-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathindex.html
202 lines (183 loc) · 465 KB
/
index.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta name="generator" content="quarto-1.2.335">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=yes">
<title>index</title>
<style>
code{white-space: pre-wrap;}
span.smallcaps{font-variant: small-caps;}
div.columns{display: flex; gap: min(4vw, 1.5em);}
div.column{flex: auto; overflow-x: auto;}
div.hanging-indent{margin-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1.5em;}
ul.task-list{list-style: none;}
ul.task-list li input[type="checkbox"] {
width: 0.8em;
margin: 0 0.8em 0.2em -1.6em;
vertical-align: middle;
}
</style>
<script src="index_files/libs/clipboard/clipboard.min.js"></script>
<script src="index_files/libs/quarto-html/quarto.js"></script>
<script src="index_files/libs/quarto-html/popper.min.js"></script>
<script src="index_files/libs/quarto-html/tippy.umd.min.js"></script>
<script src="index_files/libs/quarto-html/anchor.min.js"></script>
<link href="index_files/libs/quarto-html/tippy.css" rel="stylesheet">
<link href="index_files/libs/quarto-html/quarto-syntax-highlighting.css" rel="stylesheet" id="quarto-text-highlighting-styles">
<script src="index_files/libs/bootstrap/bootstrap.min.js"></script>
<link href="index_files/libs/bootstrap/bootstrap-icons.css" rel="stylesheet">
<link href="index_files/libs/bootstrap/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet" id="quarto-bootstrap" data-mode="light">
<script src="index_files/libs/htmlwidgets-1.6.0/htmlwidgets.js"></script>
<link href="index_files/libs/jsoneditor-5.25.6/jsoneditor.min.css" rel="stylesheet">
<script src="index_files/libs/jsoneditor-5.25.6/jsoneditor.min.js"></script>
<script src="index_files/libs/jsonedit-binding-3.0.0/jsonedit.js"></script>
</head>
<body class="fullcontent">
<div id="quarto-content" class="page-columns page-rows-contents page-layout-article">
<main class="content" id="quarto-document-content">
<section id="initial-ai-classification-of-ba-docs" class="level1">
<h1>Initial AI Classification of BA docs</h1>
<div class="cell">
<div class="cell-output-display">
<div class="jsonedit html-widget html-fill-item-overflow-hidden html-fill-item" id="htmlwidget-789023cf63690f709fc3" style="width:100%;height:464px;"></div>
<script type="application/json" data-for="htmlwidget-789023cf63690f709fc3">{"x":{"data":[{"file_name":"NEPA Nenana 2019","text_excerpt":"6/28/2019 U.S. DOE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - Environmental Questionnaire (EQ-1) \r\nDOE F 540 (04-2014) \r\nOMB Number 1910-5175 \r\nExp. TBD \r\nOFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE (EQ-1) \r\nTo be completed on-line only at: https://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/NEPA.aspx unless you are instructed otherwise by EERE. NEPA Control Number: GFO-0008389-001 \r\nProject Title: Water Horse Hydroelectric Harvester Development \r\nRecipient: Alaska Center for Energy and Power \r\nOther Participants (Subrecipients, \r\nContractors, etc.):None listed \r\nFOA Number: DE-FOA-0001663 \r\nFOA Title: \r\nAward Number: DE-EE0008389 \r\nDOE Technology Office Point of \r\nContact:Yana Shininger \r\nDOE Grants Management Specialist: Stephanie Sites","tags":["Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Phase.2Construction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent"]},{"file_name":"NEPA Nenana 2019","text_excerpt":"Pursuant to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 1021), the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is required to evaluate the potential environmental impact of projects that it is considering for funding. EERE must determine at the earliest possible time whether any proposed project qualifies for a categorical exclusion under 10 C.F.R. § 1021.410 or will require further environmental review within an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. \r\nYou are required to answer the questions below for the project as a whole, including all work to be performed by the Recipient, its subrecipients and contractors, including any work outside of the United States. You may not limit your responses to work performed \r\nby the Recipient only unless instructed to do so by EERE. In completing this questionnaire, you must provide specific information regarding the nature of your proposed project, including information on its size, operations, and the types and quantities of air emissions, wastewater discharges, solid wastes, land disturbances, etc. You should identify the location(s) of the proposed project and describe the activities that would occur at each location. \r\nThe form should be completed and signed by the Principal Investigator for the project or another member of your organization who has sufficient knowledge of the project to answer the questions truthfully and accurately. \r\nFailure to fully and adequately complete this form will delay EERE’s environmental review of your proposed project. Please note that false statements or misrepresentations may result in civil and/or criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.\r\nhttps://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMCRecipient/EQ_Form_V2.aspx?key=23134 1/7 \r\n6/28/2019 U.S. DOE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - Environmental Questionnaire (EQ-1) \r\nBURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT \r\nPublic reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2-GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-1800), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-1800), Washington, D.C. 20503.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"NEPA Nenana 2019","text_excerpt":"1a. In the box below, please provide a brief summary of the proposed project activities. Describe physical activities, not goals and objectives. Specify if this project is part of a larger project or connected to another project. \r\nThe proposed project activities include electrical, mechanical, and platform system development along with field testing of a “Water Horse” vertical oscillator designed to harvest energy from turbulent water conditions. Field activities will be performed at AHERC’s Tanana River Test Site in Nenana Alaska during the summers of 2020 and 2021. Lab testing will be completed at University of Alaska Fairbanks campus. \r\n1b. Is there other Federal government involvement outside of EERE in any aspect of this project (e.g., funding, permitting, technical assistance, project located on Federally administered land)? \r\nYes: | No: \r\n \r\nDepartment of Energy \r\n1c. Is the proposed project limited exclusively to intellectual, academic, or analytical activities? \r\nIntellectual, academic, and analytical activities include, but are not limited to: \r\n• Literature searches and information gathering • Feasibility studies \r\n• Data analysis • Document preparation \r\n• Computer modeling • Data dissemination \r\n• Analytical reviews • Paper studies \r\n• Conceptual design \r\nYes: | No: \r\nhttps://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMCRecipient/EQ_Form_V2.aspx?key=23134 2/7 \r\n6/28/2019 U.S. DOE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - Environmental Questionnaire (EQ-1) \r\n2a. Is the project fully defined at this point (i.e., all sites and activities are known)? Yes: | No: \r\n2b. In the chart below, please describe the following four types of identifying information concerning project activities to be performed: \r\n(1) each location where work would be performed, including address or coordinates, names of facilities, and whether this is a Recipient, Subrecipient, or Contractor location; (2) the nature of the location (e.g., urban, industrial, suburban, agricultural, university campus, manufacturing facility) and the current condition and/or use of the site; (3) the types of activities to be conducted at that location; \r\n(4) land administration (e.g., BLM, USFWS, DOD, state, private). \r\nLocations: \r\n(1) List all \r\nLocations Where Project Activities Would Occur \r\n(Facility Name and Address or \r\nCoordinates) and Indicate Recipient, Subrecipient, or Contractor\r\n\t(2) Nature of Location and Current Condition/Use\r\n\t(3) Activities to be Performed at Each Location \r\n\t(4) Land Administration\r\n\tUAF’s Tanana \r\nRiver Test Site (TRTS) in Nenana AK located ~ \r\n64°33'38.84\"N, 149° 3'55.49\"W. Recipent\r\n\tThe location of testing is located in the native village of Nenana Alaska. Its current condition consists of a gravel lot with a conex and ATCO office space along with grid power supplied to the ATCO.\r\n\tThe activities conducted at the site will include electrical, mechanical, and platform system development along with field testing of a “Water Horse”. The electrical and mechanical components along with the Water horse, a vertical oscillator hydrokinetic harvester, will be mounted to a stationary barge, deployed on the Tanana River in Nenana Alaska.\r\n\tNenana Native Council owns the shore side property and a land use agreement is currently in place. Permits for work on the water have been secured from ADF&G, US Army Corps of \r\nEngineers. Shoreside \r\nactivities are permitted with Alaska Department of \r\nNatural","tags":["Resources."]},{"file_name":"NEPA Nenana 2019","text_excerpt":"2c. In the box below, please identify and describe: (1) any known or potential health and safety hazards to the public or project workers that may result from or are associated with your proposed project; and (2) any efforts that would be taken to mitigate these hazards. Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b. \r\nPotential hazards are boating or floating platform failures, line failure, and floating river debris. To mitigate these all personnel will wear PPE when on the water and all boats will have secondary motors in the case of engine failure. All lines, gear and other equipment associated with the floating platform will be inspected prior to use and inspected weekly for signs of wear along with cleared of any debris daily. \r\n2d. In the box below, please identify and describe any of the following that would be associated with the proposed project. Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b. \r\n(1) any physical modification of existing facilities or construction of new facilities (this does NOT include modification to equipment, only facilities); \r\n(2) ground disturbing activities; \r\n(3) any change in the use, mission, or operation of existing facilities; \r\n(4) installation or deployment of equipment outdoors including the area of disturbance, what currently exists at the site, the dimensions of the installation, any associated infrastructure, etc. \r\nA boat ramp adjacent to the Test Site and owned by the Nenana Native Council will be prepared using a bulldozer prior to deploying UAF’s barge. At the completion of the barge deployment and retrieval of the barge, the boat ramp will be graded to restore the area to its condition prior to testing. The work will be contracted through the local Native Corporation. The grading is done at the request of the landowner, the Nenana Native Council. At UAF’s Tanana River Test Site, all assets necessary for testing the prototype Work horse, including preparing the test site for launching of research assets, deploying the Research Debris \r\nhttps://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMCRecipient/EQ_Form_V2.aspx?key=23134 3/7 \r\n6/28/2019 U.S. DOE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - Environmental Questionnaire (EQ-1) \r\nDiversion Platform, prepping and deploying fisheries equipment for required regulatory monitoring, prepping the instrumentation barge and vessels for transporting personnel from shore to barge are all in place. \r\n2e. In the box below, please identify and describe any existing, modifications to, or new permits, licenses, or authorizations that would be required to perform project activities (such as environmental permits, operating permits, or drilling permits). Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b. \r\nPermits from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Department of Natural Resources, and Army Corps along with a land use permit between UAF and Nenana Native Council have been secured. \r\n2f. In the box below, please list the estimated quantities of materials to be used (e.g., feedstock, chemicals, water) and produced by the project (e.g., biofuel). Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b. \r\nThe estimated material to be used is 50 gal of gasoline to operate generators and motorized equipment such as boats and trucks. \r\n2g. In the box below, please quantify, to the extent possible, all emissions into the ambient air resulting from project activities. Indicate if the project site is within an attainment or non attainment area. Describe air emissions individually for each site discussed in Question 2b. \r\nPotential emissions include greenhouse gas emissions from generators, motorized vehicles, and boats. \r\n2h. In the box below, please describe: (1) all non-hazardous wastes that would be generated by the proposed project including recycled materials, and (2) the method of their disposal. Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b. \r\nNon-hazardous waste is expected to be limited to garbage and human waste and will be disposed of at state operated transfer sites (garbage). Human waste will be contained within a Porta-potty and disposed of by a licensed contractor. \r\n3. Is the proposed project near, or does it involve, any of the following resources? Please indicate below any and all resources that could be affected by any project activities. (See Attachment 1 to the Environmental Questionnaire for resource definitions.) \r\na. Historical, archeological, or cultural resources (includes listed and eligible resources over 50 years old or of cultural significance) \r\nb. Threatened or endangered species (whether proposed or listed by state or Federal governments), including their habitat \r\ng. Land resources (e.g., tundra, rainforests) h. Coastal zones \r\nc. Marine mammals or essential fish habitat i. Migratory birds, Golden or Bald Eagles \r\nd. Floodplains or wetlands j. Areas having a special designation (e.g., Federal and state designated wilderness areas, \r\nnational parks, national natural landmarks, wild \r\nand scenic rivers, state and Federal wildlife \r\nrefuges, and marine sanctuaries) \r\ne. Tribal lands or resources of Tribal interest/sensitivity","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.Noise","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"NEPA Nenana 2019","text_excerpt":"k. Prime farmland, unique farmland, or other farmland of statewide or local importance\r\nhttps://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMCRecipient/EQ_Form_V2.aspx?key=23134 4/7 \r\n6/28/2019 U.S. DOE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - Environmental Questionnaire (EQ-1) \r\nf. Ocean resources (e.g., coral reefs) l. Special sources of water (e.g., sole source aquifers)","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals ","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation","Management.DesignFeature","Receptor.HumanDimensions.Fisheries","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LifeCycleAssessment","Receptor.HumanDimensions.MarineSpatialPlanning","Receptor.HumanDimensions.RecreationTourism","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Receptor.HumanDimensions.VisualImpacts","Management.Compliance","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"NEPA Nenana 2019","text_excerpt":"4. Does the proposed project involve any of the following activities or areas of concern? Please indicate below any and all activities or areas of concern that exist in the vicinity of your project, are required for your project, or could affect your project. (See Attachment 1 for definitions of each activity or area of concern.) \r\na. Clearing or excavation f. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) b. Dredge and/or fill g. Navigable air space \r\nc. Pre-existing contamination h. Underground storage tanks d. Pesticide use i. Underground extraction/injection \r\ne. Asbestos or lead-based paint j. Use of a non-renewable resource \r\n5. Would the proposed project have the potential to result in impacts to the surrounding community? Please indicate below all areas of concern that exist in the vicinity of your project, are required for your project, or could affect your project. \r\na. Visual impacts e. New transportation access \r\nb. Populations of low income or minorities (Environmental Justice) \r\nf. New utility lines or right-of ways \r\nc. Changes in local employment g. Other impacts d. Changes in local traffic patterns or density \r\n6. Would the proposed project use, result in, or require the management, storage, transport, or disposal of radioactive, toxic, or hazardous chemicals, waste, or other materials that require special handling? \r\nYes: | No: \r\n7. Would the proposed project involve the use or development of recombinant DNA or genetically engineered microorganisms, plants, animals, or similar technologies? \r\nYes: | No: \r\n8. Does the project involve the use of any nanoscale materials or nanotechnology? Yes: | No: \r\nhttps://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMCRecipient/EQ_Form_V2.aspx?key=23134 5/7 \r\n6/28/2019 U.S. DOE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - Environmental Questionnaire (EQ-1) \r\n9. Is there any public opposition concerning any of the project activities? Yes: | No: \r\n10. Would the project involve activities or deployments into marine/freshwater aquatic environments? \r\nYes: | No: \r\nThe water horse will be deployed in the Tanana River, the turbine will occupy the top meter of the waters surface for a week in the summer of 2020 and two weeks in summer 2021. Permits have been secured from ADF&G, USACE and AK DNR. \r\n11. Would the proposed project result in a discharge of any type of wastewater, pollutant, or contaminant, including thermal discharges, to a sewer system, stormwater system, soils, retention ponds, or any water resources (e.g., surface water, including lakes, rivers, creeks, and wetlands; and ground water)? \r\nYes: | No: \r\n12. Would the proposed project have the potential to generate noise impacts to adjacent communities, employees working at the project site, wildlife, and/or sensitive receptors including hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, and elderly housing? \r\nYes: | No: \r\n13. Please provide a detailed description of how the project would be decommissioned, including the disposition of equipment and materials. \r\nThe demobilization of the Tanana River test site will include removing all testing equipment from the water. Boats, tools, and other testing instruments will be transported back to University of Alaska Fairbanks for cleaning and storage. Large pieces of equipment will be stored on shore at the Tanana River test site. The boat ramp where the barge is launched will be graded using a bulldozer to return it to its original condition.\r\nhttps://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMCRecipient/EQ_Form_V2.aspx?key=23134 6/7 \r\n6/28/2019 U.S. DOE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - Environmental Questionnaire (EQ-1) \r\nI hereby certify that I am authorized to submit, and I do so hereby submit, the information in this questionnaire on behalf of the Recipient named below. I certify that the information provided herein is accurate and complete as of the date shown below. I understand that false statements or misrepresentations may result in civil and/or criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. If I receive any information that would indicate that any of the above \r\nreferenced answers are no longer correct or complete, I agree to notify EERE immediately. If it is necessary for EERE to modify the information I provide, EERE will request that I recertify the revised form. \r\n Name: Stephanie Jump \r\n Title: \r\n Recipient: Alaska Center for Energy and Power \r\n Signature: Stephanie Jump \r\n Date: 6/19/2019\r\nhttps://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMCRecipient/EQ_Form_V2.aspx?key=23134 7/7","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.SedimentTransport","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Biological Evaluation\r\nField Testing of Adaptable Monitoring Package and Deployment System","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish ","Receptor.Invertebrates","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Prepared for:\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\r\nFERC and Water Diversions Branch\r\nPortland, OR","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"US Fish and Wildlife Service\r\nLacey, WA","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Prepared, on behalf of the US Department of Energy, by:\r\nDr. Brian Polagye\r\nAssistant Professor, University of Washington\r\nNorthwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center\r\n1. Background and History\r\nThe purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address the effect that the field of testing of the Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP) and its associated deployment system might have on species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their designated critical habitat. