission
recommends that NMFS (1) update its
various templates for Federal Register
notices and draft authorizations to
reflect all standard measures and (2)
conduct a more thorough review of the
notices, draft authorizations, and final
authorizations to ensure accuracy,
completeness, and consistency.
Response: NMFS thanks the
Commission for its recommendation.
NMFS makes every effort to keep
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
68131
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
templates up-to-date and read notices
thoroughly prior to publication and will
continue this effort to publish the best
possible product for public comment.
Comment 6: The Commission
recommends that NMFS refrain from
issuing renewals for any authorization
and instead use its abbreviated Federal
Register notice process.
Response: NMFS appreciates the
streamlining achieved by the use of
abbreviated Federal Register notices
and intends to continue using them for
proposed IHAs that include minor
changes from previously issued IHAs,
but which do not satisfy the renewal
requirements. However, we believe our
method for issuing renewals meets
statutory requirements and maximizes
efficiency, and we plan to continue
considering requests for renewals.
Comment 7: The Commission
recommends that NMFS stipulate that a
renewal is a one-time opportunity in all
Federal Register notices requesting
comments on the possibility of a
renewal, on its web page detailing the
renewal process, and in all draft and
final authorizations that include a term
and condition for a renewal.
Response: NMFS thanks the
Commission for its recommendation.
Currently, Federal Register notices
announcing proposed IHAs and the
potential for a Renewal state, in the
SUMMARY section, ‘‘NMFS is also
requesting comments on a possible oneyear renewal that could be issued under
certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met.’’ Further, no
notice for any additional Renewal is
included in the Federal Register Notice
for proposed Renewals, so the current
process already ensures that only one
Renewal will be issued.
Comment 8: The Commission
recommends that NMFS ensure that
action proponents have met all renewal
requirements prior to proposing to issue
a renewal in the Federal Register, and
follow the renewal process of informing
all commenters on the original
authorization of the opportunity to
submit additional comments on the
proposed renewal.
Response: NMFS carefully considers
whether applicants meet the criteria for
a renewal upon request. NMFS will
ensure that the Commission is contacted
alongside other persons who
commented on the initial IHA on all
future proposed IHA Renewals, but
notes that the Commission itself has
consistently informally contacted NMFS
regarding proposed IHAs and Renewals
upon the Federal Register notice being
posted for public inspection, the day
prior to formal publication and the
beginning of the public comment
period, or the first day of the formal
comment period without notification of
upcoming proposed IHA from NMFS.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to
Final IHA
The most substantive change, which
is described above and in the Estimated
Take section, is the increase in the take
numbers for harbor seals, though we
note here that these changes do not
affect our negligible impact or small
numbers determinations. The Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA
mistakenly noted that in-water
demolition work would begin in
November 2019. Rather, in-water
demolition work will begin in December
2019. The proposed notice also did not
explicitly state that pile driving will
occur during daylight hours only, which
has been stated above in this notice.
Additionally, there is a chance that
harbor porpoise could be present in the
project area, which was not discussed in
the proposed Federal Register notice.
However, harbor porpoise are not
expected to occur within the Level A or
Level B harassment zones for the
reasons explained in the Description of
Marine Mammals in the Area of
Specified Activities section, below.
Slight modifications were made to the
mitigation measures; please see the
Mitigation Measures section for
additional information. Additionally,
minor changes were made to Tables 3,
5, 6, 7, 13 and 14.
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 (SARs; 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 1 lists all species with expected
potential for occurrence in Astoria 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 (2016).
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. For Steller
sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) the stock
abundance is the best estimate of pup
and non-pup counts, which have not
been corrected to account for animals at
sea during abundance surveys. All
managed stocks in this region are
assessed in NMFS’s U.S. 2018 SARs
(e.g., Caretta et al. 2019). All values
presented in Table 1 are the most recent
available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2018 SARs (Caretta
et al. 2019, Muto et al. 2019).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 1—SPECIES WITH EXPECTED POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE IN ASTORIA
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance (CV,
Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
68132
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
TABLE 1—SPECIES WITH EXPECTED POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE IN ASTORIA—Continued
Common name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Scientific name
Stock
Humpback whale .............
Megaptera novaeangliae ........
Central North Pacific ...............
-, -, Y
Humpback whale .............
Megaptera novaeangliae ........
California/Oregon/Washington
-, -, Y
Harbor porpoise ......................
Phocoena phocoena ...............
Northern OR/WA Coast ..........
-, -, N
Stock abundance (CV,
Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
10,103 (0.300, 7,891,
2006).
2,900 (0.05, 2,784,
2014).
21,487 (0.44, 15,123,
2011).
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
83 ...................
26
16.7 ................
>=40.2
151 .................
≥3.0
14,011 ............
>=321
2498 ...............
108
Undetermined
10.6
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
California sea lion ............
Steller sea lion .................
Family Phocidae (earless
seals):
Pacific harbor seal ...........
Zalophus .................................
californianus ............................
Eumetopias jubatus ................
Phoca vitulina .........................
richardii ...................................
U.S. .........................................
-, -, N
Eastern U.S. ...........................
-, -, N
Oregon/Washington Coast .....
-, -, N
257,606 (N/A, 233,515,
2014).
41,638 (See SAR,
41,638, 2015).
Unknown (Unknown,
Unknown, 1999).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the
ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically
designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock
abundance.
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated
mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
Note—Italicized species are not expected to be taken or proposed for authorization.
All species that could potentially
occur in the proposed survey areas are
included in Table 1. However, the
temporal and spatial occurrence of
humpback whales and harbor porpoises
is such that take is not expected to
occur, and they are not discussed
further beyond the explanation
provided here. Humpback whales
occasionally enter the Columbia River to
feed (Calambokidis, et al., 2017),
however their presence is rare. They
were not observed during Phase 1 of the
City’s project (OBEC Consulting
Engineers. 2019), and are not expected
during Phase 2. Harbor porpoises are
regularly observed in the ocean ward
waters near the mouth of the Columbia
River and are known to occur there
year-round. Porpoise abundance peaks
when anchovy (Engraulis mordax)
abundance in the river and nearshore
are highest, which is usually between
April and August (Litz et al. 2008).
Harbor porpoise take is not expected
because the in-water work is expected to
be complete prior to April (unless the
entire IWWP extension is exercised),
and the ensonified area is contained
within the Columbia River.
Additionally, harbor porpoise were not
observed during Phase 1 of the City’s
project (OBEC Consulting Engineers.
2019)
A detailed description of the of the
species likely to be affected by the
project, including brief introductions to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
the species and relevant stocks as well
as available information regarding
population trends and threats, and
information regarding local occurrence,
were provided in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR
59773; November 6, 2019); since that
time, we are not aware of any changes
in the status of these species and stocks;
therefore, detailed descriptions are not
provided here. Please refer to that
Federal Register notice for these
descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’
website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for
generalized species accounts.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
Underwater noise from impact and
vibratory pile driving and site
preparation, as well as potential downthe-hole drilling activities associated
with Phase Two of the Astoria
Waterfront Bridge Replacement Project
have the potential to result in
harassment of marine mammals in the
vicinity of the action area. The Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (84
FR 59773; November 6, 2019) included
a discussion of the potential effects of
such disturbances on marine mammals
and their habitat, therefore that
information is not repeated in detail
here; please refer to the Federal Register
notice (84 FR 59773; November 6, 2019)
for that information.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes
authorized 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 patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be
by Level B harassment, as use of the
vibratory and impact pile hammers,
potential drill, and other construction
equipment has the potential to result in
disruption of behavioral patterns for
individual marine mammals. There is
also some potential for auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to California sea
lions and harbor seals because they are
more likely to occur closer to the project
site, particularly considering the small,
nearby California sea lion haulout.
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur to
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
68133
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
other groups, and the proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to minimize the severity of
such taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no mortality
or serious injury 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).
Thresholds have also been developed
identifying the received level of in-air
sound above which exposed pinnipeds
would likely be behaviorally harassed.
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) and above 160 dB re 1
mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive
(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. For in-air
sounds, NMFS predicts that harbor seals
exposed above received levels of 90 dB
re 20 mPa (rms) will be behaviorally
harassed, and other pinnipeds will be
harassed when exposed above 100 dB re
20 mPa (rms).
The City’s proposed activity includes
the use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving, preboring and potential downthe-hole drilling) and impulsive (impact
pile driving and potential down-thehole drilling) sources, and therefore the
120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are
applicable for in-water noise.
Level A harassment for non-explosive
sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 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). The City’s proposed
activities include the use of impulsive
(impact hammers, potential down-thehole drilling) and non-impulsive
(vibratory hammers, potential down-thehole drilling) sources.
These thresholds are provided in the
Table 2. 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/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
TABLE 2—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS onset acoustic thresholds*
(received level)
Hearing Group
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ......................................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ......................................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .....................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) ....................................................
(Underwater) ....................................................................
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) ....................................................
(Underwater) ....................................................................
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
* 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.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that will feed into identifying the area
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds, which include source levels
and transmission loss coefficient.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The sound field in the project area is
the existing background noise plus
additional construction noise from the
proposed project. Marine mammals are
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
68134
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
expected to be affected via sound
generated by the primary components of
the project (i.e., impact pile driving,
vibratory pile driving and removal, site
preparation). The maximum
(underwater) area ensonified above the
thresholds for behavioral harassment
referenced above is 21.53km (13.38 mi)
into the river channel during vibratory
installation/removal of the 36-inch
temporary steel casings, though this
distance does not account for tide
levels. There is a chance that pile
installation work could be done during
low tides, where exposed sand bars
could significantly reduce the Level B
ZOI.
The project includes vibratory
removal of timber piles, vibratory and
impact pile installation of steel pipe
piles and site preparation using a
vibratory hammer and H-pile. Source
levels of pile installation/removal
activities and site preparation are based
on reviews of measurements of the same
or similar types and dimensions of piles
available in the literature. Source levels
for each pile size and driving method
are presented in Table 3. Source levels
for vibratory installation and removal of
piles of the same diameter are assumed
to be the same.
The source level for vibratory removal
of timber piles is from in-water
measurements generated by the
Greenbusch Group (2018) from the
Seattle Pier 62 project (83 FR 39709;
April 10, 2018). Hydroacoustic
monitoring results from Pier 62
determined unweighted rms ranging
from 140 dB to 169 dB. NMFS analyzed
source measurements at different
distances for all 63 individual timber
piles that were removed at Pier 62 and
normalized the values to 10 m. The
results showed that the median is 152
dB SPLrms.
TABLE 3—SOUND SOURCE LEVELS FOR IN-WATER ACTIVITIES
Source level (at 10m)
Pile size/type
Method
Literature source
dB RMS
14-inch Timber .....................
14-inch Steel H-pile .............
24-inch Steel Pipe ...............
36-inch Steel Pipe ...............
Vibratory ..............................
Vibratory ..............................
Vibratory ..............................
Impact .................................
Vibratory ..............................
152
a 150
162
b 187
170
dB SELc
dB peak
....................
....................
....................
b 171
....................
....................
....................
....................
b 200
....................
The Greenbusch Group, Inc (2018).
CalTrans (2015).
WSDOT (2010).
Loughlin (2005).
CalTrans (2015).
a Source
level from 12-inch steel H-pile.
7dB reduction from use of bubble curtain.
c Sound exposure level (dB re 1 μPa2-sec).
b Includes
It is anticipated that the contractor
may employ two crews during
construction to keep the project on
schedule. This could result in
concurrent use of a vibratory hammer
and an impact hammer, however, the
contractor will not operate two of the
same hammer type concurrently. The
hammers would be operated at two
different bridges. The ensonified zones
would likely overlap during concurrent
use, but the multiple-source decibel
addition method (Table 4) does not
result in significant increases in the
noise source when an impact hammer
and vibratory hammer are operated at
the same time, because the difference in
noise source levels (Table 3) between
the two hammers is greater than 10dB.
TABLE 4—MULTIPLE-SOURCE DECIBEL
ADDITION
The general formula for underwater TL
is:
TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),
Add the
following
to the higher
level
Where
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from
the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the
initial measurement
When two decibel values
differ by:
0–1 dB ..................................
2–3 dB ..................................
4–9 dB ..................................
> 10 dB .................................
3
2
1
0
dB
dB
dB
dB
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.
Absent site-specific acoustical
monitoring with differing measured
transmission loss, a practical spreading
value of 15 is used as the transmission
loss coefficient in the above formula.
Site-specific transmission loss data for
Astoria are not available, therefore the
default coefficient of 15 is used to
determine the distances to the Level A
and Level B harassment thresholds.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 5—IN-WATER ACTIVITY SOURCE LEVELS AND DISTANCES TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS
Pile size/type
Method
14-inch Timber ..............
14-inch Steel H-pile ......
24-inch Steel Pipe ........
Vibratory .......................
Vibratory .......................
Vibratory .......................
Impact ...........................
Vibratory .......................
36-inch Steel Pipe (and
down-the-hole drilling,
as necessary).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Source level
at 10 m
(dB re 1 μPa rms)
Level B
threshold
(dB re 1 μPa rms)
152
150
162
187
170
120
120
120
160
120
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Propagation
(xLogR)
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
15
15
15
15
15
13DEN1
Distance to
Level B
threshold
(m)
1,359.4
1,000.0
6,309.6
631.0
21,544.4
Level B
harassment
ensonified
area
(km2)
3.2
1.8
55.3
0.8
212.3
68135
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
In-Air Disturbance during General
Construction Activities—Behavioral
disturbance (Level B harassment take)
may occur incidental to the use of
construction equipment during general
construction that is proposed in the dry,
above water, or inland within close
proximity to the river banks. These
construction activities are associated
with the removal and construction of
the rail superstructures, removal of the
existing concrete foundations,
construction of abutment wingwalls,
and the construction of a temporary
work platform. Possible equipment and
sound source levels are included in
Table 1 of the Federal Register notice
for the draft IHA (84 FR 59773;
November 6, 2019). Using the Spherical
Spreading Loss Model (20logR), a
maximum sound source level of 93 dB
RMS at 20 m, sound levels in-air would
attenuate below the 90dB RMS Level B
harassment threshold for harbor seals at
28 m, and below the 100 dB RMS
threshold for all other pinnipeds at 9 m.
Harbor seals are not expected to occur
within 28m of the activity as there are
no nearby haulouts, and are, therefore,
not expected to be harassed by in-air
sound. Additionally, the City is
proposing a 10 m shutdown zone (Table
13) for all construction work to prevent
injury from physical interaction with
equipment. The City would therefore
shut down equipment before hauled out
sea lions could be acoustically harassed
by the sound produced. No Level B
harassment is expected to occur due to
increased sounds from roadway
construction. However, sea lions may be
disturbed by the presence of
construction equipment and increased
human presence during above-water
construction.
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,
which may result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A harassment
take. However, these tools offer the best
way to predict appropriate isopleths
when more sophisticated 3D modeling
methods are not available, and NMFS
continues to develop ways to
quantitatively refine these tools, and
will qualitatively address the output
where appropriate. For stationary
sources such as pile driving, NMFS User
Spreadsheet predicts the distance at
which, if a marine mammal remained at
that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs
entered in the User Spreadsheet (Table
6) and the resulting isopleths are
reported below (Table 7).
TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS
Pile size and
installation
method
14-inch Timber
Vibratory.
14-inch Steel HPile.
24-inch Steel Vibratory.
36-inch Steel Vibratory.
24-inch Steel
Impact (and
down-the-hole
drilling, if necessary).
Weighting
factor
adjustment
(kHz)
Spreadsheet tab used
Source level at 10 m
Number of
piles within
24-h period
Duration to
drive single
pile
(minutes)
Number of
strikes per
pile
Propagation
(xLogR)
Distance
from source
level
measurement
(meters)
(A.1) Vibratory pile driving
2.5
152dB RMS SPL ............
50
20
....................
15
10
(A.1) Vibratory pile driving
2.5
150dB RMS SPL ............
36
25
....................
15
10
(A.1) Vibratory pile driving
2.5
162dB RMS SPL ............
18
20
....................
15
10
(A.1) Vibratory pile driving
2.5
170dB RMS SPL ............
36
8
....................
15
10
(E.1) Impact pile driving ..
2
171dB SEL/200 PK SPL
23
........................
500
15
10
The applicant may conduct down-thehole drilling, however a separate
analysis is not provided for that activity,
as it is was not necessary in Phase 1 of
the project, and is not expected to be
necessary in Phase 2. Should drilling be
necessary, the Level B harassment zone
will be considered to be the same as that
calculated for vibratory installation/
removal of 36-inch steel piles, as that
Level B harassment zone is clipped in
all directions, and therefore is the most
conservative a Level B harassment zone
could be. A conservative Level B
harassment zone is of particular
importance due to the fact that the
duration of drilling, should it be
necessary, is unknown. The applicant
will consider the Level A harassment
zone for down-the-hole drilling to be the
same as the Level A harassment zones
calculated for impact pile driving of the
24-inch steel piles. These are the largest
Level A harassment zones.
TABLE 7—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS
Level A harassment zone
(m)
Pile size and installation method
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Phocids
14-inch
14-inch
24-inch
36-inch
24-inch
Timber Vibratory .........................................................................................................................................
Steel H-Pile .................................................................................................................................................
Steel Vibratory ............................................................................................................................................
Steel Vibratory ............................................................................................................................................
Steel Impact (and down-the-hole drilling, if necessary) .............................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
6.8
4.7
16
47
431.5
Otariids
0.5
0.3
1.1
3.3
31.4
68136
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take
Calculation and Estimation
In this section we provide the
information about the presence, density,
or group dynamics of marine mammals,
and how it is brought together with the
information provided above to produce
a quantitative take estimate. Estimated
takes of each species were calculated
using information provided by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Bryan Wright, pers. comm., August and
November 2019), Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW, 2014) and the Marine Mammal
Commission (Tiff Brookens, pers.
comm., March 2018).
Harbor Seal
As noted in the Comments and
Responses section, above, estimated
Level B harassment take of harbor seal
was modified based on a comment from
the Commission and additional
information from ODFW.
The closest harbor seal haulout and
pupping area is Desdemona Sands,
which is downstream of the AstoriaMegler Bridge. Numbers of harbor seals
hauled out at Desdemona Sands have
been reported to reach into the
thousands (Profita, 2015). While specific
counts were unavailable, ODFW advised
that the highest counts of harbor seals
are in late winter/early spring (over
6,000 at Desdemona Sands in February)
(Bryan Wright, pers. comm., November
2019). However, ODFW also provided a
harbor seal count of 1,918 non-pups at
Desdemona Sands from May 2014 (most
recent ODWF survey), and described
these as year-round residents. We would
expect that the harbor seal counts would
decrease from 6,400 individuals on
either end of the late winter/early spring
period (as low as 1,918 during the
summer). Up to 6,400 individuals could
be taken on in-water workdays during
the late winter/early spring months, but
we do not expect that many takes on
every in-water work day.
Because there is such a high
variability in potential instances of
Level B harassment take, NMFS is not
authorizing a specific number of
instances of Level B harassment take of
harbor seals. Rather, NMFS is
authorizing Level B harassment take of
up to 6,400 individuals. A portion of
those individuals will likely be taken on
multiple days, but none to exceed 21
days. Most individuals will be taken
notably fewer times, as NMFS does not
expect that number of individuals to
haul out at Desdemona Sands for the
majority of the in-water work period.
Additionally, while harbor seals are
unlikely to occur in the Level A
harassment zone during vibratory pile
driving (based on Phase 1 monitoring),
the applicant is concerned that if a few
animals occurred in the Level A
harassment zone during impact pile
driving, they may need to shut down
more frequently than is practical, given
the IWWP restrictions previously
discussed. As such, NMFS is proposing
to observe a shutdown zone that is
smaller than the Level A isopleth for
impact pile driving and to issue small
numbers of Level A harassment take of
harbor seals (Table 11). This proposed
take would avoid potentially excessive
shut downs should a small group of
harbor seals enter the project area on
each day while impact pile driving
activities (or down-the-hole drilling, as
necessary) are underway. The Level A
harassment take calculation for harbor
seals authorizes instances of take, rather
than individuals that will be taken as
done for the Level B harassment take
calculation for harbor seals. Level A
harassment take of harbor seals was
calculated by multiplying a group of
two animals by 14 in-water work days.
Level A takes may only occur during the
subset of in-water work days when the
applicant conducts impact pile driving
(or down-the-hole drilling, as required),
as the shutdown zone contains the
entire Level A harassment zone for all
other in-water work activities.
Steller Sea Lion
Counts of Steller sea lions at the East
Mooring Basin are typically in the single
digits (B. Wright, pers. comm., March
2018), while the average number of
Steller sea lions observed at the South
Jetty during the in-water work period
(including the possible extension) from
2000–2014, was 272 animals (WDFW,
2014). When the applicant consulted
ODFW for more recent Steller sea lion
data, ODFW advised that there were
only three more recent surveys, none of
which occurred during the IWWP
months (Bryan Wright, pers. comm.,
September 2019). The Level B
harassment zones for Phase 2 extend far
beyond the calculated zones for Phase 1,
approaching the South Jetty. Therefore,
NMFS expects that that average daily
count from the South Jetty provides an
appropriate daily count to calculate
potential Steller sea lion Level B
harassment take during Phase 2. Note
the calculation is based on the average
daily count, not the maximum. The
maximum daily count was 606 animals,
in the month of April. Considering that
work will only occur in April if the
entire IWWP extension is exercised, and
the large difference between the
maximum daily count and the average
daily count, NMFS believes that using
the maximum daily count would greatly
overestimate potential take.
For Phase 1 Level B harassment take
calculations of Steller sea lions, daily
estimates were based off of observations
at Bonneville Dam and Willamette Falls,
as these animals must transit past
Astoria at some point in their travels
from the Pacific to the upper Columbia
River (83 FR 19243, May 2, 2018). The
daily count was 67 animals, 63 at
Bonneville Dam and four at Willamette
Falls. However, NMFS believes that
South Jetty estimates are more
appropriate and more conservative for
Phase 2 take calculations, given the
larger Level B harassment zones, some
of which extend downriver close to the
South Jetty.
Level B harassment take was
calculated by multiplying the daily
counts of Steller sea lions by days of inwater activity (Table 8).
Steller sea lions do not haul out near
the construction sites and would only
be potentially harassed if they are
transiting through the Level B
harassment zone during the in-water
work period (including the extension, if
applicable). Steller sea lions are not
expected to occur within the calculated
Level A harassment zone for otariids
(Table 7). No Level A harassment takes
of Steller sea lions are proposed nor
expected to be authorized.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 8—LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE CALCULATION FOR STELLER SEA LION
Species
Maximum
average/daily
count
Days of
in-water
activityb
Total take
(Level B)
Steller sea lion .............................................................................................................................
a 272
21
5,712
a Average number of Steller sea lions observed at the South Jetty during the in-water work period (including the possible extension) from
2000–2014 (WDFW, 2014).
b Includes in-water activity for the entire project.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
68137
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
California Sea Lion
Aerial surveys of the East Mooring
Basin in Astoria from 2011 to 2018
(Bryan Wright, pers. comm., August
2019) were used to calculate in-water
Level B harassment take of California
sea lions, as in Phase 1 of this activity
(83 FR 19243, May 2, 2018). The data
provided to NMFS by ODFW included
the maximum California sea lion count
observed on a single day for each month
throughout the survey period. These
maximum counts at the East Mooring
Basin ranged from 0 California sea lions
on a single day in July 2017 to 3,834 on
a single day in March 2016. A ‘‘daily
average maximum’’ for each IWWP
month (Table 9) was calculated by
averaging the maximum counts on a
single day for each survey month
provided by ODFW. In addition to
ODFW aerial surveys, the City
conducted opportunistic surveys of
pinnipeds at the bridge sites in
December 2017. A maximum of four
California sea lions were observed in the
water surrounding the bridges and piers.