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to allow expenditure of federal funds (Proposed Action) by Oregon State University (OSU) and its sub-recipient, the University of Washington (UW) for the project described herein (Project) and seeks concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USDFW) that the Project will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nThe Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy (NNMREC) is a DOE-funded partnership between OSU and UW with a goal of facilitating the responsible commercialization of marine renewable energy in the United States. In conjunction with other research activities, NNMREC is developing the Pacific Marine Energy Center (PMEC) to enable testing of wave and tidal energy converter device performance and environmental interactions. PMEC includes the South Energy Test Site (SETS) a grid-connected, wave energy test facility that will be the first facility of its kind in North America. \r\nA portion of the DOE funding for PMEC will be utilized to develop and test an Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP) for monitoring environmental interactions (Proposed Action). The AMP consists of a streamlined instrumentation package for studying environmental interactions around wave and tidal energy converters. The AMP is deployed from a surface vessel by a Remotely Operated Vehicle. Because these studies will be conducted with financial support from DOE, the Proposed Action is subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the Proposed Action may qualify for a NEPA categorical exclusion (CX) under 10 CFR Part 1021, section B5.25 Small Scale Renewable Energy Research and Pilot Projects in Aquatic Environments (see Federal Register Vol. 776, No. 198 at p. 63797), provided that it will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nIn-water testing of the AMP would be carried out in two locations: Lake Washington and Admiralty Inlet, as shown in Figure 1. Because work would occur in the aquatic environment it has the potential to impact the following ESA-listed marine species that are known to occur in the area: marbled murrelet, Chinook salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, bull trout, green sturgeon, bocaccio, canary rockfish, yellow rockfish, Pacific eulachon, humpback whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Stellar sea lions and designated critical habitat for several of these ESA-listed species. Marbled murrelet and bull trout are a trust resource for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFSW). All other ESA-listed species are a trust resource for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).","tags":["Management.Compliance","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Reptiles","Phase.2Construction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Figure 1 – Overview of Project Areas\r\nThe use of a package like the AMP to enable adaptive monitoring of tidal energy demonstration projects has been discussed with both NMFS and USFWS as part of the permitting and monitoring plan development for the Snohomish PUD/OpenHydro tidal energy demonstration project (Snohomish PUD 2012). The use of this type of package has been supported by both agencies as an effective tool for studying the environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. A complete description of regulatory meetings related to the Snohomish PUD/OpenHydro demonstration project is presented in Snohomish PUD (2012).\r\nThis BE addresses DOE’s proposed Action to provide federal funding to the proposed Project in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with NMFS and/or USFWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.\r\nThe objective of the proposed Project is to test deployment and recovery of the AMP in benign conditions (Lake Washington) and adverse conditions (Admiralty Inlet), to verify its capabilities to support monitoring around wave and tidal current energy projects. The AMP is an enabling technology for monitoring of renewable energy projects in aquatic environment and a piece of critical infrastructure for PMEC.\r\n________________\r\n2. Description of the Project Activities and Project Areas\r\nThe two proposed project areas associated with Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP) testing are described in the following subsections. Lake Washington constitutes a benign testing environment (i.e., limited wave and current action), whereas Admiralty Inlet constitutes an adverse testing environment (i.e., moderate wave and current action). The AMP is not intended for deployment or recovery in strong wave or current action, but may operate in these environments.\r\nThe AMP and deployment system consists of five major components, as shown in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4:\r\n* The Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP), a custom-designed, streamlined instrumentation frame supporting environmental monitoring sensors. These sensors require a shore power and data connection and would not be activated during testing. Once docked, the AMP connects to shore power and data via a hybrid electrical-optical wet-mate connector (“socket” on the docking station, “plug” on the AMP).\r\n* An inspection-class Remotely Operated Vehicle (SAAB SeaEye Falcon ROV) connected to a surface vessel by a power and data umbilical.\r\n* A custom-designed tool skid to augment the thrust of the inspection-class ROV and allow mating with a docking station (“Millennium” tool skid).\r\n* A docking station for the AMP. For operational deployments with a tidal or wave energy converter, the docking station would be incorporated into the converter structure, as shown in Figure 3. For testing, the docking station will be incorporated into a test platform, as shown in Figure 4.\r\n* A launch platform used to position the AMP and ROV at docking station depth. This reduces drag forces on the ROV umbilical (i.e., drag on the portion of the umbilical between platform depth and surface vessel are absorbed by a load-bearing umbilical terminated at the launch platform, rather than being applied directly to the ROV).","tags":["Receptor.Habitat.Benthos","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Figure 2 – Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP) and deployment system components","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.Monitoring","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Figure 3 – Rendering of the AMP deployed from its launch platform and docking with a tidal turbine\r\nThe docking station consists of an alignment guide and clamping surface for the AMP. The docking station also includes the mating connection for the hybrid electrical-optical wet-mate connector on the AMP. In operation, the docking station would be connected to a wave converter or tidal turbine, but for field testing will be mounted to a ballasted frame.","tags":["Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.SedimentTransport","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Monitoring","Phase.2Construction","Technology.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Figure 4 – AMP docking station connected to ballasted frame for field testing. In normal operation, the docking station would be connected to a wave or tidal energy converter.\r\nAMP testing, whether conducted in a benign (e.g., lake) or adverse (e.g., ocean) environment, proceeds through the following stages:\r\n1. Research vessel deploys docking station to lakebed or seabed via load-bearing release (docking station released once in contact with bottom).\r\n2. AMP and ROV are attached to the launch platform and deployed from research vessel. The system is lowered to the approximate depth of the docking station at a distance of no more than 100 m.\r\n3. ROV is powered up and lifts AMP off launch platform.\r\n4. ROV carrying AMP is piloted to docking station by a human operator on the research vessel.\r\n5. ROV mates the AMP with docking station.\r\n6. ROV disengages from AMP and is recovered to the surface vessel. The AMP remains clamped to the docking station.\r\n7. The ROV and launch platform are recovered to the research vessel. (This would be the end point for AMP deployment in an operational scenario around a wave or tidal converter equipped with a docking station.)\r\n8. The AMP is recovered to the surface via an acoustic release. This would be the process for AMP recovery in an operational scenario and would occur several months after AMP deployment, but will occur shortly after the launch platform is recovered during testing.\r\n9. The docking station is recovered to the surface via an acoustic release. In an operational scenario, the docking station would remain attached to the wave or tidal converter for the converter’s primary maintenance cycle (e.g., 5 years). \r\n 1. Testing in a Benign Environment (Lake Washington)\r\nInitial testing in Lake Washington will take place alongside the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory dock. This facility is located in Seattle, Washington, directly beneath the University Bridge on the ship canal connecting Lake Union to Lake Washington. A view looking towards the dock from the water is shown in Figure 5 and an aerial view indicating the site is given in Figure 6. Testing will occur during daytime hours.","tags":["Phase.2Construction ","Management.Monitoring ","Technology.Current ","Technology.OTEC ","Technology.SalinityGradient ","Technology.Wave ","Technology.OffshoreWind ","Receptor.Birds ","Receptor.Fish ","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal ","Receptor.HumanDimensions ","Receptor.MarineMammals ","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment ","Receptor.Reptiles ","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals ","Stressor.Lighting ","Stressor.Noise ","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Figure 5 – Initial testing location (land view)","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.HumanDimensions.VisualImpacts"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Figure 6 – Lake Washington Test Locations (aerial view)\r\nFor more advanced testing, AMP deployments will be practiced in Lake Washington, a fresh water body to the east of Seattle, Washington, at the location shown in Figure 6 (N 47° 39.5', W 122° 15'). Testing will take place during daylight hours on no more than six occasions between April 2014 and June 2015. Each test will be no more than eight hours in duration. Each test will involve a single deployment and recovery of the docking station and multiple deployments and recoveries of the launch platform, ROV, and AMP.\r\n 2. Testing in an Adverse Environment (Admiralty Inlet)\r\nThe Project area for testing in an adverse environment is Admiralty Inlet, a body of salt water at the mouth of Puget Sound subject to both currents and wave action. An aerial view of Admiralty Inlet is shown in Figure 7, annotated with the locations that the AMP would be tested. Preliminary open water tests would be conducted a shallow water site in southern Admiralty Inlet adjacent to Marrowstone Island (48o 2’ N, 122o 39’ W). Subsequently, open water tests would be conducted at a deep water site close to the proposed deployment location for a pair of tidal turbines off Admiralty Head in northern Admiralty Inlet (48o 9’ N, 122o 41’ W).\r\n \r\nFigure 7 – Admiralty Inlet testing locations (aerial view)\r\nTesting will take place during daylight hours on no more than three occasions between June 2014 and June 2015. Each test will be no more than eight hours in duration. Each test will involve a single deployment and recovery of the docking station and multiple deployments and recoveries of the launch platform, ROV, and AMP. During test operations, the surface vessel will observe marine mammal Best Management Practices recommended by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (Annex 1).\r\n3. Listed Species & Critical Habitat in the Project Area\r\nA number of ESA-listed marine species occur within each Project area.\r\nThe following threatened or endangered species are known to be present in Lake Washington and ship canal adjacent to the University of Washington dock: \r\n* Chinook salmon (NMFS 2005a, SPU and USACE 2008), \r\n* Steelhead (NMFS 2007, SPU and USACE 2008), and\r\n* Bull trout (USFWS 2004, SPU and USACE 2008).\r\nThe following threatened or endangered species are known to be present in Admiralty Inlet (HDR 2009):\r\n* Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997)\r\n* Chinook salmon (Good et al. 2005, NMFS 2005a), \r\n* Cchum salmon (NMFS 2005a, Brewer et al. 2005), \r\n* Steelhead (Good et al. 2005, NMFS 2007), \r\n* Bull trout (USFWS 1999, USFWS 2004), \r\n* Green sturgeon (BRT 2005, NMFS 2006a), \r\n* Bocaccio (Palsson et al. 2009, NMFS 2010a), \r\n* Canary rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009, NMFS 2010a), \r\n* Yelloweye rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009, NMFS 2010a), \r\n* Pacific eulachon (NMFS 2010b),\r\n* Southern Resident killer whale (NMFS 2008a), \r\n* Humpback whale (NMFS 1991, NMFS 2005c), and","tags":["Receptor.Birds","","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Stressor.Lighting","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Of these threatened and endangered species, Admiralty Inlet is included in the critical habitat for Chinook salmon and chum salmon (to a depth of 30 m, NMFS 2005b), and Southern Resident killer whales (NMFS 2006b). Lake Washington and the ship canal adjacent to the University of Washington dock are designated as critical habitat for Chinook salmon (NOAA 2005b) and bull trout (USFWS 2010).\r\n________________\r\n4. Environmental Baseline Conditions\r\nLake Washington and the ship canal adjacent to the University of Washington dock (Figure 6) are fresh-water, urbanized waterways located within the Seattle metropolitan area. Human activities include heavy industry (vessel fabrication at yards along the ship canal), construction associated with replacement for the Evergreen Point floating bridge (state highway 520), and recreational boating and fishing. The ship canal and lake are both mud-bottomed.\r\nAdmiralty Inlet is a relatively narrow constriction at the mouth of Puget Sound. Admiralty Inlet serves as the main route for commercial shipping associated with the ports of Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma and is traversed by a passenger/auto ferry. The ambient noise environment is dominated by vessel traffic at frequencies less than 1 kHz (Bassett et al. 2012) and sediment generated noise at frequencies greater than 1 kHz during periods of strong currents (Bassett et al. 2013). Admiralty Inlet is closed to commercial fishing and this closure is observed by native tribes with Usual & Accustomed treaty rights. Several long-distance telecommunications cables have been laid in Admiralty Inlet and inactive power and communications cables associated with decommissioned coastal fortifications span the inlet between the sites of Fort Worden (Port Townsend), Fort Casey (Admiralty Head), and Fort Flagler (Marrowstone Island). Indian Island, closely adjacent to the inlet, is the site of a Naval Magazine (NAVMAG Indian Island).\r\nBetween Port Townsend and Admiralty Head, the channel is approximately 5 km wide and, on average, 70 m deep. In the Project area associated with deep water testing, the water depth ranges from 50 to 60 m and the seabed is predominantly scoured cobble and gravel, colonized by barnacles, sponges, anemones, and starfish (Greene 2011). Maximum tidal currents can exceed 3.5 m/s and the Sea State is generally below 3 on the Beaufort scale.\r\nIn southern Admiralty Inlet, the channel is also approximately 5 km wide, but the water depth exceeds 100 m in the center of the channel. To the east of Marrowstone Island, were shallow water testing would take place, the water depth ranges from 15-25 m. The seabed is predominantly cobbles, gravel, and shell hash, interspersed with sand. The largest clasts are colonized by barnacles, anemones, and starfish (pers. comm., Jim Thomson). Maximum tidal currents are generally less than 2 m/s and the Sea State is generally below 3 on the Beaufort scale.\r\n________________\r\n5. Effects of the Action\r\nThe effects of DOE’s proposed Action and are discussed in the same order as presented in Section 2.\r\n 3. Testing in a Benign Environment\r\nEnvironmental stresses associated with testing of the AMP in a benign environment include:\r\n* The disturbance of the lake bottom where the docking station is set down (less than 1 m2 of disturbed area on each of up to six occasions),\r\n* The presence of a research vessel in Lake Washington (up to 48 hours in total on six occasions), and\r\n* The presence of the AMP and ROV deployment system in the water column of Lake Washington (up to 48 hours in total on six occasions) or alongside the University of Washington dock adjacent to the ship canal (up to 30 hours in total on five occasions).\r\nThe disturbance of the lake bottom associated with setting down the docking station will be minimal, restricted to less than one square meter of disturbed area where the ballasted frame makes contact. This will result in a short-term, localized increase in turbidity that is unlikely to have an effect on ESA-listed species.\r\nThe deployment and recovery of the AMP is an amalgam of operations associated with launching and recovering an ROV and deploying and recovering a small instrumentation package. The AMP supports a number of passive and active acoustic instruments, as well as a strobe-illuminated camera system, but these will not be powered on during testing and the AMP presence is unlikely to have an effect on ESA-listed species. The ROV is an inspection-class system equipped with cameras and artificial lighting. This model of ROV is similar to those used for benthic habitat and fisheries surveys by state and federal resource agencies (e.g., Packunski et al. 2008) and is unlikely to have an effect on ESA-listed species. The umbilical between the launch platform and surface vessel will the taut and the umbilical between the ROV and launch platform will be moderately taut. The tension in these umbilicals and short-term nature of the deployment minimizes the risk of marine life becoming entangled (or a net becoming entangled around an umbilical). Consequently, neither the umbilicals, nor the launch platform, are likely to have an effect on ESA-listed species.\r\nThere is extensive recreational boating traffic on Lake Washington. For example, when the sockeye salmon fishery is open, there can be up to two thousand small boats on the water in a morning. Additionally, larger vessels transit the lake, such as NOAA vessel mobilizing from facilities at Sand Point, on the western shore of Lake Washington. The presence of one sixty-foot research vessel is unlikely to have any incremental effect on ESA-listed species.\r\nEffects associated with testing in a benign environment are summarized in Table 1.\r\nTable 1 – Testing effects summary for benign environment\r\nLocation\r\n\tTiming\r\n\tTotal Test Time\r\n\tContinuous Test Time[1]\r\n\tSeabed Disturbance\r\n\tLake Washington\r\n\tApril 2014 – June 2015\r\n\tUp to 48 hours over six occasions\r\n\t8 hours\r\n\t< 6 m2\r\n\tUniversity of Washington dock\r\n\tApril 2014 – June 2015\r\n\tUp to 30 hours over six occasions\r\n\t5 hours\r\n\tNone","tags":["Relevant tags: Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Stessor.Noise","Technology.Current","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"4. Testing in an Adverse Environment\r\nEnvironmental stresses associated with testing of the AMP in an adverse environment are similar to those resulting from testing in a benign environment. The differences, in addition to the environment in which the testing occurs, are:\r\n* Disturbance of a cobble and gravel seabed, rather than a muddy lake bottom\r\n* Shorter duration of testing activities\r\nWhen the docking station is set down, its weight will likely displace cobbles and crush those sessile invertebrates that are in direct contact with the frame. This includes a number of non-ESA listed barnacles, starfish, sponges, and anemones. Recolonization of disturbed areas (< 3 m2 in total) would likely occur within twelve months. The limited extent of the disturbance in a homogeneous benthic habitat suggests that these disturbances are unlikely to have an effect on ESA-listed species.