Additional California sea lions were
heard vocalizing from the riverbanks
under the bridges but the exact number
of sea lions could not be determined.
during the above-water work period, not
including the IWWP extension (May to
October). Level B harassment takes of
California sea lions from above-water
activities were calculated by
multiplying the maximum estimate from
the City’s 2017 opportunistic surveys at
Daily
the bridge sites (16 animals) by the
Month
Average
Maximum a estimated 11 days of work per month
during the above-water work period.
November .................................
141
NMFS is proposing to authorize
December .................................
135
25,011
Level B harassment takes of
January .....................................
408
February ...................................
893 California sea lions associated with inMarch ........................................
1191 water and above-water work during the
April ...........................................
982 IWWP. The City expects approximately
21 in-water work days across Phase 2 of
a Daily average maximum was calculated
using data from aerial surveys of the East the project. However, because the exact
Mooring Basin in Astoria from 2011 to 2018 construction schedule is unknown,
(Bryan Wright, pers. comm., 2019).
there are uncertainties in how many of
the estimated work days will occur
California sea lions are the most
commonly observed marine mammal in during each month. Therefore,
estimated Level B harassment take
the area, and are known to haul out on
during the IWWP (Table 10) is
the riverbanks and structures near the
calculated by multiplying the highest
bridges, as described above. California
daily average maximum (Table 9) during
sea lions may be harassed by
the IWWP months (including the
underwater sound resulting from
potential extension) by the estimated 21
vibratory pile removal and impact pile
driving (at the distances listed above) as in-water work days. California sea lions
exposed to in-air sound above Level B
well as airborne sound resulting from
harassment threshold during the IWWP
roadway and railway demolition and
are expected to have already been taken
construction. As such, California sea
by in-water activity, and therefore
lions may be subject to harassment
already be included in the take
throughout the duration of Phase 2 of
calculation.
the project.
NMFS is proposing to authorize 1,056
Total California sea lion Level B
Level B harassment takes of California
harassment takes (Table 10) are
sea lions associated with above-water
calculated as the sum of above-water
construction activities taking place
work period and IWWP takes.
TABLE 9—DAILY AVERAGE MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF CALIFORNIA SEA LIONS
AT EAST MOORING BASIN FOR
IWWP MONTHS, INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL EXTENSION
TABLE 10—LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE CALCULATION OF CALIFORNIA SEA LION.
Daily average
maximum b
Work period
Potential
number of
workdays
Takes per
month
IWWP a .........................................................................................................................................
May ..............................................................................................................................................
June .............................................................................................................................................
July ...............................................................................................................................................
August ..........................................................................................................................................
September ...................................................................................................................................
October ........................................................................................................................................
1191
16
16
16
16
16
16
21
11
11
11
11
11
11
25,011
176
176
176
176
176
176
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
26,067
a IWWP
includes the potential extension, as the month of March has the highest daily average maximum count.
average maximums during above-water work months are estimates from the City’s opportunistic surveys at the Phase 1 bridge sites in
December 2017.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
b Daily
Only 4,204 Level B harassment takes
of California sea lion were reported for
Phase 1; however, the Phase 2 project
area is much larger than the area within
which marine mammals were reported
in Phase 1. Therefore, NMFS expects
California sea lion take to be higher for
Phase 2 than was reported in the
monitoring report for Phase 1.
As discussed above, the City estimates
that approximately 16 California sea
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
lions haul out near the project sites
based on opportunistic surveys
conducted in December 2017. Frequent
construction shutdowns are of concern
to the applicant, as there is a limited
IWWP imposed by the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife and,
therefore, the proposed mitigation zone
does not entirely contain the area within
the Level A harassment isopleth for
impact pile driving. The applicant has
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requested Level A harassment takes of
California sea lions, as the animals that
haulout nearby may enter the Level A
harassment zone as they transit between
the haulouts and their feeding areas in
the Columbia River.
NMFS is proposing to issue 224 Level
A harassment takes of California sea
lions (Table 11). The Level A
harassment takes are calculated by
multiplying the 16 animals that haulout
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
68138
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
near the project site (City of Astoria
December 2017 surveys) by 14 in-water
work days. Level A takes may only
occur during the subset of in-water work
days when the applicant conducts
impact pile driving (or down-the-hole
drilling, as required), as the shutdown
zone contains the entire Level A
harassment zone for all other in-water
work activities.
TABLE 11—LEVEL A HARASSMENT TAKE CALCULATION OF HARBOR SEAL AND CALIFORNIA SEA LION
Species
Harbor seal ..................................................................................................................................
California sea lion ........................................................................................................................
a December
Estimated
number of
in-water work
days
Daily count
2
14
14
a 16
Level A
harassment
take
28
224
2017 survey estimates of California sea lions by the City at Phase 1 bridge sites.
TABLE 12—TOTAL LEVEL A AND LEVEL B TAKE PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION
Level A
harassment
take
Common name
Stock
Harbor seal .........................
Steller sea lion ....................
California sea lion ...............
Oregon/Washington Coast
Eastern U.S. .......................
U.S. ....................................
Level B
harassment
take
28
0
224
6,400
5,712
26,067
Total take
6,428
5,712
26,291
Stock
abundance
a 24,732
41,638
257,606
Percent of
stock
26.0
13.7
10.2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
a As noted in Table 3, there is no current estimate of abundance available for the Oregon/Washington Coast stock of harbor seal. The abundance estimate from 1999, included here, is the most recent.
Mitigation Measures
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
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.
In addition to the measures described
later in this section, the City will
employ the following standard
mitigation measures:
• The City shall conduct briefings
between construction supervisors and
crews, marine mammal monitoring
team, and City staff prior to the start of
all construction work, and when new
personnel join the work, in order to
explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures;
• For those marine mammals for
which Level B harassment take has not
been requested, in-water pile
installation/removal and drilling will
shut down immediately if such species
are observed within or on a path
towards the monitoring zone (i.e., Level
B harassment zone); and
• If observed take reaches the
authorized limit for an authorized
species, pile installation will be stopped
as these species approach the Level B
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
harassment zone to avoid additional
take.
The following measures would apply
to the City’s mitigation requirements:
Establishment of Shutdown Zones—
For all pile driving/removal and drilling
activities, the City will establish
appropriate shutdown zones. 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). These shutdown zones
would be used to prevent incidental
Level A exposures from pile driving and
removal for Steller sea lions, and to
reduce the potential for such take of
harbor seals and California sea lions.
During all pile driving and removal
activities, as well as above-water
construction, a minimum shutdown
zone of 10m would be enforced (Table
13) for all species to prevent physical
injury from interaction with
construction equipment. Additionally, a
shutdown zone of 32m will be enforced
for Steller sea lions during impact pile
driving to reduce the likelihood of Level
A harassment take (Table 13). The
placement of Protected Species
Observers (PSOs) during all pile driving
and drilling activities (described in
detail in the Monitoring and Reporting
Section) will ensure shutdown zones are
visible when they are on site. When
PSOs are not on site, the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT)
inspector will be responsible for
ensuring that activities shut down if a
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
68139
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
marine mammal enters the shutdown
zone.
TABLE 13—SHUTDOWN ZONES
Shutdown Zone
(m)
Construction Activity
Harbor seal
All Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal and Site Preparation ............................................................
24-inch Steel Impact Pile Driving (and down-the-hole drilling, as necessary) ...........................
Above-water Construction ...........................................................................................................
Establishment of Monitoring Zones for
Level B Harassment—The City would
establish monitoring zones to correlate
with Level B harassment zones or zones
of influence. These are areas where
SPLs are equal to or exceed the 160 dB
rms threshold for impact driving and
the 120 dB rms threshold during
vibratory driving and site preparation.
For airborne noise, these thresholds are
90 dB RMS re 20mPa for harbor seals
and 100 db RMS re: 20mPa for all other
pinnipeds. Monitoring zones provide
utility for observing by establishing
monitoring protocols for areas adjacent
to the shutdown zones. Monitoring
zones enable observers to be aware of
and communicate the presence of
marine mammals in the project area
outside the shutdown zone and thus
prepare for a potential cease of activity
should the animal enter the shutdown
zone. The proposed monitoring zones
are described in Table 14. Placement of
PSOs on the shorelines around the
Columbia River allow PSOs to observe
marine mammals within the project site,
however, due to the size of the Level B
harassment zone during some activities,
not all Level B harassment takes will be
visible to PSOs. Level B harassment
exposures will be recorded and
extrapolated based upon the number of
observed takes, the percentage of the
Level B zone that was not visible to
PSOs, and the number of construction
days when PSOs were not onsite.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 14—MARINE MAMMAL
MONITORING ZONES
Construction activity
Monitoring zone
(m)
Above-water Construction.
14-inch Timber Vibratory.
14-inch Steel H-Pile ..
24-inch Steel Vibratory.
36-inch Steel Vibratory (and down-thehole drilling, as
necessary).
28 (harbor seal only).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
1,360.
1,000.
6,310.
21,545.
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
TABLE 14—MARINE MAMMAL
MONITORING ZONES—Continued
Construction activity
24-inch Steel Impact
Monitoring zone
(m)
635.
Soft Start—The use of soft-start
procedures are believed to provide
additional protection to marine
mammals by providing warning and/or
giving marine mammals a chance to
leave the area prior to the hammer
operating at full capacity. For impact
driving, an initial set of three strikes
would be made by the hammer at 40
percent energy, followed by a 1-minute
wait period, then two subsequent 3strike sets at 40 percent energy, with 1minute waiting periods, before initiating
continuous driving. Soft start would be
implemented at the start of each day’s
impact pile driving and at any time
following cessation of impact pile
driving for a period of thirty minutes or
longer. Soft start is not required during
vibratory pile driving and removal
activities.
Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the
start of daily in-water construction
activity, or whenever a break in pile
driving/removal or site preparation of
30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will
observe the shutdown and monitoring
zones for a period of 30 minutes. The
shutdown zone will be cleared when a
marine mammal has not been observed
within the zone for that 30-minute
period. If a marine mammal is observed
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start
cannot proceed until the animal has
been confirmed to have left the zone or
has not been observed for 15 minutes.
If the Level B harassment zone has been
observed for 30 minutes and nonpermitted species are not observed
within the zone, soft start procedures
can commence and work can continue
even if visibility becomes impaired
within the Level B monitoring zone.
When a marine mammal permitted for
Level B harassment take is present in
the Level B harassment zone, activities
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50
10
Steller sea lion
California sea
lion
10
32
10
10
........................
........................
may begin and Level B take will be
recorded. As stated above, if the entire
Level B zone is not visible at the start
of construction, piling or drilling
activities can begin. If work ceases for
more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity
monitoring of both the Level B and
shutdown zone will commence.
Pile driving energy attenuator—Use of
a marine pile-driving energy attenuator
(i.e., air bubble curtain system) will be
implemented by the City during impact
pile driving of all steel pipe piles. The
use of sound attenuation will reduce
SPLs and the size of the zones of
influence for Level A harassment and
Level B harassment. The City’s FAHP
permit describes the performance
standards for the bubble curtain system.
Poor Visibility—Should
environmental conditions deteriorate
such that marine mammals within the
entire shutdown zone would not be
visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile
driving and removal must be delayed
until the PSO is confident marine
mammals within the shutdown zone
could be detected.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, as well
as other measures considered by NMFS,
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
68140
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density);
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas);
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat);
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Marine Mammal Visual Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted by
NMFS-approved observers. Trained
observers shall be placed at the best
vantage point(s) practicable to monitor
for marine mammals, and will
implement shutdown or delay
procedures when applicable through
communication with the equipment
operator. Observer training must be
provided prior to project start, and shall
include instruction on species
identification (sufficient to distinguish
the species in the project area),
description and categorization of
observed behaviors and interpretation of
behaviors that may be construed as
being reactions to the specified activity,
proper completion of data forms, and
other basic components of biological
monitoring, including tracking of
observed animals or groups of animals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
such that repeat sound exposures may
be attributed to individuals (to the
extent possible).
Monitoring would be conducted 30
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after pile driving/removal and drilling
activities. In addition, observers shall
record all incidents of marine mammal
occurrence, regardless of distance from
activity, and shall document any
behavioral reactions in concert with
distance from piles being driven or
removed. Pile driving/removal and
drilling 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 30 minutes.
Three PSOs will be on-site the first
day and every third day thereafter
during vibratory hammer installation/
removal and site preparation at each
bridge. One observer will be stationed at
the best practicable land-based vantage
point to observe the Shutdown Zone
and a portion of the Level A and Level
B harassment zones. One observer will
be stationed along the north bank of the
river at the Washington State
Department of Transportation Rest Area:
Dismal Nitch. One observer will be
stationed at the best practicable landbased vantage point to observe the
remainder of the Level A and Level B
harassment zones. Likely locations
include the 6th Street viewing platform
and the Pier 12 parking lot. If vibratory
installation of the 36-inch casings
occurs, this observer will be positioned
along the north bank of the river
downstream of the project site within
the Chinook County Park. The ODOT
on-site inspector will be trained in
species identification and monitoring
protocol and will be on-site during all
vibratory removal and installation
activities to confirm that no species
enter the Shutdown Zones when PSOs
are not onsite.
Two PSOs will be on-site the first day
of impact pile driving at each bridge,
and every third day thereafter. One
observer will be stationed at the best
practicable land-based vantage point to
observe the Shutdown Zone and a
portion of the Level A and Level B
harassment zones. One observer will be
stationed at the best practicable landbased vantage point to observe the
remainder of the Level A and Level B
harassment zones. Likely locations
include the 6th Street viewing platform,
the Pier 12 parking lot, or the
Washington State Department of
Transportation Rest Area: Dismal Nitch
on the north bank of the river. The
ODOT on-site inspector will be trained
in species identification and monitoring
protocol and will be on-site during all
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impact pile driving activities to confirm
that no species enter the respective
Shutdown Zones when PSOs are not
onsite.
PSOs would scan the waters using
binoculars, and/or spotting scopes, and
would use a handheld GPS or rangefinder device to verify the distance to
each sighting from the project site. All
PSOs would be trained in marine
mammal identification and behaviors
and are required to have no other
project-related tasks while conducting
monitoring. In addition, monitoring will
be conducted by qualified observers,
who will be placed at the best vantage
point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement
shutdown/delay procedures when
applicable by calling for the shutdown
to the hammer operator. The City would
adhere to the following observer
qualifications:
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not
construction personnel) are required.
(ii) At least one observer must have
prior experience working as an observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute
education (degree in biological science
or related field) or training for
experience.
(iv) The City must submit observer
CVs for approval by NMFS.
Additional standard observer
qualifications include:
• Ability to conduct field
observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols Experience or
training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the
identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
report of observations including but not
limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid
potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals
observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior;
and
• 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.
A draft marine mammal monitoring
report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of
site preparation and pile driving and
removal activities. It will include an
overall description of work completed,
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
68141
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
a narrative regarding marine mammal
sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report must
include:
• Date and time that monitored
activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring
during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (e.g., percent
cover, visibility);
• Water conditions (e.g., sea state,
tide state);
• Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel
and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities
to marine mammals and distance from
the marine mammals to the observation
point;
• Locations of all marine mammal
observations;
• Other human activity in the area;
and
• An extrapolation of the estimated
takes by Level B harassment based on
the number of observed exposures
within the Level B harassment zone, the
percentage of the Level B harassment
zone that was not visible, and the days
when monitoring did not occur.
If no comments are received from
NMFS within 30 days, the draft final
report will constitute the final report. If
comments are received, a final report
addressing NMFS comments must be
submitted within 30 days after receipt of
comments.
In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such
as an injury, serious injury or mortality,
above. Activities would be able to
continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS
would work with the City to determine
whether modifications to the activities
are appropriate.
In the event that the City discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal and the
lead PSO determines that the injury or
death is not associated with or related
to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal,
carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage),
the City would report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, and the NMFS West Coast
Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the
West Coast Regional Stranding
Coordinator, within 24 hours of the
discovery. The City would provide
photographs, video footage (if available),
or other documentation of the stranded
animal sighting to NMFS and the
Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
the City would immediately cease the
specified activities and report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
West Coast Regional Stranding
Coordinator. The report would include
the following information:
• Description of the incident;
• Environmental conditions (e.g.,
Beaufort sea state, visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
• Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS would work with the City to
determine what is necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. The City would not be able
to resume their activities until notified
by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the City discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead PSO determines that the cause
of the injury or death is unknown and
the death is relatively recent (e.g., in
less than a moderate state of
decomposition as described in the next
paragraph), the City would immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the NMFS West Coast Stranding
Hotline and/or by email to the West
Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator.
The report would include the same
information identified in the paragraph
Phase 1 Monitoring Report
The City’s monitoring report from
Phase 1 of the project (OBEC, 2019) was
frequently consulted in the NMFS
evaluation of the City’s proposed
activities and requested take for Phase 2
of the project. The Phase 1 monitoring
report indicated recorded take of
California sea lions and harbor seals
(Table 18). Steller sea lions were not
observed during Phase 1 (Table 15),
however, due to their known presence
in the area, Level B harassment take was
still requested for Phase 2 activities.
Additionally, as mentioned above, the
calculated Level B harassment zones
were significantly smaller for Phase 1
than for Phase 2.
TABLE 15—PHASE 1 MONITORING RESULTS
Number of
takes recorded
by PSOs
Species
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
California sea lion .............................
Steller sea lion ..................................
Pacific harbor seal ............................
604
0
53
Level A take was not requested nor
authorized for Phase 1 activities, so the
City used the calculated Level A
isopleth as the shutdown zone to
prevent Level A take. Shutdowns
occurred on three days during Phase 1
activities. In all instances, shutdowns
occurred when one or more California
sea lion entered the shutdown zone. The
Phase 1 and Phase 2 monitoring reports
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
Estimated takes on days PSOs not
present
3600 (240 × 15 days) .......................
0 .......................................................
270 (18 × 15 days) ...........................
will provide useful information for
analyzing impacts to marine mammals
for potential future projects in the lower
Columbia River.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
PO 00000
Total
estimated
Level B
harassment
takes
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4204
0
323
Authorized
Level B
harassment
take
number
33,736
5,360
4,560
Percent of
authorized
takes that
occurred
12.5
0
7.1
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
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
68142
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
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).
Pile driving/removal and drilling
activities associated with the project as
outlined previously, have the potential
to disturb or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
from underwater sounds generated from
pile driving and removal. Potential takes
could occur if individuals of these
species are present in zones ensonified
above the thresholds for Level A or
Level B harassment, identified above,
when these activities are underway.
The takes from Level A and Level B
harassment would be due to potential
behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS.
No mortality is anticipated given the
nature of the activity. Level A
harassment is only anticipated for
California sea lion and harbor seal. The
potential for Level A harassment is
minimized through the construction
method and the implementation of the
planned mitigation measures (see
Proposed Mitigation section).
Effects on individuals that are taken
by Level B harassment, on the basis of
reports in the literature as well as
monitoring from other similar activities,
including Phase 1 of the City’s project,
will likely be limited to reactions such
as increased swimming speeds,
increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring)
(e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006; HDR, Inc.
2012; Lerma 2014; ABR 2016; OBEC,
2019). Most likely for pile driving,
individuals will simply move away
from the sound source and be
temporarily displaced from the areas of
pile driving and drilling, although even
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
this reaction has been observed
primarily only in association with
impact pile driving. Though some
individual pinnipeds (especially harbor
seals) could be expected to be taken
over multiple days, the effects of the
exposure are expected to be relatively
minor, would not occur to any one
individual across more than 21 days at
the most, and therefore are not expected
to result in impacts on reproduction or
survival. The pile driving activities
analyzed here are similar to Phase 1
activities and numerous other
construction activities conducted in the
Pacific Northwest, which have taken
place with no known long-term adverse
consequences from behavioral
harassment. Level B harassment will be
reduced to the level of least practicable
adverse impact through use of
mitigation measures described herein
and, if sound produced by project
activities is sufficiently disturbing,
animals are likely to simply avoid the
area while the activity is occurring.
While vibratory driving (and potential
drilling) associated with the proposed
project may produce sound at distances
of many kilometers from the project site,
the project site itself is located on a busy
waterfront and in a section of the
Columbia River with high amounts of
vessel traffic. Therefore, we expect that
animals disturbed by project sound
would simply avoid the area and use
more-preferred habitats.
In addition to the expected effects
resulting from authorized Level B
harassment, we anticipate that
California sea lions and harbor seals
may sustain some limited Level A
harassment in the form of auditory
injury. However, animals in these
locations that experience PTS would
likely only receive slight PTS, i.e. minor
degradation of hearing capabilities
within regions of hearing that align most
completely with the frequency range of
the energy produced by pile driving, i.e.
the low-frequency region below 2 kHz,
not severe hearing impairment or
impairment in the regions of greatest
hearing sensitivity. If hearing
impairment occurs, it is most likely that
the affected animal would lose a few
decibels in its hearing sensitivity, which
in most cases is not likely to
meaningfully affect its ability to forage
and communicate with conspecifics. As
described above, we expect that marine
mammals would be likely to move away
from a sound source that represents an
aversive stimulus, especially at levels
that would be expected to result in PTS,
given sufficient notice through use of
soft start.
The project also is not expected to
have significant adverse effects on
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
affected marine mammals’ habitat. The
project activities would not modify
existing marine mammal habitat for a
significant amount of time. The
activities may cause some fish to leave
the area of disturbance, thus temporarily
impacting marine mammals’ foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the
foraging range; but, because of the short
duration of the activities and the
relatively small area of the habitat that
may be affected, the impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative
consequences. Other than feeding and
the haulout areas previously described,
the project area does not include any
areas or times of particular biological
significance for the affected species.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our preliminary determination that the
impacts resulting from this activity are
not expected to adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or serious injury is
anticipated or authorized;
• No serious injury is anticipated or
authorized;
• The Level A harassment exposures
are anticipated to result only in slight
PTS, within the lower frequencies
associated with pile driving;
• The anticipated incidents of Level B
harassment would consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior
that would not result in fitness impacts
to individuals;
• The area impacted by the specified
activity is very small relative to the
overall habitat ranges of all species;
• The activity is expected to occur
over 21 or fewer in-water work days.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal 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
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2019 / Notices
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.
Up to 26.0 percent of the individuals
in the harbor seal stock may be taken.
When the number of takes of Steller sea
lion and California sea lion are
compared to the stock abundance, they
represent 13.7 and 10.2 percent,
respectively—however, the number of
takes requested is based on the number
of estimated exposures, not necessarily
the number of individuals exposed,
which could be fewer given that
pinnipeds may remain in the general
area of the project sites and the same
individuals may be harassed multiple
times over multiple days, rather than
numerous individuals harassed once.