\r\nBecause of the extensive commercial vessel traffic in Admiralty Inlet (quantified by Bassett et al. 2012), the presence of one sixty-foot research vessel is unlikely to have any incremental effect on ESA-listed species.\r\nEffects of testing in an adverse environment are summarized in Table 2.\r\n________________","tags":["Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Table 2 – Testing effects summary for adverse environment\r\nLocation\r\n\tTiming\r\n\tTotal Test Time\r\n\tContinuous Test Time[2]\r\n\tSeabed Disturbance\r\n\tSouthern Admiralty Inlet (Shallow Water)\r\n\tJune 2014 – June 2015\r\n\tUp to 16 hours over two occasions\r\n\t8 hours\r\n\t< 2 m2\r\n\tNorthern Admiralty Inlet (Deep Water)\r\n\tJune 2014 – June 2015\r\n\tUp to 8 hours over one occasion\r\n\t8 hours\r\n\t< 1 m2","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.HabitatChange"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"6. Committed Actions\r\nThe University of Washington Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, would adhere to the attached Best Management Practices (Annex 1) during all vessel operations, including the transits to and from the survey areas in order to avoid or reduce impacts on protected marine species and their habitats, particularly as they pertain to protected species awareness and avoidance. If whales are sighted they would adhere to the Guidelines for Operations when whales are sited, as summarized in Annex 2. \r\n7. Conclusions\r\nIn conclusion, we have determined that DOE’s proposed Action to fund the proposed Project is unlikely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species occurring within the Project area or their associated critical habitat. \r\n8. Literature cited\r\nBassett, C., Polagye, B., Holt, M., and Thomson, J. (2012) A vessel noise budget for Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound, Washington (USA), Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(6), 3706–3719.\r\nBassett, C., Thomson, J., and Polagye, B. (2013) Sediment generated noise and bed stress in a tidal channel, Journal of Geophysical Research, 118, 1-17 doi:10.1002/jgrc.20169.\r\nBiological Review Team (BRT) (2005) Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review update. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service. 36 pp.\r\nBrewer, S., Watson, J., Christensen, D., Brocksmith, R. (2005) Hood Canal & Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca: Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan. Hood Canal Coordinating Council. November 15, 2005.\r\nGood, T.P., Waples, R.S., and Adams, P. (eds.) (2005) Updated status of federally listed ESUs of west coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NWFSC-66.\r\nGreene, H.G. (2011) Habitat characterization of the SnoPUD turbine site – Admiralty Head, Washington State, Technical Report, June 1, 2011.\r\nNMFS (1991) Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Silver Spring, Maryland.\r\nNMFS (2005a) Endangered and threatened species: Final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of west coast salmon, and final 4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs. 70FR37160.\r\nNMFS (2005b) Endangered and threatened species; Designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon and Idaho; Final rule. 70FR52630.\r\nNMFS (2005c) Humpback whale: eastern north Pacific stock assessment. National Marine Fisheries Service.\r\nNMFS (2006a) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: threatened status for southern distinct population segment of North American Green Sturgeon. Final rule. 71FR17757. \r\nNMFS (2006b) Endangered and threatened species: Designation of critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whale. Final rule. 71FR69054.\r\nNMFS (2007) Endangered and threatened species: Final listing determination for Puget Sound steelhead. 72FR26722.\r\nNMFS (2008a) Recovery Plan for Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.\r\nNMFS (2010a) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: threatened status for Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segments of yelloweye and canary rockfish and endangered status for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Bocaccio rockfish. Final rule. 75FR22276.\r\nNMFS (2010b) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: threatened status for southern distinct population segment of eulachon. Final rule. 75FR13012.\r\nPackunski, R.E., Palsson, W.A., Greene, H.G., Gunderson, D. (2008) Conducting visual surveys with a small ROV in shallow water. In Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska, J.R. Reynolds and H.G. Greene (eds.) Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/mhmta.2008.08\r\nPalsson, W., Tsou, T., Bargmann, G., Buckley, R., West, J., Mills, M., Cheng, Y., and Pacunski, R. (2009) The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Fish Management Division, Fish Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife September 2009.\r\nSeattle Public Utilities (SPU) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Synthesis of salmon research and monitoring, Investigations conducted in the western Lake Washington basin. [Internet]. [cited 1 June 2011]. Available from: http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/pdf/LWGI_SalmonSyn123108.pdf.\r\nSnohomish Public Utility District (2012), Final license application for the Admiralty Inlet tidal project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket P-12690, Mar. 1, 2012.\r\nUSFWS (1997) Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon. 203 pp.\r\nUSFWS (1999) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of threatened status for bull trout in the coterminous United States. 64FR58910. \r\nUSFWS (2004) Draft recovery plan for the coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of II): Puget Sound management unit. Portland, Oregon. 289 + xvii pp.\r\nUSFWS (2006) Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion. Anacortes Ferry Terminal Tie-Up Slip Relocation and Dolphin Replacement. Skagit County, Washington. USFWS No. 1-3-06-FR-0411, X-ref: 1-3-05-F-0150. August 2006. Consultation conducted by USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, WA. 124 pp. plus Appendix 1 and 2.\r\nUSFWS (2010) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the coterminous United States. Final rule. 75FR63898.\r\n________________\r\nAnnex 1","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange; Consequence.Displacement; Management.Compliance; Management.StakeholderEngagement; Receptor.Birds; Receptor.Fish; Receptor.MarineMammals; Receptor.Reptiles; Receptor.TerrestrialMammals; Stressor.BehavioralInteraction; Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction; Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance; Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement; Technology.Current; Technology.OTEC; Technology.SalinityGradient; Technology.Wave; Technology.OffshoreWind; Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed; Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Best Management Practices (BMPs) for General In-Water Work Including Boat and Diver Operations","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"The following BMPSs are intended to reduce potential adverse effects on protected marine species. These BMPs are in no way intended to supersede or replace measures required by any other agency including, but not limited to the ACOE, USFWS, USEPA, or NMFS. Compliance with these BMPs is secondary to safety concerns.","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.Compliance","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Birds","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"A. Constant vigilance shall be kept for the presence of ESA-listed marine species during all aspects of the proposed action, particularly in-water activities such as boat operations, diving, and deployment of anchors and mooring lines.","tags":["Consequence.Injury","Management.Monitoring","Phase.2Construction","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"1. The project manager shall designate an appropriate number of competent observers to survey the marine areas adjacent to the proposed action for ESA-listed marine species. \r\n2. Surveys shall be made prior to the start of work each day, and prior to resumption of work following any break of more than one half hour. Periodic additional surveys throughout the work day are strongly recommended. \r\n3. All in-water work shall be postponed or halted when ESA-listed marine species are within 50 yards of the proposed work, and shall only begin/resume after the animals have voluntarily departed the area. If ESA-listed marine species are noticed within 50 yards after work has already begun, that work may continue only if, in the best judgment of the project supervisor, that there is no way for the activity to adversely affect the animal(s). For example; divers performing surveys or underwater work would likely be permissible, whereas operation of heavy equipment is likely not.\r\n4. When piloting vessels, vessel operators shall alter course to remain at least 100 yards from whales, and at least 50 yards from other marine mammals and sea turtles.\r\n5. Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when piloting vessels at or within the ranges described above from marine mammals and sea turtles. Operators shall be particularly vigilant to watch for turtles at or near the surface in areas of known or suspected turtle activity, and if practicable, reduce vessel speed to 5 knots or less.\r\n6. If despite efforts to maintain the distances and speeds described above, a marine mammal or turtle approaches the vessel, put the engine in neutral until the animal is at least 50 feet away, and then slowly move away to the prescribed distance.\r\n7. Marine mammals and sea turtles should not be encircled or trapped between multiple vessels or between vessels and the shore.\r\n8. Do not attempt to feed, touch, ride, or otherwise intentionally interact with any ESA-listed marine species.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"B. No contamination of the marine environment should result from project-related activities.","tags":["Management.Compliance ","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.WaterQuality","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"9. A contingency plan to control toxic materials is required.\r\n10. Appropriate materials to contain and clean potential spills will be stored at the work site, and be readily available.\r\n11. All project-related materials and equipment placed in the water will be free of pollutants. The project manager and heavy equipment operators will perform daily pre-work equipment inspections for cleanliness and leaks. All heavy equipment operations will be postponed or halted should a leak be detected, and will not proceed until the leak is repaired and equipment cleaned.\r\n12. Fueling of land-based vehicles and equipment should take place at least 50 feet away from the water, preferably over an impervious surface. Fueling of vessels should be done at approved fueling facilities. \r\n13. Turbidity and siltation from project-related work should be minimized and contained through the appropriate use of effective silt containment devices and the curtailment of work during adverse tidal and weather conditions.\r\n14. A plan will be developed to prevent debris and other wastes from entering or remaining in the marine environment during the project.","tags":["Consequence.EntanglementEntrapment","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.2Construction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"________________\r\nAnnex 2","tags":["A study was conducted to measure the effects of the construction of a wave energy farm on the marine ecosystem. The study found that mortality was a consequence","the ecosystem processes were a receptor and physical interaction and changes to flow were stressors.","","Tags: ","Consequence.Mortality","Receptor.EcosystemProcesses","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"Operational Guidelines when in Sight of Whales","tags":["Receptor: Marine Mammals.Cetaceans","Phase: 3OperationsandMaintenance","Management: Compliance","Monitoring","Stressor: Behavioral Interaction.Avoidance","Physical Interaction.Changes in Flow"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"WHEN IN SIGHT OF WHALES:\r\n* 2 miles to 1 mile away:\r\n* Reduce speed to 13 knots.\r\n* Post a dedicated lookout to assist the vessel operator in monitoring the location of all marine mammals.\r\n* Avoid sudden changes in speed and direction.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Management.Mitigation","Management.Compliance","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"* 1 mile to ½ mile away:\r\n* Reduce speed to 10 knots.","tags":["Management.Mitigation ","Management.Compliance","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"* ½ mile or less:\r\n * Reduce speed to 7 knots.\r\n * Maneuver to avoid head-on approach.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH PROCEDURE:\r\n* 600 feet or closer:\r\n * Parallel the course and speed of moving whales up to the designated speed limit within that distance.\r\n * Do not attempt a head-on approach to whales.\r\n * Approach and leave stationary whales at no more than idle or \"no wake\" speed, not to exceed 7 knots.\r\n * Do not intentionally drift down on whales.","tags":["Management.Compliance ","Management.Mitigation ","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans ","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"STAND-BY ZONE\r\n* 300 feet to 600 feet away:\r\n * Two vessel limit within the 300- to 600-foot Stand-By Zone at any one time.","tags":["Management.DesignFeature"," Management.Compliance"," Receptor.HumanDimensions.Navigation"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH ZONE\r\n* 100 feet to 300 feet away:\r\n * One vessel limit.","tags":["* 300 feet to 500 feet:",""," * Slow-speed operations (10 knots maximum speed unless specified by the responsible party)"," * Unmanned vessels permitted","","Tags: Management.Compliance","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Consequence.Displacement","Consequence.BehavioralChange"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"NO INTENTIONAL APPROACH WITHIN 100 FEET.\r\n * Do not approach within 100 feet of whales. If whales approach within 100 feet of your vessel, put engines in neutral and do not re-engage propulsion until whales are observed clear of harm's way from your vessel.","tags":["Management.Compliance ","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans"]},{"file_name":"AMP Biological Evaluation REV1.02","text_excerpt":"DEPARTURE PROCEDURE\r\n * All vessels should leave the whales following the same speed and distance procedures described above.\r\n * In order for vessels to be clear of whales before dark, vessels should cease operations and begin their return to port 15 minutes before sunset.\r\n________________\r\n[1] Longest time that ROV, AMP, or docking station would be continuously in the water during testing in an adverse environment.\r\n[2] Longest time that ROV, AMP, or docking station would be continuously in the water during testing in an adverse environment.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Management.Compliance","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Biological Evaluation\r\n Tidal Energy Monitoring Capabilities Development","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Management.Monitoring","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Prepared for:\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\r\nFERC and Water Diversions Branch\r\nPortland, OR","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.Invertebrates"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"US Fish and Wildlife Service\r\nLacey, WA","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Terrestrial Mammals"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Prepared, on behalf of the US Department of Energy, by:\r\nDr. Brian Polagye, Research Assistant Professor\r\nUniversity of Washington\r\nNorthwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Sharon Kramer\r\nH.T. Harvey & Associates\r\n1.0 BACKGROUND/HISTORY","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address the effect of the Tidal Energy Monitoring Capabilities Development Project on ESA-listed species, listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or their designated critical habitat. The US Department of Energy is proposing to allow expenditure of federal funds (Action) to the Snohomish County Public Utility District (SnoPUD) and its sub-recipient, University of Washington Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center (NNMREC) for the project described herein (Project) and seeks concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service that the Proposed Project is unlikely to adversely affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The project involves deployment and use of testing instrumentation to monitor and evaluate a proposed tidal energy project in Puget Sound. Testing activities would be carried out in three locations: Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Admiralty Inlet, as shown in Figure 1.","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 1 – Overview of Project Areas\r\nBecause work would occur adjacent to, and in, the ocean, it has the potential to impact the following ESA-listed marine species that are known to occur in the area: marbled murrelet, Chinook salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, bull trout, green sturgeon, bocaccio, canary rockfish, yellow rockfish, pacific eulachon, humpback whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Stellar sea lions and designated critical habitat for several of these ESA-listed species. Marbled murrelet and bull trout are a trust resource for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFSW). All other ESA-listed species are a trust resource for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.Salmonids","Receptor.Fish.Bocaccio","Receptor.Fish.Rockfish","Receptor.Fish.Eulachon","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Whales","Receptor.MarineMammals.KillerWhales","Receptor.MarineMammals.SeaLions","Receptor.Habitat.CriticalHabitat"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Early coordination and pre-consultation with NMFS was conducted during a series of meetings and phone conversations including:\r\n* An email exchange with NMFS regional and headquarters staff describing the plan for acoustic effects testing in February 2011. Regional and headquarters staff concurred that the sound propagation test would not require an Incidental Harassment Authorization because broadband source levels and received levels would be below 120 dB.\r\n* Two meetings (Nov 18, 2010 and Jan 26, 2011) where a working group consisting of technical experts drawn from state and regulatory agencies, the University of Washington, consultancies, and SnoPUD discussed the plan for development and testing of the near-field monitoring system described in the proposed Project. \r\n* A conference call in April 2011 between representatives from the US Department of Energy DOE, NMFS, and the NNMREC, during which NMFS discussed DOE’s proposed action and the SnoPUD/NNMREC’s proposed Project and the need for informal consultation.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.Birds","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Technology. Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"This BE addresses DOE’s proposed Action to provide federal funding to the proposed Project in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with NMFS and/or USFWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.HabitatChange"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The objectives of the proposed Project are to:\r\n* Objective 1: Carry out a sound propagation test using a tonal source (10 kHz, broadband source level ≤ 120 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m) to evaluate the directionality of sound transmission for the 1-10 kHz frequency bands in the vicinity of a proposed tidal energy project in Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound. Deployment and installation of tidal hydrokinetic turbines is neither a connected action nor a part of this proposed Action or Project. Information about the directionality of sound propagation is needed to establish context for post-installation acoustic characterization of an operating turbine – namely, to assess the pre-installation assumption that the noise generated by a hydrokinetic turbine would be omni-directional (Polagye et al. 2011).