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this
case with the NMFS West Coast Region
Protected Resources Division Office,
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed
marine mammals is authorized or
expected to result from issuance of this
IHA. Therefore, NMFS has determined
that formal consultation under Section 7
of the ESA is not required for this
action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Dec 12, 2019
Jkt 250001
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to the City
of Astoria for the incidental take of
marine mammal due to in-water and
above-water construction work
associated with Phase Two of the
Astoria Waterfront Bridge Replacement
project in in Astoria, OR from December
9, 2019 to December 8, 2020, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: December 9, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–26859 Filed 12–12–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Antarctic Marine
Living Resources Conservation and
Management Measures
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: To ensure consideration, written
or on-line comments must be submitted
on or before February 11, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Adrienne Thomas, PRA Officer,
NOAA, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 159,
Asheville, NC 28801 (or via the internet
at PRAcomments@doc.gov). All
comments received are part of the
public record. Comments will generally
be posted without change. All
Personally Identifiable Information (for
example, name and 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:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to MiAe Kim, Office of
International Affairs and Seafood
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68143
Inspection, 1315 East-West Hwy, Silver
Spring, MD 20910; (301) 427–8365,
mi.ae.kim@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
This is a request for revision of an
existing information collection.
The 1982 Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources established the Commission
for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources (CCAMLR) for the
purpose of protecting and conserving
the marine living resources in the
waters surrounding Antarctica. The
Convention is based upon an ecosystem
approach to the conservation of marine
living resources and incorporates
standards designed to ensure the
conservation of individual populations
and species and the Antarctic marine
ecosystem as a whole.
The United States (U.S.) is a
contracting party to the Convention and
a member of CCAMLR and the Scientific
Committee established by the
Convention.
On November 8, 1984, the President
signed Public Law 98–623, the Antarctic
Marine Living Resources Convention
Act (the Act). The Act directs and
authorizes the United States to take
actions necessary to meet its treaty
obligations as a contracting party to the
Convention. The regulations
implementing the Act are at 50 CFR part
300, subpart G. The record keeping and
reporting requirements at 50 CFR part
300 form the basis for this collection of
information. The reporting requirements
included in this collection concern
CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring
Program (CEMP) activities, scientific
research in the CAMLR Convention
Area, U.S. vessel permit applicants and/
or harvesting vessel operators, and U.S.
importers, exporters, and re-exporters of
AMLR.
U.S. regulations require U.S.
individuals engaged in AMLR
harvesting, transshipping, and
importing or entering and/or conducting
activities in a CEMP site to apply for
and hold a permit for such activities.
Individuals involved in certain
scientific research in the CAMLR
Convention Area are required to report
information.
Members of the Commission are
required to provide, in the manner and
at such intervals as may be prescribed,
information about harvesting activities,
including fishing areas and vessels, so
as to enable reliable catch and effort
statistics to be compiled.
As part of U.S. obligations to monitor
and control the import, export, and reexport of Antarctic marine living
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68129-68143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26859]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XR043]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Astoria Waterfront Bridge
Replacement Phase 2 Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the City of Astoria to incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B
harassment, marine mammals during construction activities associated
with Phase Two of the Astoria Waterfront Bridge Replacement project in
Astoria, OR.
DATES: This Authorization is effective from December 9, 2019 through
December 8, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Davis, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, 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 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 definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above
are included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On June 3, 2019 NMFS received a request from the City of Astoria
(City) for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and
construction work in Astoria, Oregon. The application was deemed
adequate and complete on October 17, 2019. The City's request was for
take of a small number of California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)
and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) by Level A and Level B
harassment, and a small number of Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)
by Level B harassment only. Neither the City nor NMFS expects serious
injury or mortality to result from this activity, and, therefore, an
IHA is appropriate.
This IHA covers one year of a larger, two-year project that
involves removal and replacement of six bridges on the Astoria, Oregon
waterfront. NMFS previously issued an IHA to the City for removal and
replacement of three bridges (83 FR 19243, May 2, 2018). The City
complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their
monitoring results may be found in the Monitoring and Mitigation
Section. The monitoring report exposed the need for clarification of
monitoring requirements, specifically those involving Protected Species
Observer (PSO) coverage of Level A and Level B zones. NMFS clarified
those requirements with the applicant.
Description of the Specified Activity
The City of Astoria, Oregon proposes to remove and replace three
bridges connecting 6th, 8th, and 10th Streets with waterfront piers
near the mouth of the Columbia River. The bridges are currently
supported by decayed timber
[[Page 68130]]
piles. Among all three bridges, an estimated 150 timber piles will be
removed as will other timber structural elements and concrete footings.
The contractor will install 65 temporary 36-inch steel casings to help
guide the installation of 65 permanent 24-inch steel piles. Pile
driving and removal activities will be conducted using a vibratory and
impact hammer. The contractor may need to conduct preboring inside of
the temporary casings using a vibratory hammer and a 14-inch H-pile to
prepare the new pile sites. In the event that preboring is not
effective, the contractor may conduct down-the-hole drilling inside of
the 36-inch piles to prepare the site for the permanent piles. It is
unlikely that the contractor will need to conduct down-the-hole
drilling, as it was not necessary during Phase 1. However, in the event
that down-the-hole drilling is required, this activity has been
analyzed in regard to both potential impulsive and continuous
characteristics (Reyff and Heyvaert, 2019) as described in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 59773; November 6, 2019).)
The roadway and railway superstructures will also be replaced, and a
temporary, above-water work platform will be created for the
construction. The use of vibratory and impact hammers for pile driving
and site preparation is expected to produce underwater sound at levels
that may result in behavioral harassment or auditory injury of marine
mammals. Human presence and use of general construction equipment may
also lead to behavioral harassment of sea lions hauled out along the
riverbank below the bridges.
The impacted area extends outward from the three bridge sites to a
maximum distance of 21.54 km (13.28 mi). The project will occur over
one year beginning in December 2019, with in-water activities expected
to occur over an estimated 21 days during the months of December
through April. Work will occur during daylight hours.
A detailed description of the planned project is provided in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 59773; November 6,
2019). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned
construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the
description of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to the City was
published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2019 (84 FR 59773).
That notice described, in detail, the City's proposed activity, the
marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, the
anticipated effects on marine mammals and their habitat, proposed
amount and manner of take, and proposed mitigation, monitoring and
reporting measures. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS
received a comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission); the Commission's recommendations and our responses are
provided here, and the comments have been posted online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-takeauthorizations-construction-activities.
Comment 1: The Commission stated that harbor seal takes were
underestimated given a haulout within the Level B harassment zone
(Desdemona Sands) that is larger than a haulout that boarders the Level
B harassment zone which was used to estimate take. Based on information
NMFS received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW),
NMFS estimates that up to 6,400 harbor seals may haul out at Desdemona
Sands. As such, the Commission recommends that NMFS authorize the
taking of 6,400 individual harbor seals to be taken no more than 21
times each rather than 1,197 harbor seal takes.
Response: NMFS concurs and is authorizing Level B harassment take
of up to 6,400 individuals. A portion of those individuals will likely
be taken on multiple days, but no more than 21 days. For additional
information, please see the Estimated Take section, below.
Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS obtain more recent
pinniped haul-out count data from WDFW and ODFW before processing any
additional authorizations for activities occurring in the Columbia
River.
Response: When NMFS receives another application for an IHA at a
location on the Columbia River we will contact these agencies.
Comment 3: The Commission states that NMFS' standard 7-decibel (dB)
source level reduction when bubble curtains are to be used during pile
driving is not appropriate because bubble curtains that are placed
immediately around the pile do not achieve consistent reductions in
sound levels because they cannot attenuate ground-borne sound. The
Commission recommends that NMFS consult with the relevant experts
regarding the appropriate source level reduction factor to use to
minimize far-field effects on marine mammals for all relevant
incidental take authorizations and, until the experts have been
consulted, refrain from using a source level reduction factor when
bubble curtains are to be implemented.
Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's input and directs the
reader to our recent response to a similar comment, which can be found
at 84 FR 64833 (November 25, 2019).
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS condition the final
authorization to stipulate that pile driving and removal can occur
during daylight hours only and include those conditions consistently in
all Federal Register notices, draft authorizations, and final
authorizations that do not involve activities occurring during
nighttime.
Response: The Federal Register notice for the proposed action (84
FR 59773, November 6, 2019) did not include a description of the time
of day that the activity would take place. NMFS has noted below, in the
Changes from Proposed IHA to Final IHA section, that the applicant has
indeed clarified their intention for pile driving to occur during
daylight hours. NMFS agrees that the Federal Register notice for a
proposed action should detail whether an activity will take place
during daylight hours only, or whether an activity may, or will, take
place at night. NMFS bases its determinations on how an applicant
describes their activities and expects that an applicant will carry out
a project as it is described in the associated application and Federal
Register notices. Additionally, NMFS includes here a requirement that
``should environmental conditions deteriorate such that marine mammals
within the entire shutdown zone would not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy
rain), pile driving and removal must be delayed until the PSO is
confident marine mammals within the shutdown zone could be detected.''
This requirement implies that a shutdown zone should either be visible
due to daylight, or an applicant must illuminate the shutdown zone to
allow sufficient visibility. Therefore, NMFS does not agree that it is
necessary to stipulate that the activity may only occur during daylight
hours.
Comment 5: The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) update its
various templates for Federal Register notices and draft authorizations
to reflect all standard measures and (2) conduct a more thorough review
of the notices, draft authorizations, and final authorizations to
ensure accuracy, completeness, and consistency.
Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for its recommendation. NMFS
makes every effort to keep
[[Page 68131]]
templates up-to-date and read notices thoroughly prior to publication
and will continue this effort to publish the best possible product for
public comment.
Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from issuing
renewals for any authorization and instead use its abbreviated Federal
Register notice process.
Response: NMFS appreciates the streamlining achieved by the use of
abbreviated Federal Register notices and intends to continue using them
for proposed IHAs that include minor changes from previously issued
IHAs, but which do not satisfy the renewal requirements. However, we
believe our method for issuing renewals meets statutory requirements
and maximizes efficiency, and we plan to continue considering requests
for renewals.
Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS stipulate that a
renewal is a one-time opportunity in all Federal Register notices
requesting comments on the possibility of a renewal, on its web page
detailing the renewal process, and in all draft and final
authorizations that include a term and condition for a renewal.
Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for its recommendation.
Currently, Federal Register notices announcing proposed IHAs and the
potential for a Renewal state, in the SUMMARY section, ``NMFS is also
requesting comments on a possible one-year renewal that could be issued
under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met.'' Further,
no notice for any additional Renewal is included in the Federal
Register Notice for proposed Renewals, so the current process already
ensures that only one Renewal will be issued.
Comment 8: The Commission recommends that NMFS ensure that action
proponents have met all renewal requirements prior to proposing to
issue a renewal in the Federal Register, and follow the renewal process
of informing all commenters on the original authorization of the
opportunity to submit additional comments on the proposed renewal.
Response: NMFS carefully considers whether applicants meet the
criteria for a renewal upon request. NMFS will ensure that the
Commission is contacted alongside other persons who commented on the
initial IHA on all future proposed IHA Renewals, but notes that the
Commission itself has consistently informally contacted NMFS regarding
proposed IHAs and Renewals upon the Federal Register notice being
posted for public inspection, the day prior to formal publication and
the beginning of the public comment period, or the first day of the
formal comment period without notification of upcoming proposed IHA
from NMFS.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA
The most substantive change, which is described above and in the
Estimated Take section, is the increase in the take numbers for harbor
seals, though we note here that these changes do not affect our
negligible impact or small numbers determinations. The Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA mistakenly noted that in-water demolition
work would begin in November 2019. Rather, in-water demolition work
will begin in December 2019. The proposed notice also did not
explicitly state that pile driving will occur during daylight hours
only, which has been stated above in this notice. Additionally, there
is a chance that harbor porpoise could be present in the project area,
which was not discussed in the proposed Federal Register notice.
However, harbor porpoise are not expected to occur within the Level A
or Level B harassment zones for the reasons explained in the
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
section, below. Slight modifications were made to the mitigation
measures; please see the Mitigation Measures section for additional
information. Additionally, minor changes were made to Tables 3, 5, 6,
7, 13 and 14.
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 (SARs; 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 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
Astoria 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 (2016). 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. For Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) the stock
abundance is the best estimate of pup and non-pup counts, which have
not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance
surveys. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S.
2018 SARs (e.g., Caretta et al. 2019). All values presented in Table 1
are the most recent available at the time of publication and are
available in the 2018 SARs (Caretta et al. 2019, Muto et al. 2019).
Table 1--Species With Expected Potential for Occurrence in Astoria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA Stock abundance (CV,
status; Nmin, most recent Annual M/
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) abundance survey) PBR SI \3\
\1\ \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
[[Page 68132]]
Humpback whale................ Megaptera Central North -, -, Y 10,103 (0.300, 83................... 26
novaeangliae. Pacific. 7,891, 2006).
Humpback whale................ Megaptera California/Oregon/ -, -, Y 2,900 (0.05, 2,784, 16.7................. =321
californianus........ 233,515, 2014).
Steller sea lion.............. Eumetopias jubatus... Eastern U.S......... -, -, N 41,638 (See SAR, 2498................. 108
41,638, 2015).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Pacific harbor seal........... Phoca vitulina....... Oregon/Washington -, -, N Unknown (Unknown, Undetermined......... 10.6
richardii............ Coast. Unknown, 1999).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
Note--Italicized species are not expected to be taken or proposed for authorization.
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 1. However, the temporal and spatial
occurrence of humpback whales and harbor porpoises is such that take is
not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the
explanation provided here. Humpback whales occasionally enter the
Columbia River to feed (Calambokidis, et al., 2017), however their
presence is rare. They were not observed during Phase 1 of the City's
project (OBEC Consulting Engineers. 2019), and are not expected during
Phase 2. Harbor porpoises are regularly observed in the ocean ward
waters near the mouth of the Columbia River and are known to occur
there year-round. Porpoise abundance peaks when anchovy (Engraulis
mordax) abundance in the river and nearshore are highest, which is
usually between April and August (Litz et al. 2008). Harbor porpoise
take is not expected because the in-water work is expected to be
complete prior to April (unless the entire IWWP extension is
exercised), and the ensonified area is contained within the Columbia
River. Additionally, harbor porpoise were not observed during Phase 1
of the City's project (OBEC Consulting Engineers. 2019)
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected
by the project, including brief introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR
59773; November 6, 2019); since that time, we are not aware of any
changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS'
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized
species accounts.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
Underwater noise from impact and vibratory pile driving and site
preparation, as well as potential down-the-hole drilling activities
associated with Phase Two of the Astoria Waterfront Bridge Replacement
Project have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals in
the vicinity of the action area. The Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (84 FR 59773; November 6, 2019) included a discussion of
the potential effects of such disturbances on marine mammals and their
habitat, therefore that information is not repeated in detail here;
please refer to the Federal Register notice (84 FR 59773; November 6,
2019) for that information.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized 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 patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the vibratory and impact pile hammers, potential drill, and other
construction equipment has the potential to result in disruption of
behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some
potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to California sea
lions and harbor seals because they are more likely to occur closer to
the project site, particularly considering the small, nearby California
sea lion haulout. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur to
[[Page 68133]]
other groups, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent
practicable.
As described previously, no mortality or serious injury 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). Thresholds have also
been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above
which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed.
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) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. For in-air sounds, NMFS predicts that
harbor seals exposed above received levels of 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms)
will be behaviorally harassed, and other pinnipeds will be harassed
when exposed above 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms).
The City's proposed activity includes the use of continuous
(vibratory pile driving, preboring and potential down-the-hole
drilling) and impulsive (impact pile driving and potential down-the-
hole drilling) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) are applicable for in-water noise.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 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). The City's proposed activities include
the use of impulsive (impact hammers, potential down-the-hole drilling)
and non-impulsive (vibratory hammers, potential down-the-hole drilling)
sources.
These thresholds are provided in the Table 2. 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 2--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds\*\ Non-
(received level) Hearing Group Impulsive impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........ Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........ Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans....... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
dB;.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB......
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)............... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
(Underwater)........................ dB;.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB......
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW).............. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
(Underwater)........................ dB;.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are
[[Page 68134]]
expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components
of the project (i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and
removal, site preparation). The maximum (underwater) area ensonified
above the thresholds for behavioral harassment referenced above is
21.53km (13.38 mi) into the river channel during vibratory
installation/removal of the 36-inch temporary steel casings, though
this distance does not account for tide levels. There is a chance that
pile installation work could be done during low tides, where exposed
sand bars could significantly reduce the Level B ZOI.
The project includes vibratory removal of timber piles, vibratory
and impact pile installation of steel pipe piles and site preparation
using a vibratory hammer and H-pile. Source levels of pile
installation/removal activities and site preparation are based on
reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of
piles available in the literature. Source levels for each pile size and
driving method are presented in Table 3. Source levels for vibratory
installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to
be the same.
The source level for vibratory removal of timber piles is from in-
water measurements generated by the Greenbusch Group (2018) from the
Seattle Pier 62 project (83 FR 39709; April 10, 2018). Hydroacoustic
monitoring results from Pier 62 determined unweighted rms ranging from
140 dB to 169 dB. NMFS analyzed source measurements at different
distances for all 63 individual timber piles that were removed at Pier
62 and normalized the values to 10 m. The results showed that the
median is 152 dB SPLrms.
Table 3--Sound Source Levels for In-Water Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source level (at 10m)
Pile size/type Method --------------------------------------- Literature source
dB RMS dB SEL\c\ dB peak
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch Timber..................... Vibratory............. 152 ........... ........... The Greenbusch Group, Inc (2018).
14-inch Steel H-pile............... Vibratory............. \a\ 150 ........... ........... CalTrans (2015).
24-inch Steel Pipe................. Vibratory............. 162 ........... ........... WSDOT (2010).
Impact................ \b\ 187 \b\ 171 \b\ 200 Loughlin (2005).
36-inch Steel Pipe................. Vibratory............. 170 ........... ........... CalTrans (2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source level from 12-inch steel H-pile.
\b\ Includes 7dB reduction from use of bubble curtain.
\c\ Sound exposure level (dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-sec).
It is anticipated that the contractor may employ two crews during
construction to keep the project on schedule. This could result in
concurrent use of a vibratory hammer and an impact hammer, however, the
contractor will not operate two of the same hammer type concurrently.
The hammers would be operated at two different bridges. The ensonified
zones would likely overlap during concurrent use, but the multiple-
source decibel addition method (Table 4) does not result in significant
increases in the noise source when an impact hammer and vibratory
hammer are operated at the same time, because the difference in noise
source levels (Table 3) between the two hammers is greater than 10dB.
Table 4--Multiple-Source Decibel Addition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add the
following to
When two decibel values differ by: the higher
level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1 dB.................................................. 3 dB
2-3 dB.................................................. 2 dB
4-9 dB.................................................. 1 dB
> 10 dB................................................. 0 dB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured
transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the
transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Site-specific
transmission loss data for Astoria are not available, therefore the
default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the distances to the
Level A and Level B harassment thresholds.
Table 5--In-Water Activity Source Levels and Distances to Level B Harassment Thresholds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Source level at Level B Propagation Distance to harassment
Pile size/type Method 10 m (dB re 1 threshold (dB re (xLogR) Level B ensonified
[micro]Pa rms) 1 [micro]Pa rms) threshold (m) area (km\2\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch Timber......................... Vibratory................ 152 120 15 1,359.4 3.2
14-inch Steel H-pile................... Vibratory................ 150 120 15 1,000.0 1.8
24-inch Steel Pipe..................... Vibratory................ 162 120 15 6,309.6 55.3
Impact................... 187 160 15 631.0 0.8
36-inch Steel Pipe (and down-the-hole Vibratory................ 170 120 15 21,544.4 212.3
drilling, as necessary).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68135]]
In-Air Disturbance during General Construction Activities--
Behavioral disturbance (Level B harassment take) may occur incidental
to the use of construction equipment during general construction that
is proposed in the dry, above water, or inland within close proximity
to the river banks. These construction activities are associated with
the removal and construction of the rail superstructures, removal of
the existing concrete foundations, construction of abutment wingwalls,
and the construction of a temporary work platform. Possible equipment
and sound source levels are included in Table 1 of the Federal Register
notice for the draft IHA (84 FR 59773; November 6, 2019). Using the
Spherical Spreading Loss Model (20logR), a maximum sound source level
of 93 dB RMS at 20 m, sound levels in-air would attenuate below the
90dB RMS Level B harassment threshold for harbor seals at 28 m, and
below the 100 dB RMS threshold for all other pinnipeds at 9 m. Harbor
seals are not expected to occur within 28m of the activity as there are
no nearby haulouts, and are, therefore, not expected to be harassed by
in-air sound. Additionally, the City is proposing a 10 m shutdown zone
(Table 13) for all construction work to prevent injury from physical
interaction with equipment. The City would therefore shut down
equipment before hauled out sea lions could be acoustically harassed by
the sound produced. No Level B harassment is expected to occur due to
increased sounds from roadway construction. However, sea lions may be
disturbed by the presence of construction equipment and increased human
presence during above-water construction.
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, which may result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as pile
driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the distance at which, if a
marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs entered in the User Spreadsheet
(Table 6) and the resulting isopleths are reported below (Table 7).
Table 6--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating Level A Harassment Isopleths
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance
Weighting Number of Duration to Number of from source
Pile size and installation method Spreadsheet tab used factor Source level at 10 m piles drive single strikes per Propagation level
adjustment within 24-h pile pile (xLogR) measurement
(kHz) period (minutes) (meters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch Timber Vibratory............. (A.1) Vibratory pile driving....... 2.5 152dB RMS SPL..................... 50 20 ........... 15 10
14-inch Steel H-Pile................. (A.1) Vibratory pile driving....... 2.5 150dB RMS SPL..................... 36 25 ........... 15 10
24-inch Steel Vibratory.............. (A.1) Vibratory pile driving....... 2.5 162dB RMS SPL..................... 18 20 ........... 15 10
36-inch Steel Vibratory.............. (A.1) Vibratory pile driving....... 2.5 170dB RMS SPL..................... 36 8 ........... 15 10
24-inch Steel Impact (and down-the- (E.1) Impact pile driving.......... 2 171dB SEL/200 PK SPL.............. 23 .............. 500 15 10
hole drilling, if necessary).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The applicant may conduct down-the-hole drilling, however a
separate analysis is not provided for that activity, as it is was not
necessary in Phase 1 of the project, and is not expected to be
necessary in Phase 2. Should drilling be necessary, the Level B
harassment zone will be considered to be the same as that calculated
for vibratory installation/removal of 36-inch steel piles, as that
Level B harassment zone is clipped in all directions, and therefore is
the most conservative a Level B harassment zone could be. A
conservative Level B harassment zone is of particular importance due to
the fact that the duration of drilling, should it be necessary, is
unknown. The applicant will consider the Level A harassment zone for
down-the-hole drilling to be the same as the Level A harassment zones
calculated for impact pile driving of the 24-inch steel piles. These
are the largest Level A harassment zones.
Table 7--Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment Isopleths
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment zone (m)
Pile size and installation method -------------------------------
Phocids Otariids
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-inch Timber Vibratory................ 6.8 0.5
14-inch Steel H-Pile.................... 4.7 0.3
24-inch Steel Vibratory................. 16 1.1
36-inch Steel Vibratory................. 47 3.3
24-inch Steel Impact (and down-the-hole 431.5 31.4
drilling, if necessary)................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68136]]
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals, and how it is brought
together with the information provided above to produce a quantitative
take estimate. Estimated takes of each species were calculated using
information provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Bryan Wright, pers. comm., August and November 2019), Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW, 2014) and the Marine Mammal
Commission (Tiff Brookens, pers. comm., March 2018).
Harbor Seal
As noted in the Comments and Responses section, above, estimated
Level B harassment take of harbor seal was modified based on a comment
from the Commission and additional information from ODFW.