\r\n* Objective 2: Develop and test a near-turbine monitoring system to observe species assemblages in the vicinity of hydrokinetic turbines and the frequency with which aquatic species pass through a turbine rotor’s swept area, placing them at elevated risk to blade strike. This system would consist of visual-spectrum stereo cameras with artificial strobe lighting and an acoustic camera.\r\n* Objective 3: Test passive acoustic instrumentation for monitoring marine mammal presence/absence in the vicinity of a future proposed tidal energy project in Admiralty Inlet.\r\nThe capabilities developed under this Project would allow future tidal energy projects proposed by SnoPUD to monitor and mitigate post-installation environmental effects. These capabilities are also extendable to other tidal and wave energy projects that may require environmental monitoring and mitigation, as well as generic monitoring of aquatic species in contexts beyond marine energy.","tags":["Tags:","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Technology.Current","Technology.Tidal","Technology.Wave"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND PROJECT AREAS","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The three proposed SnoPUD/NNMREC projects and project areas associated with the development of tidal turbine monitoring capabilities are described in the following subsections.","tags":["Technology.Current.Tidal","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"2.1 Sound Propagation Test","tags":["Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"One of the key assumptions made for the pre-installation estimate of noise for a proposed tidal energy project in Admiralty Inlet (Polagye et al. 2011) is that sound would propagate uniformly in all radial directions (i.e., transmission loss depends only on distance from the source, not on heading). The goal of this project is to verify this assumption. Specifically, NNMREC would deploy, from a surface vessel, an ITC-1032 transducer capable of producing an omni-directional acoustic tone at 10 kHz with a source level of 120 dB re 1 μPa at 1m. The transducer calibration curve indicates that 120 dB transmission would require a voltage input of approximately 1 Vrms. A sinusoidal voltage at this frequency and intensity would be output by a signal generator. A power amplifier would be used to match the voltage output to transducer impedance. The transducer would broadcast the tone for 15 seconds out of every 30 seconds. This would allow for evaluation of changing ambient noise conditions throughout the experiment. The transducer would be deployed to a depth of 50 m (the proposed turbine hub height). The transducer depth would be monitored by an in-line pressure logger.","tags":["","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Technology.Current.Tidal","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Management.NoneIdentified","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Sound would be recorded by three types of hydrophone platforms: cabled hydrophones connected to a drifting surface vessel, autonomous hydrophones on drifting buoys, and an autonomous hydrophone deployed on the seabed.\r\n* Cabled hydrophone: a pair of Cetacean Research C54XRS hydrophones would be deployed in-line at depths of 40 m and 20 m and cabled back to a surface vessel. The hydrophone depths would be monitored by in-line pressure loggers. The vessel would drift during measurements with engines and generators off to minimize vessel-induced noise. The vessel would periodically restart its engines to re-position when it drifts outside of the survey area.\r\n* Autonomous drifter: a Loggerhead DSG recording hydrophone would be deployed near the base of the drifter. In this configuration, the hydrophone element would be approximately 1 m below the sea surface.\r\nThe spatial extent of the surveys would consist of a circle 2 km in radius – encompassing the pre-installation estimate for the acoustic footprint for a pair of OpenHydro turbines at maximum power output (estimated to be 1.3 km – Polagye et al. 2011). Sound propagation in the survey area would be assessed from the collected data on the basis of radial wedges, as shown conceptually in Figure 2. Wedges are defined by common sound propagation properties (e.g., transmission loss coefficient). In other words, the sound received within a particular wedge should be principally a function of distance to the source, rather than angular position. The angular separation between wedges depends on the degree of bathymetric variation. For example, to the southeast and northwest of the survey center, the bathymetry within the wedge varies slowly and sound propagation could be expected to be described in a uniform manner within the wedge. However, to the southwest, the bathymetry changes rapidly with angular position and many wedges may be required to resolve variations in sound propagation. The approach taken here is analogous to an “N by 2D” numerical acoustic model and data would be collected in such a way as to facilitate a future comparison with model results.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.HumanDimensions.EnvironmentalImpactAssessment","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Stressor.Noise","Management.Monitoring","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 2 – Conceptual radial wedges (green lines) for evaluating directional transmission loss. The red line denotes the maximum extent of the survey.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Sound propagation tests would occur on two separate days, separated by 1-3 days. On the first day, the source would be deployed at the center of the circle shown in Figure 2 and monitoring efforts would focus on the large wedge to the southeast. This would inform the time required to achieve a desired resolution within a survey quadrant and verify the effectiveness of this method. On the second day, the source would also be deployed at the center of the circle, but monitoring would occur throughout the defined area over a period of up to eight hours. If Southern Resident killer whales are reported to be present in Admiralty Inlet (as informed by local observed networks), testing would be discontinued until the whales transit 5 km beyond the Project area.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Management.Monitoring","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The resulting information would serve to interpret acoustic measurements obtained after the installation of the turbines (not part of this proposed Project). Specifically, while the lower frequencies generated by the turbine would almost certainly result in complex, three-dimensional variations in received levels, noise would also be generated in the 1-3 kHz range. It is reasonable to expect that the conclusions about acoustic transmission at 10 kHz may be extended to sounds in the 1-3 kHz range. If the radial variations in received levels of turbine noise in these bands are well-aligned with the results from the source test, then this would suggest that a turbine acts as an omni-directional source. To the extent different patterns emerge, these may stem from source directivity. Accurate assumptions regarding source directivity and propagation directivity are essential for making accurate pre-installation estimates of received levels of turbine noise for other projects.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The Project area for the sound propagation test is northern Admiralty Inlet, at the location shown in Figure 3.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 3 – Project area for sound propagation test","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.HumanDimensions.VisualImpacts","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"2.2 Near-turbine Monitoring System Development and Testing","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The near-turbine turbine monitoring system instrumentation would consist of:\r\n* Two high resolution machine vision cameras in waterproof housings,\r\n* Four full-spectrum strobe lights in waterproof housings (Excelitas MVS 5002),\r\n* BlueView acoustic camera (P900-2250-45, 2.25 MHz operating frequency); and\r\n* A pressure housing with power converter (AC/DC) and communications system (e.g., Ethernet to fiber optic converter).\r\nThese instruments would be secured to a support frame constructed from marine grade aluminum, as shown in Figure 4, and interconnected with commercially available marine cabling rated for the required power and data transfer rates.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 4 – Near-turbine monitoring system concept","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Reptiles","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The development and testing of the near-turbine monitoring system would proceed through four phases.\r\n* Phase 1: Dockside testing to evaluate the functionality of the system and calibrate the stereo cameras\r\n* Phase 2: Fresh water testing to evaluate system performance in a low-light environment and verify the practicality of deploying the test mooring.\r\n* Phase 3: Salt water testing in an area with weak tidal currents to evaluate system performance in a low-light environment with biological detritus slowly drifting around the camera.\r\n* Phase 4: Salt water testing in an area with strong tidal currents to evaluate system performance in a low-light environment with biological detritus being rapidly advected past the camera by the currents.\r\n \r\nPhase 1: Dockside Testing","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"," Management.Monitoring"," Management.DesignFeature","","Phase 2: Fresh Water Testing "," Phase.2Construction "," Management.Monitoring"," Management.DesignFeature","","Phase 3: Salt Water Testing in an Area with Weak Tidal Currents "," Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"," Management.Monitoring"," Management.DesignFeature","","Phase 4: Salt Water Testing in an Area with Strong Tidal Currents"," Phase.4Decommissioning"," Management.Monitoring"," Management.DesignFeature"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"For Phase 1, the Project area is the fresh water alongside the main University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory boat dock. This facility is located in Seattle, Washington, directly beneath the University Bridge on the ship canal connecting Lake Union to Lake Washington. A view looking towards the dock from the water is shown in Figure 5 and an aerial view indicating the site is given in Figure 6. During the test, the camera frame would be lowered into the water by a dockside crane in a downward looking configuration to a depth of 1-2 m below the surface. Optical targets would be suspended below the water surface. Over the course of the project, from July 2011 – June 2012, the camera system is likely to be operated for no more than 40 hours, depending on the number of iterations required to properly calibrate the stereo cameras and verify instrument communications. Testing would occur during daytime and nighttime hours and the system would operate continuously for periods of up to 4 hours.","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Technology.Current","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Lighting"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 5 – Phase 1 testing location (land view)","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.HumanDimensions.VisualImpacts"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 6 – Phase 1 and 2 testing location (aerial view)","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Phase 2: Fresh Water Testing\r\nFor Phase 2, the Project area is Lake Washington, a fresh water body to the east of Seattle, Washington, at the location shown in Figure 6 (N47° 39.5', W122° 15'). The system would be deployed as shown in Figure 7 with the camera frame and test frame lowered from a research vessel (R/V Jack Robertson) to a depth of 50-60 m. A minimum clearance of 5 m would be maintained between the test frame and lakebed. During testing, the strobes, stereo camera, and acoustic camera would be deployed in a downward looking configuration to image targets on a test frame 2-5 m below the camera frame. Several different types of targets would be installed on the test frame to evaluate the effectiveness of the stereo camera/strobe system. These include standard optical targets (e.g., secchi disk), frozen fish of various species and sizes, mounted to rods at several angles and elevations, and mock-ups of the blades on a tidal turbine rotor. Testing would take place for up to 48 hours over a four day period in July and August 2011[1] and occur during both daytime and nighttime hours. During tests, the system would operate continuously for up to 8 hours at a time.","tags":["Phase: 2Construction","Technology.Current.Riverine","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Benthos ","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 7 – In-water testing configuration\r\n________________\r\nPhase 3: Salt Water Testing in Low Tidal Currents\r\nFor Phase 3, the Project area is Admiralty Inlet, a body of salt water at the mouth of Puget Sound. An aerial view of Admiralty Inlet is shown in Figure 8, annotated with the location that the system would be tested.","tags":["Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 8 – Phase 3 and 4 testing locations (aerial view)\r\nDuring testing, instrumentation and targets would be deployed in a similar manner to those during Phase 2 activities with the same types of targets. A minimum clearance of 5 m would be maintained between the test frame and seabed. Testing would take place for up to 18 hours over two days in August or November 2011[2], with periods of up to four hours of continuous operation of the stereo camera/strobe system and acoustic camera. Testing would occur only during daytime hours.","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Invertebrates","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Phase 4: Salt Water Testing in High Tidal Currents \r\nFor Phase 4, the Project area is also Admiralty Inlet, as shown in Figure 8. Phase 4 testing would take place during a period of stronger currents. Instrumentation and targets would be deployed from the same mooring as previous phases. Testing would take place for up to 6 hours over two days in November 2011, December 2011, or January 2012[3], with periods of up to four hours of continuous operation of the stereo camera/strobe system and acoustic camera. Testing would occur only during daytime hours.","tags":["Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"2.3 Passive Acoustic Monitoring Testing","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Technology.Noise.Underwater","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Two types of passive acoustic monitoring tools would be tested under this proposed Project: 1) click detectors and 2) broadband hydrophones.","tags":["Technology.Noise.Underwater","Receptor.MarineMammals","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Click detectors are passive hydrophones that continually monitor ambient noise and, through software algorithms, identify potential click trains from echolocating cetaceans. Because some species of cetaceans (e.g., harbor porpoise) echolocate at frequencies as high as 130 kHz, a real-time click detector is considerably more efficient in terms of data transfer bandwidth than recording all acoustic data and identifying click trains as a post-processing step. The proposed Project would benchmark the performance of a new click detector designed for cabled operation (Chelonia FPod) against an existing unit designed for stand-alone operation (Chelonia CPod). During testing, both click detectors would be lowered over the side of a drifting research vessel. Drifts would take place in Admiralty Inlet during evening or early morning hours at a time when pre-installation studies have identified relatively high porpoise echolocation activity. Diel echolocation patterns from previous studies in this area, using bottom-mounted CPods, are shown in Figure 9. The metric for comparison between instruments would be Detection Positive Minutes (DPM). Two CPods and two FPods would be simultaneously deployed to also assess variability in detection sensitivity between instruments of the same class (i.e., between a pair of FPods or a pair of CPods).","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Management.Monitoring","Technology.Current.Tidal","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 9 – Diel patterns in harbor porpoise echolocation in the Project Area (Brian Polagye and Jason Wood, unpublished data)","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Unlike click detectors, broadband hydrophones continually monitor ambient noise and either store this data internally or stream it back to a data logger by a cable. The proposed Project would involve testing a broadband hydrophone that has not previously been used by NNMREC. Tests would be conducted dockside from Port Townsend, Washington and from a drifting research vessel in Admiralty Inlet. Data would be collected when vessels are present in Admiralty Inlet and when they are not and the acoustic spectra compared to previous hydrophone measurements.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The proposed Project area is northern Admiralty Inlet at the locations shown in Figure 10. Specifically, dockside testing would take place in Port Townsend, Washington and drifting measurements would take place in northern Admiralty Inlet, offshore of Admiralty Head.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Physical Environment","Stressor.HabitatChange"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 10 – Proposed project area for passive acoustic monitoring testing","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"3.0 LISTED SPECIES & CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PROJECT AREA","tags":["Receptor.Bats","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Receptor.Habitat"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"A number of ESA-listed marine species occur within each Project area.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Invertebrates"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The following threatened or endangered species are known to be present in Admiralty Inlet (HDR 2009): \r\n* Marbled murrelet (USFWS 1997)\r\n* Chinook salmon (Good et al. 2005, NMFS 2005a), \r\n* chum salmon (NMFS 2005a, Brewer et al. 2005), \r\n* steelhead (Good et al. 2005, NMFS 2007), \r\n* bull trout (USFWS 1999, USFWS 2004), \r\n* green sturgeon (BRT 2005, NMFS 2006a), \r\n* bocaccio (Palsson et al. 2009, NMFS 2010a), \r\n* canary rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009, NMFS 2010a), \r\n* yelloweye rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009, NMFS 2010a), \r\n* pacific eulachon (NMFS 2010b),\r\n* Southern Resident killer whale (NMFS 2008a), \r\n* humpback whale (NMFS 1991, NMFS 2005c), and \r\n* Stellar sea lion (Angliss and Outlaw 2006, NMFS 2008b).","tags":["Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl ","","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish ","","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish ","","Receptor.Fish.Sharks ","","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans ","","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds ","","Receptor.Reptiles ","","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals ","","Consequence.Mortality"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The following threatened or endangered species are known to be present in Lake Washington and the ship canal adjacent to the University of Washington dock: \r\n* Chinook salmon (NMFS 2005a, SPU and USACE 2008) and \r\n* steelhead (NMFS 2007, SPU and USACE 2008). \r\n* Bull trout are known to occur in the Lake Washington watershed (USFWS 2004, SPU and USACE 2008).","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Of these threatened and endangered species, Admiralty Inlet is included in the critical habitat for Chinook salmon and chum salmon (to a depth of 30 m, NMFS 2005b), and Southern Resident killer whales (NMFS 2006b). Lake Washington and the ship canal adjacent to the University of Washington dock are designated as critical habitat for Chinook salmon (NOAA 2005b) and bull trout (USFWS 2010).","tags":["Receptor.Fish.Salmon","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"A short discussion of those species characteristics that influence the probability of interactions between these species, their critical habit, and the proposed Project is included in Table 1. This information is summarized from the Draft License Application submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by SnoPUD in association with a proposed tidal hydrokinetic energy project in Admiralty Inlet (HDR 2009). Some of these characteristics increase the likelihood of interaction with the proposed Project, while others decrease the likelihood.