The closest harbor seal haulout and pupping area is Desdemona
Sands, which is downstream of the Astoria-Megler Bridge. Numbers of
harbor seals hauled out at Desdemona Sands have been reported to reach
into the thousands (Profita, 2015). While specific counts were
unavailable, ODFW advised that the highest counts of harbor seals are
in late winter/early spring (over 6,000 at Desdemona Sands in February)
(Bryan Wright, pers. comm., November 2019). However, ODFW also provided
a harbor seal count of 1,918 non-pups at Desdemona Sands from May 2014
(most recent ODWF survey), and described these as year-round residents.
We would expect that the harbor seal counts would decrease from 6,400
individuals on either end of the late winter/early spring period (as
low as 1,918 during the summer). Up to 6,400 individuals could be taken
on in-water workdays during the late winter/early spring months, but we
do not expect that many takes on every in-water work day.
Because there is such a high variability in potential instances of
Level B harassment take, NMFS is not authorizing a specific number of
instances of Level B harassment take of harbor seals. Rather, NMFS is
authorizing Level B harassment take of up to 6,400 individuals. A
portion of those individuals will likely be taken on multiple days, but
none to exceed 21 days. Most individuals will be taken notably fewer
times, as NMFS does not expect that number of individuals to haul out
at Desdemona Sands for the majority of the in-water work period.
Additionally, while harbor seals are unlikely to occur in the Level
A harassment zone during vibratory pile driving (based on Phase 1
monitoring), the applicant is concerned that if a few animals occurred
in the Level A harassment zone during impact pile driving, they may
need to shut down more frequently than is practical, given the IWWP
restrictions previously discussed. As such, NMFS is proposing to
observe a shutdown zone that is smaller than the Level A isopleth for
impact pile driving and to issue small numbers of Level A harassment
take of harbor seals (Table 11). This proposed take would avoid
potentially excessive shut downs should a small group of harbor seals
enter the project area on each day while impact pile driving activities
(or down-the-hole drilling, as necessary) are underway. The Level A
harassment take calculation for harbor seals authorizes instances of
take, rather than individuals that will be taken as done for the Level
B harassment take calculation for harbor seals. Level A harassment take
of harbor seals was calculated by multiplying a group of two animals by
14 in-water work days. Level A takes may only occur during the subset
of in-water work days when the applicant conducts impact pile driving
(or down-the-hole drilling, as required), as the shutdown zone contains
the entire Level A harassment zone for all other in-water work
activities.
Steller Sea Lion
Counts of Steller sea lions at the East Mooring Basin are typically
in the single digits (B. Wright, pers. comm., March 2018), while the
average number of Steller sea lions observed at the South Jetty during
the in-water work period (including the possible extension) from 2000-
2014, was 272 animals (WDFW, 2014). When the applicant consulted ODFW
for more recent Steller sea lion data, ODFW advised that there were
only three more recent surveys, none of which occurred during the IWWP
months (Bryan Wright, pers. comm., September 2019). The Level B
harassment zones for Phase 2 extend far beyond the calculated zones for
Phase 1, approaching the South Jetty. Therefore, NMFS expects that that
average daily count from the South Jetty provides an appropriate daily
count to calculate potential Steller sea lion Level B harassment take
during Phase 2. Note the calculation is based on the average daily
count, not the maximum. The maximum daily count was 606 animals, in the
month of April. Considering that work will only occur in April if the
entire IWWP extension is exercised, and the large difference between
the maximum daily count and the average daily count, NMFS believes that
using the maximum daily count would greatly overestimate potential
take.
For Phase 1 Level B harassment take calculations of Steller sea
lions, daily estimates were based off of observations at Bonneville Dam
and Willamette Falls, as these animals must transit past Astoria at
some point in their travels from the Pacific to the upper Columbia
River (83 FR 19243, May 2, 2018). The daily count was 67 animals, 63 at
Bonneville Dam and four at Willamette Falls. However, NMFS believes
that South Jetty estimates are more appropriate and more conservative
for Phase 2 take calculations, given the larger Level B harassment
zones, some of which extend downriver close to the South Jetty.
Level B harassment take was calculated by multiplying the daily
counts of Steller sea lions by days of in-water activity (Table 8).
Steller sea lions do not haul out near the construction sites and
would only be potentially harassed if they are transiting through the
Level B harassment zone during the in-water work period (including the
extension, if applicable). Steller sea lions are not expected to occur
within the calculated Level A harassment zone for otariids (Table 7).
No Level A harassment takes of Steller sea lions are proposed nor
expected to be authorized.
Table 8--Level B Harassment Take Calculation for Steller Sea Lion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Days of in-
Species average/daily water Total take
count activity\b\ (Level B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion............................................. \a\ 272 21 5,712
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Average number of Steller sea lions observed at the South Jetty during the in-water work period (including
the possible extension) from 2000-2014 (WDFW, 2014).
\b\ Includes in-water activity for the entire project.
[[Page 68137]]
California Sea Lion
Aerial surveys of the East Mooring Basin in Astoria from 2011 to
2018 (Bryan Wright, pers. comm., August 2019) were used to calculate
in-water Level B harassment take of California sea lions, as in Phase 1
of this activity (83 FR 19243, May 2, 2018). The data provided to NMFS
by ODFW included the maximum California sea lion count observed on a
single day for each month throughout the survey period. These maximum
counts at the East Mooring Basin ranged from 0 California sea lions on
a single day in July 2017 to 3,834 on a single day in March 2016. A
``daily average maximum'' for each IWWP month (Table 9) was calculated
by averaging the maximum counts on a single day for each survey month
provided by ODFW. In addition to ODFW aerial surveys, the City
conducted opportunistic surveys of pinnipeds at the bridge sites in
December 2017. A maximum of four California sea lions were observed in
the water surrounding the bridges and piers. Additional California sea
lions were heard vocalizing from the riverbanks under the bridges but
the exact number of sea lions could not be determined.
Table 9--Daily Average Maximum Number of California Sea lions at East
Mooring Basin for IWWP Months, Including the Potential Extension
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily
Month Average
Maximum \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November................................................... 141
December................................................... 135
January.................................................... 408
February................................................... 893
March...................................................... 1191
April...................................................... 982
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Daily average maximum was calculated using data from aerial surveys
of the East Mooring Basin in Astoria from 2011 to 2018 (Bryan Wright,
pers. comm., 2019).
California sea lions are the most commonly observed marine mammal
in the area, and are known to haul out on the riverbanks and structures
near the bridges, as described above. California sea lions may be
harassed by underwater sound resulting from vibratory pile removal and
impact pile driving (at the distances listed above) as well as airborne
sound resulting from roadway and railway demolition and construction.
As such, California sea lions may be subject to harassment throughout
the duration of Phase 2 of the project.
NMFS is proposing to authorize 1,056 Level B harassment takes of
California sea lions associated with above-water construction
activities taking place during the above-water work period, not
including the IWWP extension (May to October). Level B harassment takes
of California sea lions from above-water activities were calculated by
multiplying the maximum estimate from the City's 2017 opportunistic
surveys at the bridge sites (16 animals) by the estimated 11 days of
work per month during the above-water work period.
NMFS is proposing to authorize 25,011 Level B harassment takes of
California sea lions associated with in-water and above-water work
during the IWWP. The City expects approximately 21 in-water work days
across Phase 2 of the project. However, because the exact construction
schedule is unknown, there are uncertainties in how many of the
estimated work days will occur during each month. Therefore, estimated
Level B harassment take during the IWWP (Table 10) is calculated by
multiplying the highest daily average maximum (Table 9) during the IWWP
months (including the potential extension) by the estimated 21 in-water
work days. California sea lions exposed to in-air sound above Level B
harassment threshold during the IWWP are expected to have already been
taken by in-water activity, and therefore already be included in the
take calculation.
Total California sea lion Level B harassment takes (Table 10) are
calculated as the sum of above-water work period and IWWP takes.
Table 10--Level B Harassment Take Calculation of California Sea Lion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential
Work period Daily average number of Takes per
maximum \b\ workdays month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IWWP \a\........................................................ 1191 21 25,011
May............................................................. 16 11 176
June............................................................ 16 11 176
July............................................................ 16 11 176
August.......................................................... 16 11 176
September....................................................... 16 11 176
October......................................................... 16 11 176
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 26,067
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ IWWP includes the potential extension, as the month of March has the highest daily average maximum count.
\b\ Daily average maximums during above-water work months are estimates from the City's opportunistic surveys at
the Phase 1 bridge sites in December 2017.
Only 4,204 Level B harassment takes of California sea lion were
reported for Phase 1; however, the Phase 2 project area is much larger
than the area within which marine mammals were reported in Phase 1.
Therefore, NMFS expects California sea lion take to be higher for Phase
2 than was reported in the monitoring report for Phase 1.
As discussed above, the City estimates that approximately 16
California sea lions haul out near the project sites based on
opportunistic surveys conducted in December 2017. Frequent construction
shutdowns are of concern to the applicant, as there is a limited IWWP
imposed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and, therefore,
the proposed mitigation zone does not entirely contain the area within
the Level A harassment isopleth for impact pile driving. The applicant
has requested Level A harassment takes of California sea lions, as the
animals that haulout nearby may enter the Level A harassment zone as
they transit between the haulouts and their feeding areas in the
Columbia River.
NMFS is proposing to issue 224 Level A harassment takes of
California sea lions (Table 11). The Level A harassment takes are
calculated by multiplying the 16 animals that haulout
[[Page 68138]]
near the project site (City of Astoria December 2017 surveys) by 14 in-
water work days. Level A takes may only occur during the subset of in-
water work days when the applicant conducts impact pile driving (or
down-the-hole drilling, as required), as the shutdown zone contains the
entire Level A harassment zone for all other in-water work activities.
Table 11--Level A Harassment Take Calculation of Harbor Seal and California Sea Lion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
number of in- Level A
Species Daily count water work harassment
days take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal..................................................... 2 14 28
California sea lion............................................. \a\ 16 14 224
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ December 2017 survey estimates of California sea lions by the City at Phase 1 bridge sites.
Table 12--Total Level A and Level B Take Proposed for Authorization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B
Common name Stock harassment harassment Total take Stock Percent of
take take abundance stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal............................... Oregon/Washington Coast..... 28 6,400 6,428 \a\ 24,732 26.0
Steller sea lion.......................... Eastern U.S................. 0 5,712 5,712 41,638 13.7
California sea lion....................... U.S......................... 224 26,067 26,291 257,606 10.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ As noted in Table 3, there is no current estimate of abundance available for the Oregon/Washington Coast stock of harbor seal. The abundance
estimate from 1999, included here, is the most recent.
Mitigation Measures
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.
In addition to the measures described later in this section, the
City will employ the following standard mitigation measures:
The City shall conduct briefings between construction
supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and City staff
prior to the start of all construction work, and when new personnel
join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational
procedures;
For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take
has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal and drilling
will shut down immediately if such species are observed within or on a
path towards the monitoring zone (i.e., Level B harassment zone); and
If observed take reaches the authorized limit for an
authorized species, pile installation will be stopped as these species
approach the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
The following measures would apply to the City's mitigation
requirements:
Establishment of Shutdown Zones--For all pile driving/removal and
drilling activities, the City will establish appropriate shutdown
zones. 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).
These shutdown zones would be used to prevent incidental Level A
exposures from pile driving and removal for Steller sea lions, and to
reduce the potential for such take of harbor seals and California sea
lions. During all pile driving and removal activities, as well as
above-water construction, a minimum shutdown zone of 10m would be
enforced (Table 13) for all species to prevent physical injury from
interaction with construction equipment. Additionally, a shutdown zone
of 32m will be enforced for Steller sea lions during impact pile
driving to reduce the likelihood of Level A harassment take (Table 13).
The placement of Protected Species Observers (PSOs) during all pile
driving and drilling activities (described in detail in the Monitoring
and Reporting Section) will ensure shutdown zones are visible when they
are on site. When PSOs are not on site, the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) inspector will be responsible for ensuring that
activities shut down if a
[[Page 68139]]
marine mammal enters the shutdown zone.