\r\n________________","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Technology.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Table 1 – Characteristics of ESA-listed species influencing likelihood of interaction with proposed Project activities\r\nESA-listed Species\r\n\tSpecies Characteristic\r\n\tImplications of Proposed Project\r\n\tChinook salmon","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish Management.Mitigation"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"90% of juveniles likely in water shallower than 30 m. Critical habitat extends from shoreline to a depth of 30 m.\r\n\tBecause the near-field monitoring system would be deployed to a depth of 40-60 m during fresh and salt water testing, this would be beyond the depth utilized by most juveniles.\r\n\tHighest annual abundance in July and August.\r\n\tSome fresh and salt water testing of the near-field monitoring system would occur during a period of high relative abundance of juvenile Chinook Salmon.\r\n\tChum salmon\r\n\tAll individuals likely in water shallower than 30 m. Critical habitat extends from shoreline to a depth of 30 m.\r\n\tBecause the near-field monitoring system would be deployed to a depth of 40-60 m during fresh and salt water testing, this would occur beyond the depth normally utilized by this species.\r\n\tHighest annual abundance in October and November.\r\n\tSome fresh and salt water testing of the near-field monitoring system would occur during a period of high relative abundance of adult chum salmon.\r\n\tSteelhead\r\n\tJuvenile migrations most likely in April and May.\r\n\tJuvenile steelhead are unlikely to encounter any aspect of the project activities.\r\n\tBull trout\r\n\tCritical habitat extends from shoreline to the 10 m depth contour.\r\n\tFresh and salt water test of the near-field monitoring system would not occur in bull trout critical habitat.\r\n\tBocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish \r\n\tSpecies prefers high relief habitat.\r\n\tFor the salt water test of the near-field monitoring system, the package would be deployed on a flat, cobbled seabed unsuitable for rockfishes.\r\n\tHumpback whales, green sturgeon\r\n\tPredominantly occur in coastal waters and, on average, humpbacks are only sighted in Admiralty Inlet seven times each year. Green sturgeon are generally more coastal.\r\n\tThere is a low probability of a humpback whale or green sturgeon being present in Admiralty Inlet during the salt water testing of the near-field monitoring system or during the sound propagation test.\r\n\tStellar sea lions\r\n\tHaul out several kilometers away from the Project area, individuals routinely observed in the Action Area.\r\n\tThere is a high probability of a Stellar sea lion being present in Admiralty Inlet during the salt water testing of the near-field monitoring system and during the sound propagation test.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish ","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Management.NoneIdentified","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Consequence.Collision","Consequence.CommunityChange","Consequence.Displacement","Consequence.Injury","Consequence.Mortality","Consequence.EntanglementEntrapment","Consequence.Attraction","Consequence.Avoidance","Technology.Current","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.OTEC","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.ClimateChange","Receptor.HumanDimensions.EnvironmentalImpactAssessment","Receptor.HumanDimensions.Fisheries","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LifeCycleAssessment","Receptor.HumanDimensions.MarineSpatialPlanning","Receptor.HumanDimensions.Navigation","Receptor.HumanDimensions.RecreationTourism","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Receptor.HumanDimensions.VisualImpacts","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.SedimentTransport","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.EMF","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.InvasiveSpecies"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"________________\r\n4.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION","tags":["This section provides an overview of the potential effects of the proposed offshore wind project on the environment","with detailed discussion of potential impacts on fishing and navigation","terrestrial and marine mammals and birds","benthic organisms","and other species.","","Tags: Receptor.Fisheries","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Invertebrates"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The effects of DOE’s proposed Action and SnoPUD/NNMREC’s proposed Project are discussed in the same order as presented in Section 2.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"4.1 Sound Propagation Test","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Environmental stresses associated with the sound propagation test include:\r\n* The 10 kHz tone, with a source level of 120 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m,\r\n* The mooring to hold the research vessel deploying the acoustic source on station, and\r\n* The presence of two research vessels in northern Admiralty Inlet for the duration of the test.","tags":["Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Hastings and Popper (2005) divide fish species into hearing specialists and hearing generalists. Based on studies to date, specialists are able to perceive sounds up to 4 kHz, while generalists are only able to perceive sounds up to 1.5 kHz. Since a 10 kHz tone would be used for the sound propagation test, none of the fish species present in the proposed Project area would be expected to perceive the sound. Therefore, no behavioral effects are likely to occur. Marine mammal hearing is sensitive to a wider range of frequencies (Southall et al. 2007) and the tone is within the functional hearing range of humpback whales, Southern Resident killer whales, and Stellar sea lions. The intensity of the tone (rms source level of 120 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) is, however, at the threshold established by NMFS for behavioral disturbance (120 dB re 1 μPa). Consequently, while marine mammals in the Project area may be able to detect the acoustic tone, it is unlikely to have any behavioral effect. Further, testing would be discontinued if Southern Resident killer whales are reported in Admiralty Inlet by local observer networks and not resumed until they are at least 5 km away from the Project area. Maximum sensitivity to avian species for airborne sound is between 1 and 5 kHz (Dooling 1982), so it is possible that the acoustic source will be audible to a diving marbled murrelet. USFWS guidelines for estimating significant behavioral disturbances due to underwater noise are 150 dB re 1µPa rms (USFWS 2006). Because the intensity of the tone (rms source level of 120 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) is below this threshold, no behavioral disturbance due to noise would be expected.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Measurements of background noise in Admiralty Inlet (Bassett 2010) show that broadband rms sound pressure levels exceed the 120 dB behavioral disturbance threshold for marine mammals nearly 50% of the time, as shown in Figure 11. This is attributed to the high density of vessel traffic in Admiralty Inlet from commercial shipping and passenger ferries.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals ","Stressor.Noise.Airborne ","Management.Monitoring ","Management.Mitigation"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 11 – Cumulative probability distribution of broadband (156 Hz – 30 kHz) rms sound pressure levels in northern Admiralty Inlet from recording hydrophone deployments (Bassett 2010 and Chris Bassett, unpublished data)","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Fish","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Underwater"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The acoustic source would be deployed from a research vessel (R/V Inferno) for the duration of the propagation test (no more than 12 hours in total). To hold the research vessel on station, a temporary mooring would be deployed in the Project area. This would consist of a stack of two railroad wheels, ~ 1 m in diameter and weighing 900 kg. These would be deployed from another research vessel with a high lifting capacity crane (R/V Jack Robertson) and recovered at the conclusion of the sound propagation test. When deployed, the mooring would rest on the seabed, disturbing 0.8 m2 within the Project area. Benthic habitat surveys (Snohomish PUD 2011) describe the seabed in the Project area as relatively uniform, composed predominantly of cobbles (6-26 cm characteristic size), pebbles (3-6 cm), and small boulders (26-40 cm). These cobbles are colonized by barnacles, algae, and anemones. The short-term disturbance from the mooring is unlikely to have any lasting effect on critical habitat for ESA-listed species. The mooring line from the anchor to research vessel deploying the source would be in tension throughout the sound propagation test due to the strength of the tidal currents in the Project area. Consequently, the only potential risk to ESA-listed species is collision with the taut line, which would be unlikely to cause serious injury[4].","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.Invertebrates","Consequence.Displacement","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Consequence.EntanglementEntrapment","Consequence.Collision","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Compliance."]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"As previously mentioned, vessel traffic levels in Admiralty Inlet are relatively high. A passenger ferry makes 20 crossing per day seven days each week, between Port Townsend and Keystone Harbor and all cargo vessels bound for the ports of Everett, Tacoma, and Seattle must pass through Admiralty Inlet. Tugs, barges, tankers, fishing vessels, military traffic, and cruise vessels also intermittently pass in close proximity to the Project area. Vessel density statistics derived from analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data are shown in Figure 12. In this context, the presence of two additional research vessels (one holding station on a mooring, the other primarily conducting drift surveys with engines and generators turned off) is unlikely to have any incremental effect on ESA-listed species.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.HumanDimensions.Navigation","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Reptiles","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Figure 12 – Vessel traffic density in vicinity of Action Area (Brian Polagye and Chris Bassett, unpublished data). Traffic density is shown in cumulative vessel-minutes on a 100 m x 100 m horizontal grid, as recorded over a three month period. Apparent in the vessel density statistics are the north bound and south bound traffic separation zone for commercial traffic and the ferry crossing from Port Townsend to Keystone Harbor.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.Navigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"In summary, the sound propagation test is unlikely to have any effect on ESA-listed species, but may be detected by marine mammals in the Project area and would disturb a small area of the seabed (< 1 m2). Testing effects are summarized in Table 2.","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Table 2 – Testing effects summary: sound propagation test\r\nLocation\r\n\tTiming\r\n\tTotal Test Time\r\n\tContinuous Test Time[5]\r\n\tSeabed Disturbance\r\n\tAdmiralty Inlet\r\n\tAugust 2011 (day only)\r\n\t12 hours over 2 days\r\n\t6 hours\r\n\t0.8 m2","tags":["Location","Timing","Total Test Time","Seabed Disturbance","Phase.2Construction","Stressor.Noise.Underwater"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"________________\r\n4.2 Near-turbine Monitoring System Development and Testing","tags":["Phase: 2 Construction","","Stressor: Noise","Physical Interaction","Behavioral Interaction","","Consequence: Injury","Displacement","Mortality"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Environmental stresses associated with near-turbine monitoring system testing include:\r\n* Artificial illumination for the stereo cameras;\r\n* Sound from the acoustic camera; and\r\n* The presence of research vessels for the duration of testing in Lake Washington and Admiralty Inlet.","tags":["Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"In deep water or during nighttime hours, ambient illumination is insufficient to observe aquatic species with visual-spectrum cameras. Consequently, full-spectrum strobe illumination would be required to operate the system during the observation of a hydrokinetic tidal turbine (not part of the proposed action). The effect of artificial illumination varies with species and depth. For example, artificial light has been shown to result in attraction behavior by some surface species (Marchesan et al. 2005), while it has been shown to result in avoidance behavior in relatively deep water (e.g., deeper than 1000 m, Raymond and Widder 2007). The response to light in water between 50 and 60 m would likely vary by species and an opportunistic assessment of this effect is one objective of the Proposed Action. During testing, the camera and strobes would be oriented in a downward-looking direction, towards the seabed or lakebed. The extent of artificial illumination would, therefore, be roughly hemispherical, with a diameter equal to the separation between the test frame and camera frame (2-6 m). Similar illumination systems are used for benthic habitat surveys (Shortis et al. 2007), to monitor the effectiveness of trawls (Wouldiams et al. 2010), and for ROV surveys to evaluate species presence and absence (Pacunksi et al. 2008).","tags":["Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Birds","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Technology.Current.Tidal","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The acoustic camera that would be used during testing is a BlueView P900-2250-45, operating at a frequency of 2.25 MHz. As previously discussed, this is outside of the functional hearing range of fish (Hastings and Popper 2005) and birds (Dooling 1982). While marine mammal hearing is more sensitive to higher frequencies, even cetaceans that are most sensitive to high frequency noise (e.g., harbor porpoises) have a functional hearing cut-off around 180 kHz. This is a well below the operating frequency of the acoustic camera. Consequently, the acoustic camera would not be audible to any ESA-listed species in the Project areas.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Bird","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Technology.Current.Tidal","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Potential effects of the near-turbine monitoring system development and testing are further described by testing phase.","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Management.Monitoring","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Phase 1: Dockside Testing","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"For dockside testing, the camera frame would be deployed to a depth of a few meters. During daylight hours, operation of the strobe would not substantially increase light beyond ambient levels and would be unlikely to affect aquatic species. During nighttime hours, operation of the strobe would illuminate the water column between the camera frame and bottom (~ 2-3 m depth). This may result in attraction of aquatic species in the immediate vicinity of the camera frame. However, given the duration of nighttime testing (less than 40 hours over a six month period), any attraction associated with the artificial lighting would be temporary and is not anticipated to have biological significance.","tags":["Receptor.Benthos ","Receptor.Fish ","Receptor.Invertebrates","Stressor.Lighting","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Phase 2: Fresh Water Testing","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"For fresh water testing, the camera and test frame would be deployed to a depth between 50 and 60 m. At this depth, ambient light is likely to be almost completely attenuated, even in full sunlight. Consequently, artificial illumination from the strobes may result in short-term attraction or avoidance behavior by aquatic species. The duration of this illumination would be, at most, 48 hours over a four day period, with continuous illumination occurring for no longer than eight hours at a time. Consequently, attraction or avoidance would be temporary and is not anticipated to be of biological significance. A longer term deployment (e.g., on the order of months) might result in a biologically significant artificial reef effect.","tags":["Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.Lighting"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"There is extensive recreational boating traffic on Lake Washington. For example, when the sockeye salmon fishery is open, there can be up to 2000 boats on the water in a morning. Additionally, larger vessels transit the lake, such as NOAA vessel mobilizing from facilities at Sand Point, on the western shore. The presence two additional research vessels (one to deploy and recovery the mooring, the other to collect data from the camera system) are unlikely to have any incremental effect on ESA-listed species.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.HumandDimensions.RecreationTourism","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.Benthos"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Phase 3 and Phase 4: Salt Water Testing","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"For salt water testing, the camera and test frame would be deployed at a depth between 50 and 60 m. Similarly to fresh water testing, artificial lighting at this depth may result in short-term, temporary attraction or avoidance behavior by aquatic species. The duration of this illumination would be, at most, a total of 24 hours over four days, with continuous illumination occurring for no longer than four hours at a time. Consequently, attraction or avoidance would be temporary and is not anticipated to be of biological significance for ESA-listed species. A long term deployment (e.g., on the order of months) might result in a biologically significant artificial reef effect. \r\n \r\nAs previously discussed in Section 4.1, vessel traffic density in Admiralty Inlet is relatively high and the presence two additional research vessels (one to deploy and recovery the mooring, the other to collect data from the camera system) are unlikely to have any incremental effect on ESA-listed species.","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Consequence.Injury","Management.Compliance","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.Lighting","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The testing of the near-field monitoring system may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, ESA-listed species. The primary effect would come from the artificial illumination for the stereo camera system, but the duration of testing is sufficiently short term that attraction or avoidance would be unlikely to be of biological significance. Further, one of the goals of testing is to better understand the effect that artificial light has on aquatic species near the seabed in the Project area and the role that this would play in interpreting the results of post-installation monitoring of a tidal turbine. Details about all tests are summarized in Table 3.\r\n________________","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Stressor.Lighting","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Table 3 – Testing effects summary: Near-turbine monitoring system development and testing\r\nTesting\r\n\tLocation\r\n\tTiming\r\n\tTotal Test Time\r\n\tContinuous Test Time[6]\r\n\tPhase 1\r\n\tUniversity of Washington Dock\r\n\tJuly 2011-June 2012 (day and night)\r\n\t40 hours over 6 months\r\n\t4 hours\r\n\tPhase 2\r\n\tLake Washington\r\n\tJuly and August 2011 (day and night)\r\n\t48 hours over 4 days\r\n\t8 hours\r\n\tPhase 3\r\n\tAdmiralty Inlet\r\n\tAugust or November 2011 (day only)\r\n\t18 hours over 2 days\r\n\t4 hours\r\n\tPhase 4\r\n\tAdmiralty Inlet\r\n\tNovember 2011 or December 2011 or January 2012 (day only)\r\n\t6 hours over 2 days\r\n\t4 hours","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"4.3 Passive Acoustic Monitoring Testing","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Testing of passive acoustic monitoring instrumentation would consist of several short-term drift surveys in the Action Area by a research vessel. During these surveys, instrumentation, consisting of hydrophones and pressure cases, would be deployed from cables to a depth of 30-50 m. Due to the strength of tidal currents in the Project area; the cabling would be relatively taut and pose little entanglement risk to aquatic species. While drifting, the research vessel’s engine and generator would be switched off to avoid contaminating measurements with vessel noise. These instruments would also be deployed in shallow water alongside a dock at a marina in Port Townsend, Washington.","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance ","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds ","Stressor.Noise.Underwater ","Stressor.Lighting ","Consequence.BehavioralChange ","Consequence.EntanglementEntrapment","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"The testing of passive acoustic monitoring instrumentation is unlikely to have any effect on ESA-listed species.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Table 4 – Testing effects summary: passive acoustic monitoring testing\r\nTesting\r\n\tLocation\r\n\tTiming\r\n\tTotal Test Time\r\n\tContinuous Test Time[7]\r\n\tDrift\r\n\tAdmiralty Inlet\r\n\tAugust or November 2011 (day only)\r\n\t6 hours over 2 days\r\n\t1 hour\r\n\tDock\r\n\tPort Townsend\r\n\tAugust or November 2011 (day only)\r\n\t2 hours over 2 days\r\n\t1 hour","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"7.0 COMMITTED ACTIONS","tags":["7.1 Design phase"," ","The project designers will develop the following assessments:","","• Visual impact assessment","","• Fish","invertebrate and marine mammal avoidance/attraction assessment","","• Sediment transport assessment","","• Site characterisation and geotechnical assessment","","• Assessment of potential physical","environmental and human impacts ","","• Underwater noise and EMF assessment ","","• Management plans for bird life","","Tags: Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Consequence.Avoidance","Consequence.Attraction","Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.EMF","Receptor.Birds","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.SedimentTransport","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Snohomish County Public Utility District, its sub-recipient the University of Washington Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, and their subcontractors would adhere to the NMFS-recommended BMPs (Annex 1) during all vessel operations, including the transits to and from the survey areas in order to avoid or reduce impacts on protected marine species and their habitats, particularly as they pertain to protected species awareness and avoidance. If whales are sighted they would adhere to the Guidelines for Operations when whales are sited, as summarized in Annex 2. In addition, if Southern Resident killer whales are reported to be present in Admiralty Inlet (as informed by local observed networks), testing would be discontinued until the whales transit 5 km beyond the Project area.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.EcosystemProcesses","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"8.0 CONCLUSIONS","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Consequence.Mortality","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"In conclusion, we have determined that DOE’s proposed Action to fund the SnoPUD/NNMREC’s proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species occurring within the Project area or their associated critical habitat. Details regarding the duration of all tests are summarized in Table 5 (populated from individual tables in each effects analysis section).","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current.Tidal","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Table 5 – Testing effects summary: all testing activities\r\nTesting\r\n\tLocation\r\n\tTiming\r\n\tTotal Test Time\r\n\tContinuous Test Time[8]\r\n\tSound propagation\r\n\tAdmiralty Inlet\r\n\tAugust 2011 (day only)\r\n\t12 hours over 2 days\r\n\t6 hours\r\n\tNear-turbine monitoring – Phase 1\r\n\tUniversity of Washington Dock\r\n\tJuly 2011-June 2012 (day and night)\r\n\t40 hours over 6 months\r\n\t4 hours\r\n\tNear-turbine monitoring – Phase 2\r\n\tLake Washington\r\n\tJuly and August 2011 (day and night)\r\n\t48 hours over 4 days\r\n\t8 hours\r\n\tNear-turbine monitoring – Phase 3\r\n\tAdmiralty Inlet\r\n\tAugust or November 2011 (day only)\r\n\t18 hours over 2 days\r\n\t4 hours\r\n\tNear-turbine monitoring – Phase 4\r\n\tAdmiralty Inlet\r\n\tNovember 2011 or December 2011 or January 2012 (day only)\r\n\t6 hours over 2 days\r\n\t4 hours\r\n\tPassive Acoustics – Drift\r\n\tAdmiralty Inlet\r\n\tAugust or November 2011 (day only)\r\n\t6 hours over 2 days\r\n\t1 hour\r\n\tPassive Acoustics - Dock\r\n\tPort Townsend\r\n\tAugust or November 2011 (day only)\r\n\t2 hours over 2 days\r\n\t1 hour","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"9.0 LITERATURE CITED","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified"," Phase.4Decommissioning"," Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Angliss, R.P. and Outlaw, R.B. (2006) Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus): Eastern U. S. Stock Assessment Report. NOAA-TM-AFSC-168.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.4Decommissioning","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.EMF"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Bassett, C. (2010) Underwater Ambient Noise at a Proposed Tidal Energy Site in Puget Sound, Masters thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Technology.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Biological Review Team (BRT) (2005) Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review update. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service. 36 pp.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Brewer, S., Watson, J., Christensen, D., Brocksmith, R. (2005) Hood Canal & Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca: Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan. Hood Canal Coordinating Council. November 15, 2005.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Birds","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.4Decommissioning","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Dooling, R.J. (1982) Auditory perception in birds. In Acoustic communication in birds, ed.\r\nKroodsma, D.E., E.H. Miller and H. Ouellet. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press. 95-130.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Good, T.P., Waples, R.S., and Adams, P. (eds.) (2005) Updated status of federally listed ESUs of west coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NWFSC-66.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Hastings, M.C. and Popper, A.N. (2005) Effects of Sound on Fish. (Subconsultants) Submitted by Jones & Stokes to California Dept. of Transportation Contract No. 43A0139. Task Order 1.","tags":["Consequence.Injury","Receptor.Fish","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"HDR, Inc. (2009) Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project FERC Project No. 12690, Exhibit E, Draft Environmental Report. Prepared for Snohomish County Public Utility District and submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) December, 2009.","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Fish","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Marchesan, M., Spoto, M., Verginella, L., and Ferrero, EA. (2005) Behavioral effects of artificial light on fish species of commercial interest. Fish. Res. 73:171-185.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Stressor.Lighting","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (1991) Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Silver Spring, Maryland.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2005a) Endangered and threatened species: Final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of west coast salmon, and final 4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs. 70FR37160.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Consequence.Mortality","Management.NoneIdentified","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.4Decommissioning","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2005b) Endangered and threatened species; Designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon and Idaho; Final rule. 70FR52630.","tags":["Consequence.Mortality","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans ","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.HabitatChange","Technology.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2005c) Humpback whale: eastern north Pacific stock assessment. National Marine Fisheries Service.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2006a) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: threatened status for southern distinct population segment of North American Green Sturgeon. Final rule. 71FR17757.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2006b) Endangered and threatened species: Designation of critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whale. Final rule. 71FR69054.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Phase.4Decommissioning","Management.NoneIdentified","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Technology.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2007) Endangered and threatened species: Final listing determination for Puget Sound steelhead. 72FR26722.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Management.Monitoring","Management.Compliance","Receptor.Fish"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2008a) Recovery Plan for Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.2Construction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2008b) Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 325 pages.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Phase.4Decommissioning","Stressor.InvasiveSpecies","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2010a) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: threatened status for Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segments of yelloweye and canary rockfish and endangered status for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Bocaccio rockfish. Final rule. 75FR22276.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS (2010b) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: threatened status for southern distinct population segment of eulachon. Final rule. 75FR13012.","tags":["Consequence.Mortality","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Management.Compliance","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Packunski, R.E., Palsson, W.A., Greene, H.G., Gunderson, D. (2008) Conducting visual surveys with a small ROV in shallow water. In Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska, J.R. Reynolds and H.G. Greene (eds.) Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/mhmta.2008.08","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Management.Monitoring","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Palsson, W., Tsou, T., Bargmann, G., Buckley, R., West, J., Mills, M., Cheng, Y., and Pacunski, R. (2009) The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Fish Management Division, Fish Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife September 2009.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Polagye, B., Bassett, C., and Thomson, J. (2011) Estimated received noise levels for marine mammals from OpenHydro turbines in Admiralty Inlet, Washington. Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center Technical Report: UW-2011-01. January, 2011.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Raymond, E.H. and Widder, E.A. (2007) Behavioral responses of two deep-sea fish species to red, far-red, and white light. Marine Ecology Progress Series 350:291-298.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Stressor.Lighting","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Synthesis of salmon research and monitoring, Investigations conducted in the western Lake Washington basin. [Internet]. [cited 1 June 2011]. Available from: http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/pdf/LWGI_SalmonSyn123108.pdf.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment ","Management.Compliance ","Management.NoneIdentified ","HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","HumanDimensions.Fisheries"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Shortis, M.R., Seager, J.W., Wouldiams, A., Barker, B.A., and Sherlock, M. (2007) A towed body stereo-video system for deep water benthic habitat surveys. In: Grun, A. and Kahmen, H. (eds.) Eighth Conference on Optical 3-D Measurement Techniques, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, p. 150-157.\r\n \r\nSnohomish County PUD (2011) Seafloor substrate and benthic habitat characterization of the SnoPUD Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project turbine site through ROV video observations – a preliminary report. Distributed January 20, 2011.","tags":["Receptor.Benthos ","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos ","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Southall B.L., Bowles, A., Ellison, W., Finneran, J., Gentry, R., Greene, C. Jr., Kastak, D., Kettan, D., Miller, J., Nachitgall, P., Richardson, J., Thomas, J., and Tyack, P. (2007) Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"USFWS (1997) Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon. 203 pp.","tags":["Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"USFWS (1999) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of threatened status for bull trout in the coterminous United States. 64FR58910.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Consequence.CommunityChange","Consequence.Displacement"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"USFWS (2004) Draft recovery plan for the coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of II): Puget Sound management unit. Portland, Oregon. 289 + xvii pp.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish ","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Management.NoneIdentified","Stressor.Noise.Underwater"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"USFWS (2006) Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion. Anacortes Ferry Terminal Tie-Up Slip Relocation and Dolphin Replacement. Skagit County, Washington. USFWS No. 1-3-06-FR-0411, X-ref: 1-3-05-F-0150. August 2006. Consultation conducted by USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, WA. 124 pp. plus Appendix 1 and 2.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.MarineMammals.Dolphins","Receptor.Mammals.Terrestrial","Management.Compliance","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Consequence.Displacement","HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"USFWS (2010) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the coterminous United States. Final rule. 75FR63898.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Birds","Management.NoneIdentified","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Stressor.HabitatChange","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Wouldiams, K., Rooper, C.N., and Towler, R. (2010) Use of stereo camera systems for assessment of rockfish abundance in untrawlable areas and for recording pollock behavior during midwater trawls. Fisheries Bulletin 108:352-362.\r\n________________\r\nAnnex 1","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Best Management Practices (BMPs) for General In-Water Work Including Boat and Diver Operations","tags":["Management.Mitigation","Management.Compliance","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Mammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.Noise"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NMFS Protected Resources Division recommends implementation of the following BMPs to reduce potential adverse affects on protected marine species. These BMPs are in no way intended to supersede or replace measures required by any other agency including, but not limited to the ACOE, USFWS, USEPA, or NMFS Habitat Conservation Division. Compliance with these BMPs is secondary to safety concerns.","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"A. Constant vigilance shall be kept for the presence of ESA-listed marine species during all aspects of the proposed action, particularly in-water activities such as boat operations, diving, and deployment of anchors and mooring lines.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Management.Monitoring","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"1. The project manager shall designate an appropriate number of competent observers to survey the marine areas adjacent to the proposed action for ESA-listed marine species. \r\n2. Surveys shall be made prior to the start of work each day, and prior to resumption of work following any break of more than one half hour. Periodic additional surveys throughout the work day are strongly recommended. \r\n3. All in-water work shall be postponed or halted when ESA-listed marine species are within 50 yards of the proposed work, and shall only begin/resume after the animals have voluntarily departed the area. If ESA-listed marine species are noticed within 50 yards after work has already begun, that work may continue only if, in the best judgment of the project supervisor, that there is no way for the activity to adversely affect the animal(s). For example; divers performing surveys or underwater work would likely be permissible, whereas operation of heavy equipment is likely not.\r\n4. When piloting vessels, vessel operators shall alter course to remain at least 100 yards from whales, and at least 50 yards from other marine mammals and sea turtles.\r\n5. Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when piloting vessels at or within the ranges described above from marine mammals and sea turtles. Operators shall be particularly vigilant to watch for turtles at or near the surface in areas of known or suspected turtle activity, and if practicable, reduce vessel speed to 5 knots or less.\r\n6. If despite efforts to maintain the distances and speeds described above, a marine mammal or turtle approaches the vessel, put the engine in neutral until the animal is at least 50 feet away, and then slowly move away to the prescribed distance.\r\n7. Marine mammals and sea turtles should not be encircled or trapped between multiple vessels or between vessels and the shore.\r\n8. Do not attempt to feed, touch, ride, or otherwise intentionally interact with any ESA-listed marine species.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"B. No contamination of the marine environment should result from project-related activities.","tags":["Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"9. A contingency plan to control toxic materials is required.\r\n10. Appropriate materials to contain and clean potential spills will be stored at the work site, and be readily available.\r\n11. All project-related materials and equipment placed in the water will be free of pollutants. The project manager and heavy equipment operators will perform daily pre-work equipment inspections for cleanliness and leaks. All heavy equipment operations will be postponed or halted should a leak be detected, and will not proceed until the leak is repaired and equipment cleaned.\r\n12. Fueling of land-based vehicles and equipment should take place at least 50 feet away from the water, preferably over an impervious surface. Fueling of vessels should be done at approved fueling facilities. \r\n13. Turbidity and siltation from project-related work should be minimized and contained through the appropriate use of effective silt containment devices and the curtailment of work during adverse tidal and weather conditions.\r\n14. A plan will be developed to prevent debris and other wastes from entering or remaining in the marine environment during the project.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring ","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"________________\r\nAnnex 2","tags":["on the potential impacts of an offshore wind farm in the North Atlantic","","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy ","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed ","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"Operational Guidelines when in Sight of Whales","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Management.Compliance","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"WHEN IN SIGHT OF WHALES:\r\n* 2 miles to 1 mile away:\r\n* Reduce speed to 13 knots.\r\n* Post a dedicated lookout to assist the vessel operator in monitoring the location of all marine mammals.\r\n* Avoid sudden changes in speed and direction.","tags":[" Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"* 1 mile to ½ mile away:\r\n* Reduce speed to 10 knots.","tags":["Management.Mitigation ","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"* ½ mile or less:\r\n * Reduce speed to 7 knots.