Table 13--Shutdown Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown Zone (m)
-----------------------------------------------
Construction Activity Steller sea California sea
Harbor seal lion lion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal and Site Preparation......... 50 10 10
24-inch Steel Impact Pile Driving (and down-the-hole drilling, .............. 32 ..............
as necessary)..................................................
Above-water Construction........................................ 10 10 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment of Monitoring Zones for Level B Harassment--The City
would establish monitoring zones to correlate with Level B harassment
zones or zones of influence. These are areas where SPLs are equal to or
exceed the 160 dB rms threshold for impact driving and the 120 dB rms
threshold during vibratory driving and site preparation. For airborne
noise, these thresholds are 90 dB RMS re 20[mu]Pa for harbor seals and
100 db RMS re: 20[mu]Pa for all other pinnipeds. Monitoring zones
provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for
areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers
to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the
project area outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for a potential
cease of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone. The
proposed monitoring zones are described in Table 14. Placement of PSOs
on the shorelines around the Columbia River allow PSOs to observe
marine mammals within the project site, however, due to the size of the
Level B harassment zone during some activities, not all Level B
harassment takes will be visible to PSOs. Level B harassment exposures
will be recorded and extrapolated based upon the number of observed
takes, the percentage of the Level B zone that was not visible to PSOs,
and the number of construction days when PSOs were not onsite.
Table 14--Marine Mammal Monitoring Zones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction activity Monitoring zone (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above-water Construction.................. 28 (harbor seal only).
14-inch Timber Vibratory.................. 1,360.
14-inch Steel H-Pile...................... 1,000.
24-inch Steel Vibratory................... 6,310.
36-inch Steel Vibratory (and down-the-hole 21,545.
drilling, as necessary).
24-inch Steel Impact...................... 635.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soft Start--The use of soft-start procedures are believed to
provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning
and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact driving, an initial set
of three strikes would be made by the hammer at 40 percent energy,
followed by a 1-minute wait period, then two subsequent 3-strike sets
at 40 percent energy, with 1-minute waiting periods, before initiating
continuous driving. Soft start would be implemented at the start of
each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of
impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer. Soft
start is not required during vibratory pile driving and removal
activities.
Pre-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/removal or
site preparation of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the
shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown
zone will be cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within
the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal
has been confirmed to have left the zone or has not been observed for
15 minutes. If the Level B harassment zone has been observed for 30
minutes and non-permitted species are not observed within the zone,
soft start procedures can commence and work can continue even if
visibility becomes impaired within the Level B monitoring zone. When a
marine mammal permitted for Level B harassment take is present in the
Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level B take will be
recorded. As stated above, if the entire Level B zone is not visible at
the start of construction, piling or drilling activities can begin. If
work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of
both the Level B and shutdown zone will commence.
Pile driving energy attenuator--Use of a marine pile-driving energy
attenuator (i.e., air bubble curtain system) will be implemented by the
City during impact pile driving of all steel pipe piles. The use of
sound attenuation will reduce SPLs and the size of the zones of
influence for Level A harassment and Level B harassment. The City's
FAHP permit describes the performance standards for the bubble curtain
system.
Poor Visibility--Should environmental conditions deteriorate such
that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be
visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving and removal must be
delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown
zone could be detected.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, 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.
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
[[Page 68140]]
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring
that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat);
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine Mammal Visual Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted by NMFS-approved observers. Trained
observers shall be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to
monitor for marine mammals, and will implement shutdown or delay
procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment
operator. Observer training must be provided prior to project start,
and shall include instruction on species identification (sufficient to
distinguish the species in the project area), description and
categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors
that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity,
proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of
biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups
of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to
individuals (to the extent possible).
Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after pile driving/removal and drilling activities. In
addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal
occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document
any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being
driven or removed. Pile driving/removal and drilling 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 30 minutes.
Three PSOs will be on-site the first day and every third day
thereafter during vibratory hammer installation/removal and site
preparation at each bridge. One observer will be stationed at the best
practicable land-based vantage point to observe the Shutdown Zone and a
portion of the Level A and Level B harassment zones. One observer will
be stationed along the north bank of the river at the Washington State
Department of Transportation Rest Area: Dismal Nitch. One observer will
be stationed at the best practicable land-based vantage point to
observe the remainder of the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
Likely locations include the 6th Street viewing platform and the Pier
12 parking lot. If vibratory installation of the 36-inch casings
occurs, this observer will be positioned along the north bank of the
river downstream of the project site within the Chinook County Park.
The ODOT on-site inspector will be trained in species identification
and monitoring protocol and will be on-site during all vibratory
removal and installation activities to confirm that no species enter
the Shutdown Zones when PSOs are not onsite.
Two PSOs will be on-site the first day of impact pile driving at
each bridge, and every third day thereafter. One observer will be
stationed at the best practicable land-based vantage point to observe
the Shutdown Zone and a portion of the Level A and Level B harassment
zones. One observer will be stationed at the best practicable land-
based vantage point to observe the remainder of the Level A and Level B
harassment zones. Likely locations include the 6th Street viewing
platform, the Pier 12 parking lot, or the Washington State Department
of Transportation Rest Area: Dismal Nitch on the north bank of the
river. The ODOT on-site inspector will be trained in species
identification and monitoring protocol and will be on-site during all
impact pile driving activities to confirm that no species enter the
respective Shutdown Zones when PSOs are not onsite.
PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting
scopes, and would use a handheld GPS or range-finder device to verify
the distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs would be
trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required
to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In
addition, monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable
by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. The City would
adhere to the following observer qualifications:
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required.
(ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute education (degree in
biological science or related field) or training for experience.
(iv) The City must submit observer CVs for approval by NMFS.
Additional standard observer qualifications include:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals, including the identification of
behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
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.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of site preparation and pile
driving and removal activities. It will include an overall description
of work completed,
[[Page 68141]]
a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
Locations of all marine mammal observations;
Other human activity in the area; and
An extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level B
harassment based on the number of observed exposures within the Level B
harassment zone, the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that was
not visible, and the days when monitoring did not occur.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report will constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA
(if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, the City
would immediately cease the specified activities and report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding
Coordinator. The report would include the following information:
Description of the incident;
Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state,
visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the City to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The City would not be able
to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph),
the City would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the NMFS West Coast Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the West
Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the same
information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able
to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS
would work with the City to determine whether modifications to the
activities are appropriate.
In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), the City would report the incident
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS West Coast Stranding Hotline
and/or by email to the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator,
within 24 hours of the discovery. The City would provide photographs,
video footage (if available), or other documentation of the stranded
animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Phase 1 Monitoring Report
The City's monitoring report from Phase 1 of the project (OBEC,
2019) was frequently consulted in the NMFS evaluation of the City's
proposed activities and requested take for Phase 2 of the project. The
Phase 1 monitoring report indicated recorded take of California sea
lions and harbor seals (Table 18). Steller sea lions were not observed
during Phase 1 (Table 15), however, due to their known presence in the
area, Level B harassment take was still requested for Phase 2
activities. Additionally, as mentioned above, the calculated Level B
harassment zones were significantly smaller for Phase 1 than for Phase
2.
Table 15--Phase 1 monitoring results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Number of Estimated takes estimated Authorized Percent of
Species takes recorded on days PSOs not Level B Level B authorized
by PSOs present harassment harassment takes that
takes take number occurred
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion........... 604 3600 (240 x 15 4204 33,736 12.5
days).
Steller sea lion.............. 0 0............... 0 5,360 0
Pacific harbor seal........... 53 270 (18 x 15 323 4,560 7.1
days).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A take was not requested nor authorized for Phase 1
activities, so the City used the calculated Level A isopleth as the
shutdown zone to prevent Level A take. Shutdowns occurred on three days
during Phase 1 activities. In all instances, shutdowns occurred when
one or more California sea lion entered the shutdown zone. The Phase 1
and Phase 2 monitoring reports will provide useful information for
analyzing impacts to marine mammals for potential future projects in
the lower Columbia River.
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
[[Page 68142]]
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).
Pile driving/removal and drilling activities associated with the
project as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or
displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level A harassment and Level B
harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and
removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species
are present in zones ensonified above the thresholds for Level A or
Level B harassment, identified above, when these activities are
underway.
The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to
potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No mortality is
anticipated given the nature of the activity. Level A harassment is
only anticipated for California sea lion and harbor seal. The potential
for Level A harassment is minimized through the construction method and
the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Proposed
Mitigation section).
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other
similar activities, including Phase 1 of the City's project, will
likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds,
increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were
occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006; HDR, Inc. 2012; Lerma 2014;
ABR 2016; OBEC, 2019). Most likely for pile driving, individuals will
simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced
from the areas of pile driving and drilling, although even this
reaction has been observed primarily only in association with impact
pile driving. Though some individual pinnipeds (especially harbor
seals) could be expected to be taken over multiple days, the effects of
the exposure are expected to be relatively minor, would not occur to
any one individual across more than 21 days at the most, and therefore
are not expected to result in impacts on reproduction or survival. The
pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to Phase 1 activities
and numerous other construction activities conducted in the Pacific
Northwest, which have taken place with no known long-term adverse
consequences from behavioral harassment. Level B harassment will be
reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of
mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by project
activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply
avoid the area while the activity is occurring. While vibratory driving
(and potential drilling) associated with the proposed project may
produce sound at distances of many kilometers from the project site,
the project site itself is located on a busy waterfront and in a
section of the Columbia River with high amounts of vessel traffic.
Therefore, we expect that animals disturbed by project sound would
simply avoid the area and use more-preferred habitats.
In addition to the expected effects resulting from authorized Level
B harassment, we anticipate that California sea lions and harbor seals
may sustain some limited Level A harassment in the form of auditory
injury. However, animals in these locations that experience PTS would
likely only receive slight PTS, i.e. minor degradation of hearing
capabilities within regions of hearing that align most completely with
the frequency range of the energy produced by pile driving, i.e. the
low-frequency region below 2 kHz, not severe hearing impairment or
impairment in the regions of greatest hearing sensitivity. If hearing
impairment occurs, it is most likely that the affected animal would
lose a few decibels in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is
not likely to meaningfully affect its ability to forage and communicate
with conspecifics. As described above, we expect that marine mammals
would be likely to move away from a sound source that represents an
aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would be expected to
result in PTS, given sufficient notice through use of soft start.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities
would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant
amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because
of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area
of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal
habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative
consequences. Other than feeding and the haulout areas previously
described, the project area does not include any areas or times of
particular biological significance for the affected species.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or
authorized;
No serious injury is anticipated or authorized;
The Level A harassment exposures are anticipated to result
only in slight PTS, within the lower frequencies associated with pile
driving;
The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment would
consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior that would
not result in fitness impacts to individuals;
The area impacted by the specified activity is very small
relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species;
The activity is expected to occur over 21 or fewer in-
water work days.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal 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
[[Page 68143]]
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.
Up to 26.0 percent of the individuals in the harbor seal stock may
be taken. When the number of takes of Steller sea lion and California
sea lion are compared to the stock abundance, they represent 13.7 and
10.2 percent, respectively--however, the number of takes requested is
based on the number of estimated exposures, not necessarily the number
of individuals exposed, which could be fewer given that pinnipeds may
remain in the general area of the project sites and the same
individuals may be harassed multiple times over multiple days, rather
than numerous individuals harassed once.
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)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the NMFS West Coast Region
Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize
take for endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammals is authorized or
expected to result from issuance of this IHA. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that formal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is not
required for this action.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to the City of Astoria for the incidental
take of marine mammal due to in-water and above-water construction work
associated with Phase Two of the Astoria Waterfront Bridge Replacement
project in in Astoria, OR from December 9, 2019 to December 8, 2020,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: December 9, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-26859 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