\r\n * Maneuver to avoid head-on approach.","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.Compliance","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH PROCEDURE:\r\n* 600 feet or closer:\r\n * Parallel the course and speed of moving whales up to the designated speed limit within that distance.\r\n * Do not attempt a head-on approach to whales.\r\n * Approach and leave stationary whales at no more than idle or \"no wake\" speed, not to exceed 7 knots.\r\n * Do not intentionally drift down on whales.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"STAND-BY ZONE\r\n* 300 feet to 600 feet away:\r\n * Two vessel limit within the 300- to 600-foot Stand-By Zone at any one time.","tags":["Management.Mitigation","Management.Compliance","Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH ZONE\r\n* 100 feet to 300 feet away:\r\n * One vessel limit.","tags":["* 300 feet to 500 feet away:"," * Reduce speed to at least 10 knots and maintain a course parallel to the pile.","","Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"NO INTENTIONAL APPROACH WITHIN 100 FEET.\r\n * Do not approach within 100 feet of whales. If whales approach within 100 feet of your vessel, put engines in neutral and do not re-engage propulsion until whales are observed clear of harm's way from your vessel.","tags":["Management.Compliance","BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"DEPARTURE PROCEDURE\r\n * All vessels should leave the whales following the same speed and distance procedures described above.\r\n * In order for vessels to be clear of whales before dark, vessels should cease operations and begin their return to port 15 minutes before sunset.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Receptor.MarineMammals"]},{"file_name":"SnoPUD Biological Eval_6.2011v3","text_excerpt":"________________\r\n[1] Depending on weather and system readiness\r\n[2] Depending on weather and system readiness\r\n[3] Depending on weather and system readiness\r\n[4] In contrast, a slack mooring could pose an entanglement risk to marine mammals or diving seabirds.\r\n[5] Maximum time that the acoustic source is transmitting.\r\n[6] Time that the strobes, visual cameras, and acoustic camera would be operating continuously\r\n[7] Time that cabled hydrophones would be in the water between deployment and recovery\r\n[8] Time that test instrumentation and apparatus are in the water and operating","tags":["[1] Phase.2Construction ","","[2] Management.Monitoring ","","[3] Management.Mitigation ","","[4] Consequence.EntanglementEntrapment ","","[5] Technology.Current.Underwater ","","[6] Technology.Current.Underwater ","","[7] Technology.Current.Underwater ","","[8] Technology.Current.Underwater"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"________________","tags":["Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"DOE F 540 OMB Number 1910-5175\r\n(04-2017) Exp. 11/30/2020","tags":["Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Management.Compliance","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Office of energy efficiency and renewable energy","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.Monitoring","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE\r\n(To be completed on-line only at: https://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/NEPA.aspx\r\nunless you are instructed otherwise by EERE.)","tags":["Receptor: Human Dimenstions","Management: Compliance","Phase: 1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"SECTION I. PROJECT SUMMARY\r\n\tNEPA Control Number:\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tProject Title:\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tRecipient:\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tOther Participants (Subrecipients, Contractors, etc.):\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tFOA Number:\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tFOA Title:\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tAward Number:\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tDOE Technology Office Point of Contact:\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tDOE Grants Management Specialist:\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","","Phase.2Construction","","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","","Phase.4Decommissioning","","Management.Compliance","","Management.DesignFeature","","Management.Mitigation","","Management.Monitoring","","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"SECTION II. BACKGROUND AND INSTRUCTIONS","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Management.NoneIdentified","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Pursuant to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 1021), the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is required to evaluate the potential environmental impact of projects that it is considering for funding. EERE must determine at the earliest possible time whether any proposed project qualifies for a categorical exclusion under 10 C.F.R.§ 1021.410 or will require further environmental review within an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.EnvironmentalImpactAssessment","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"You are required to answer the questions below for the project as a whole, including all work to be performed by the Recipient, its subrecipients and contractors, including any work outside of the United States. You may not limit your responses to work performed by the Recipient only unless instructed to do so by EERE. In completing this questionnaire, you must provide specific information regarding the nature of your proposed project, including information on its size, operations, and the types and quantities of air emissions, wastewater discharges, solid wastes, land disturbances, etc. You should identify the location(s) of the proposed project and describe the activities that would occur at each location.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Compliance","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Benthos"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"The form should be completed and signed by the Principal Investigator for the project or another member of your organization who has sufficient knowledge of the project to answer the questions truthfully and accurately.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Management.Compliance","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Failure to fully and adequately complete this form will delay EERE’s environmental review of your proposed project. Please note that false statements or misrepresentations may result in civil and/or criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"SECTION III. PROJECT EVALUATION","tags":["Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.Fisheries","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"1a. In the box below, please provide a brief summary of the proposed project activities. Describe physical activities, not goals and objectives. Specify if this project is part of a larger project or connected to another project.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Example: The proposed project activities include the design, development, fabrication, and field testing of advanced biomass harvesting equipment. Design, development, and fabrication activities would occur at our research and development facility adjacent to our manufacturing plant in Dearborn, Michigan. Equipment testing would occur in various agricultural fields in the surrounding area over a two-year period.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Technology.Current.Riverine"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Field activities will be performed at UAF’s Tanana River Test Site in Nenana Alaska between June and July 2020 and September 2021. Lab work will be completed at University of Alaska Fairbanks campus.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Bats","Receptor.Birds","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"1b. Is there other Federal government involvement outside of EERE in any aspect of this project (e.g., funding, permitting, technical assistance, project located on Federally administered land)?","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☒ | No ☐","tags":["A project involving the construction of an offshore wind farm to generate renewable energy.","","Technology.OffshoreWind: Yes ☒","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed: No ☐ ","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating: No ☐ ","Consequence.CommunityChange: No ☐"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked “Yes,” please list the agency, describe the nature of its involvement, and provide a point of contact at the agency, if known.","tags":["Management.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Department of Energy","tags":["Management.LegalPolicy","Management.Compliance","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"1c. Is the proposed project limited exclusively to intellectual, academic, or analytical activities?","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Intellectual, academic, and analytical activities include, but are not limited to:\r\n* Literature searches and information gathering\r\n* Data analysis\r\n* Computer modeling\r\n* Analytical reviews\r\n* Conceptual design\r\n* Feasibility studies\r\n* Document preparation\r\n* Data dissemination\r\n* Paper studies","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"You must answer “No” to this question if the proposed project involves any laboratory research and/or development, physical experiments, pilot-scale projects, demonstration projects, field tests, land-disturbance, construction, or similar activities.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.Compliance","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☐ | No ☒","tags":["A large offshore wind farm is being developed in an area that is frequented by ground nesting birds.","","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds | Yes","Management.Mitigation | Yes","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed | Yes","Consequence.Displacement | No"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"2a. Is the project fully defined at this point (i.e., all sites and activities are known)?","tags":["Phase.2Construction"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☒ | No ☐","tags":["A renewable energy project has been proposed for the offshore environment","which involves the use of offshore wind turbines.","","Technology.OffshoreWind: Yes ☒","Management.Mitigation: Yes ☒","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment: Yes ☒","Receptor.HumanDimensions.VisualImpacts: Yes ☒"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked “No,” please describe those sites and/or activities/tasks that are yet to be defined and complete the remainder of the questionnaire to the best of your knowledge.","tags":["Stressor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy ","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"2b. In the chart below, please describe the following four types of identifying information concerning project activities to be performed:","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.Monitoring","Phase.2Construction","Receptor.HumanDimensions"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"1. each location where work would be performed, including address or coordinates, names of facilities, and whether this is a Recipient, Subrecipient, or Contractor location;\r\n2. the nature of the location (e.g., urban, industrial, suburban, agricultural, university campus, manufacturing facility) and the current condition and/or use of the site;\r\n3. the types of activities to be conducted at that location;\r\n4. land administration (e.g., BLM, USFWS, DOD, state, private).\r\n________________","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"1. List all Locations Where Project Activities Would Occur (Facility Name and Address or Coordinates) and Indicate Recipient, Subrecipient, or Contractor\r\n\t(2)\r\nNature of Location and Current Condition/Use\r\n\t(3)\r\nActivities to be Performed at Each Location\r\n\t(4)\r\nLand Administration\r\n\tExample 1:\r\nSmith Laboratory (recipient)\r\n1234 College Lane Baltimore, MD \r\nXYZ Corporation\r\n(subrecipient)\r\n1232 Industrial Drive\r\nGolden, CO\r\n\tSmith Laboratory – Dedicated University Laboratory Facility\r\nXYZ Corporation – Manufacturing Facility in Industrial Park\r\n\tActivities would include design and fabrication of a gallium-nitrate battery at XYZ Corporation's battery manufacturing facility using existing equipment. The battery would then undergo testing including battery charge/discharge cycling at Smith Laboratory. Data analysis would also occur at Smith Laboratory. (Task1)\r\n\tSmith Laboratory – State property\r\nXYZ Corporation – Private property\r\n\tExample 2:\r\nCapital High School (recipient)\r\n1234 Eagle Lane \r\nGolden, CO\r\nLat. 39.7405,\r\nLong. -105.167\r\n\tHigh school property in a suburban environment that has been previously disturbed and is owned by the City. \r\n\tActivities would include the installation of a 50 kW wind turbine adjacent to the football stadium. The final height for the turbine would not exceed 140 feet (hub height) or 170.6 feet (maximum blade height) with a blade radius of 31.5 feet. There is an airport 15 miles away from project site location. (Task 2)\r\n\tCity\r\n\tExample 3:\r\nCoastal University\r\n(recipient)\r\n555 Study Drive\r\nBay Harbor, SC\r\nBay Harbor Pier\r\nBay Harbor, SC\r\n\tCoastal University – Dedicated University Laboratory Facility\r\nBay Harbor Pier – Existing boat launch/dock area of pier—currently utilized by Coastal University for marine studies.\r\n\tBird and bat environmental monitoring and data analysis. A model XYZ anabat passive recording device would be installed at the Bay Harbor Pier on an existing platform. This would be used for 12 months and data would be remotely downloaded monthly. The University has a current access and use agreement from Bay Harbor City to conduct research at this location. Data would be analyzed at the Coastal University Laboratory Facility. (Task 3)\r\n\tCity owned and operated pier. \r\n\tExample 4: \r\nRecipient’s geothermal leases in Buffalo Valley, Pershing and Lander Counties\r\nNevada\r\nNAD 83\r\nLat. 40.36 N\r\nLong. -117.38 W\r\n\tFederal leases located on BLM-managed lands and private leases held by the recipient.\r\n\tMagnetotelluric (MT) survey, 2 meter soil probe survey, seismic survey, temperature gradient (TG) well drilling program (~10 wells) followed by slim well confirmation drilling (~2 wells). Maps showing the locations of the MT, 2 meter soil probe, and seismic surveys have been uploaded into the Project Management Center. Locations of TG and slim wells will be provided once locations have been determined based on the results of the survey work. (Task 4)\r\n\tBLM (Battle Mountain and Winnemucca District Offices) and private","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Lighting","Technology.Current","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.Current.Tidal ","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"________________","tags":["An environmental impact assessment was conducted for a proposed tidal energy project which will involve building turbines to harness the power of the tides.","","Receptor.HumanDimensions.EnvironmentalImpactAssessment","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"(1)\r\nList all Locations Where Project Activities Would Occur (Facility Name and Address or Coordinates) and Indicate Recipient, Subrecipient, or Contractor\r\n\t(2)\r\nNature of Location and Current Condition/Use\r\n\t(3)\r\nActivities to be Performed at Each Location\r\n\t(4)\r\nLand Administration","tags":["(1) Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","(2) Management.NoneIdentified","(3) Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning ","(4) Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"UAF’s Tanana River Test Site (TRTS) in Nenana Alaska located ~64° 33’38.84”N, 149° 3’55.49”W. See Figure 3 and 4, at the end of this document. \r\n\tThe location of work is located in the native village of Nenana Alaska. Its current condition consists of a gravel lot with a metal shipping containter (connex) and an ATCO office space along with grid power supplied to the ATCO.\r\n\tThe activites conducted at the site will include velocity, turbulence and fisheries measurements in the Tanana River (physical sampling using nets as well as active acoustic surveys). . Physical fisheries sampling is permitted through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and typically consists of capturing fish in the Tanana River using a net system and recording body condition in disturbed (e.g. a barge, debris diverters, turbine in place and “undisturbed” conditions (barge, debris diverters, no turbine).\r\n\tNenana Native Council owns the shore side property and a land use agreement is currently in place. Permits for work on the water have been secured from Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Shoreside activities are permitted with Alaska Department of Natural Resources.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Management.Compliance","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.Fisheries","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions","Management.Compliance","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Management.DesignFeature ","Management.Mitigation ","Management.Monitoring ","Phase.2Construction ","Technology.Wave"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy ","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation","Technology.Current","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Bats","","Receptor.Birds","","Receptor.Fish","","Receptor.Invertebrates","","Receptor.MarineMammals","","Receptor.Reptiles","","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","","Stressor.EMF","","Stressor.HabitatChange","","Stressor"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["No tags"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Fish","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Technology.Current.OceanCurrent"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Management.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.EMF","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.InvasiveSpecies","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.InvasiveSpecies","Technology.Current.Tidal","Management.Mitigation"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.HabitatChange","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Technology.Current","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Management.Monitoring","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Lighting"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Technology.OffshoreWind","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Click here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"2c. In the box below, please identify and describe: (1) any known or potential health and safety hazards to the public or project workers that may result from or are associated with your proposed project; and (2) any efforts that would be taken to mitigate these hazards. Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b.","tags":["Consequence.Injury","Consequence.Mortality","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.2Construction","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Example (Hazards): The project would involve the use and handling of various hazardous materials, including metals and industrial solvents. All such handling would occur in-lab, and our organization is dedicated to proper hazardous material handling and disposal practices, so the project activities that involve these materials would pose no risk to the public. All hazardous materials would be managed in accordance with Federal, state, and local environmental regulations.\r\nExample (Mitigation): Existing corporate health and safety policies and procedures would be followed, including employee training, proper protective equipment, engineering controls, monitoring, and internal assessments. Additional policies and procedures would be implemented as necessary as new health and safety risks are identified. This would help ensure compliance with applicable health and safety regulations, and minimize health and safety risks to employees and the public.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Potential hazards are boating or floating platform failures, line failure, and floating river debris. To mitigate these, all personnel will wear PPE when on the water and all boats have secondary motors in the case of engine failure. All lines, gear and other equipment associated with the floating platform will be inspected prior to use and inspected weekly for signs of wear and tear along with being cleared of any debris daily.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"," Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"2d. In the box below, please identify and describe any of the following that would be associated with the proposed project. Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b.","tags":["Consequence.Mortality","Consequence.Injury","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Consequence.CommunityChange","Consequence.Displacement","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"(1) any physical modification of existing facilities or construction of new facilities (this does NOT include modification to equipment, only facilities);\r\n(2) ground disturbing activities;\r\n(3) any change in the use, mission, or operation of existing facilities;\r\n(4) installation or deployment of equipment outdoors including the area of disturbance, what currently exists at the site, the dimensions of the installation, any associated infrastructure, etc.","tags":["Answer: (1) Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.Current "," (2) Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Stressor.HabitatChange","Technology.Current "," (3) Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance "," (4) Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Stressor.HabitatChange","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Example 1: Physical modification of existing facilities and ground disturbing activities -To accommodate testing facilities necessary for the project, the current testing facility would have to be expanded by approximately 4,500 square feet. \r\nExample 2: Change in use of existing facility - A room within our facility that has served as a dedicated wind tunnel would be modified to serve as an environmental test chamber. This would require the adaptation of the chamber’s construction to partition off part of the room and seal it to allow generated environmental fluctuations within.\r\nExample 3: Installation of equipment outdoors and ground disturbing activities - The proposed turbine location is on school property located in a previously disturbed area south of the existing school building and near the high school athletic facilities and fields. East of the school are two golf courses; south and north are single family residential neighborhoods; and to the west are two public park properties. There are wooded areas located on the school property to the south and west. The foundation of the wind turbine would be approximately 25 square feet with an additional 5 square feet of disturbance during construction. The foundation would be approximately 10-15 feet in depth. There would be a minor, temporary land disturbance adjacent to the proposed site for crane work and the tower staging area. Existing roads would be used to access the project location.","tags":["Example 1:","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.DesignFeature","Phase.2Construction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.HabitatChange","","Example 2:","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.DesignFeature","Phase.2Construction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.HabitatChange","","Example 3:","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.DesignFeature","Phase.2Construction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.HabitatChange"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: A boat ramp adjacent to the Test Site and owned by the Nenana Native Council will be prepared using a bulldozer prior to deploying UAF’s barge. A boat ramp will need to be recreated due to the ruts that develop from the runoff of the melting snowpack in the spring and the bulldozer will be used to fill in the ruts with dirt. A three-foot buffer will be maintained between the river and where the grading ceases in order to eliminate any chances of runoff into the Tanana River. The boat ramp is necessary to deploy equipment in the river using pneumatic rollers. Once equipment is in the water, a motorized boat will push it upstream into position behind the surface debris deflector. At the completion of testing, the boat ramp will be graded to restore the area to its condition prior to testing. The work will be contracted through the local Native Corporation. The grading is done at the request of the landowner, the Nenana Native Council. At UAF’s Tanana River Test Site, all assests necessary for testing deployed systems, including preparing the test site for launching of research assets, deploying the Research Debris Diversion Platform, prepping and deploying fisheries equipment for required regulatory monitoring, prepping the instrumentation barge and vessels for transporting personnel from shore to barge are all in place. Attached to the end of this document is a figure (figure 2) showing the barge being deployed using the boat ramp.","tags":["Management.DesignFeature","Phase.2Construction","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"2e. In the box below, please identify and describe any existing, modifications to, or new permits, licenses, or authorizations that would be required to perform project activities (such as environmental permits, operating permits, or drilling permits). Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.Compliance","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Example 1: The project would generate small amounts of effluent waste which will be discharged into the Potomac River, requiring our organization to secure the requisite discharge permit pursuant to state and Federal regulations. \r\nExample 2: The project activities would be conducted for the next three years. We would be required to replace our current solid waste disposal permit with an updated permit that may alter the nature of what and how we are permitted to dispose of solid waste.","tags":["Example 1: Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Phase.2Construction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Management.Monitoring","Management.Compliance","","Example 2: Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Management.Compliance","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Example 3: The project activities would take place in marine navigable waters and would require permits from the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.Navigation","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Operations at the test site are permitted through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The pontoon research platform, surface debris deflector, mooring buoy, and anchor system are permitted by the Army Corps of Engineering. A land use permit between UAF and the Nenana Native Council has been secured.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Management.Compliance","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"2f. In the box below, please list the estimated quantities of materials to be used (e.g., feedstock, chemicals, water) and produced by the project (e.g., biofuel). Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.NoneIdentified","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: The estimated material to be used is 50 gallons of gasoline to operate generators and motorized equipment such as boats and trucks.","tags":["Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"2g. In the box below, please quantify, to the extent possible, all emissions into the ambient air resulting from project activities. Indicate if the project site is within an attainment or non-attainment area. Describe air emissions individually for each site discussed in Question 2b.","tags":["Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.EnvironmentalImpactAssessment"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Note: Potential emissions include, but are not limited to, greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter, and airborne pollutants. Sources of emissions can include stationary sources, such as boilers, process heaters, generators, and/or solvent usage, or mobile sources such as vehicles. It is presumed that every project would result in some emissions being released into the ambient air, so applicants answering “none” must explain why no emissions would be released. Non-attainment areas are designated parts of the country where air pollution levels persistently exceed the national ambient air quality standards. See 42 U.S.C. 7501(2).","tags":["Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Potential emissions include greenhouse gas emissions from generators, motorized vehicles, and boats.","tags":["Stressor.HumanDimensions.ClimateChange","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"2h. In the box below, please describe: (1) all non-hazardous wastes that would be generated by the proposed project including recycled materials, and (2) the method of their disposal. Describe individually for each site discussed in Question 2b.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy ","Management.Mitigation ","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Note: It is presumed that every project would generate solid wastes, so applicants answering “none” must explain why no waste would be generated. Non-hazardous waste is any garbage, refuse or trash, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities. See 40 C.F.R. § 261.2.","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Non-hazardous waste is expected to be limited to garbage and human waste and will be disposed of at state operated transfer sites (garbage). Human waste will be contained within a Porta-potty and disposed of by a licensed contractor.","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.Mitigation","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"3. Is the proposed project near, or does it involve, any of the following resources? Please indicate below any and all resources that could be affected by any project activities. (See Attachment 1 to the Environmental Questionnaire for resource definitions.)","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.EcosystemProcesses","Receptor.Habitat."]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ a. Historical, archeological, or cultural resources (includes listed and eligible resources over 50 years old or of cultural significance)","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ b. Threatened or endangered species (whether proposed or listed by state or Federal governments), including their habitat","tags":["Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ c. Marine mammals or essential fish habitat","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Fish"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ d. Floodplains or wetlands","tags":["Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ e. Tribal lands or resources of Tribal interest/sensitivity\r\n☐ f. Ocean resources (e.g., coral reefs)","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy ","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos ","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal ","Receptor.Invertebrates ","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.SedimentTransport","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ g. Land resources (e.g., tundra, rainforests)","tags":["Receptor.TerrestrialMammals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ h. Coastal zones","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.RecreationTourism","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Reptiles"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ i. Migratory birds, or Golden or Bald Eagles","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.Raptors"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ j. Areas having a special designation (e.g., Federal and state designated wilderness areas, national parks, national natural landmarks, wild and scenic rivers, state and Federal wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries)","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ k. Prime farmland, unique farmland, or other farmland of statewide or local importance","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ l. Special sources of water (e.g., sole source aquifers)","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked any boxes above, provide a detailed description of: (1) the resources that could be affected, and (2) how project activities may affect those resources.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"4. Does the proposed project involve any of the following activities or areas of concern? Please indicate below any and all activities or areas of concern that exist in the vicinity of your project, are required for your project, or could affect your project. (See Attachment 1 for definitions of each activity or area of concern.)","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Ecosystem Processes","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.Physical Environment","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.Terrestrial Mammals","Stressor.Habitat Change","Stressor.Physical Interaction","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.EMF","Stressor.Invasive Species"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ a. Clearing or excavation","tags":["Phase.2Construction"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ b. Dredge and/or fill","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ c. Pre-existing contamination","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ d. Pesticide use","tags":["Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ e. Asbestos or lead-based paint","tags":["Management.Mitigation"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ f. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)","tags":["Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ g. Navigable air space","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.Navigation"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ h. Underground storage tanks","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ i. Underground extraction/injection","tags":["Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ j. Use of a non-renewable resource","tags":["Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked any boxes above, provide a detailed description of: (1) each activity or area of concern, and (2) the effects of each activity or area of concern on your project and/or the surrounding area.","tags":["Consequence.Mortality","Consequence.Injury","Consequence.Displacement","Consequence.EntanglementEntrapment","Management.Mitigation","Management.Compliance","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.InvasiveSpecies","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.EMF"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"5. Would the proposed project have the potential to result in impacts to the surrounding community? Please indicate below all areas of concern that exist in the vicinity of your project, are required for your project, or could affect your project.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Management.NoneIdentified","Consequence.CommunityChange"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ a. Visual impacts","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.VisualImpacts"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ b. Populations of low income or minorities (Environmental Justice)","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ c. Changes in local employment","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ d. Changes in local traffic patterns or density","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ e. New transportation access","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.HumanDimensions.RecreationTourism","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ f. New utility lines or right-of-ways","tags":["Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Management.DesignFeature"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"☐ g. Other impacts","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked any boxes above, please provide a detailed description of: (1) the communities affected, and (2) what effects the project would have.","tags":["Receptor.CommunityChange","Consequence.CommunityChange","Management.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"6. Would the proposed project use, result in, or require the management, storage, transport, or disposal of radioactive, toxic, or hazardous chemicals, waste, or other materials that require special handling?","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Technology.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Note: Hazardous chemicals and materials include those which, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may increase the risk of mortality or pose a substantial threat to human health or the environment when improperly stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.","tags":["Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Consequence.Mortality","Consequence.Injury","Management.Mitigation","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☐ | No ☒","tags":["A mitigation strategy is needed to reduce the mortality rate of marine birds.","","Consequence.Mortality: Yes ☒ | No ☐","Management.Mitigation: Yes ☐ | No ☒","Receptor.Birds: Yes ☐ | No ☒"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked “Yes,” please provide a detailed description of: (1) the materials; (2) approximate quantity of each; (3) their role in the project; and (4) storage, transport, and disposal procedures for each material.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.EnvironmentalImpactAssessment","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Monitoring","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement; Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData; Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy; Management.StakeholderEngagement; Management.Monitoring; Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"7. Would the proposed project involve the use or development of recombinant DNA or genetically engineered microorganisms, plants, animals, or similar technologies?","tags":["Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☐ | No ☒","tags":["The EMF emitted from an offshore wind turbine can cause injury or mortality for marine birds.","","Stressor.EMF ☐","Consequence.Injury ☐","Consequence.Mortality ☐"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked “Yes,” please provide a detailed description of: (1) the genetic modifications, (2) the safety procedures in place for their handling and use over the course of the project, and (3) how they would be disposed of at the project’s conclusion.","tags":["Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"8. Does the project involve the use of any nanoscale materials or nanotechnology?","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Note: Nanotechnology is defined as research and technology development at the atomic, molecular, or macromolecular levels using a length scale of approximately one to one hundred nanometers in any dimension; the creation and use of structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small size; or the ability to control or manipulate matter on an atomic scale.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Management.NoneIdentified","Technology.Nanotechnology"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☐ | No ☒","tags":["A study was conducted to assess the impact of a proposed offshore wind farm on a local ecosystem.","","Receptor.Birds: Yes","Receptor.Fish: Yes","Receptor.Marine Mammals: Yes","Receptor.Invertebrates: Yes","Receptor.Terrestrial Mammals: No","Stressor.Noise: Yes","Stressor.HabitatChange: Yes","Management.Monitoring: Yes","Technology.OffshoreWind: Yes"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked “Yes,” please describe: (1) the nanoscale materials used, (2) potential risks those materials may pose, and (3) how they would be disposed of.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LifeCycleAssessment","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Management.NoneIdentified","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Decommissioning.Phase"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement; Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData; Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"9. Is there any public opposition concerning any of the project activities?","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☐ | No ☒","tags":["A study examined the impact of an offshore wind farm on the beach ecosystem.","","Phase.2Construction: ☐","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance: ☐","Receptor.EcosystemProcesses: ☐","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal: ☐","Stressor.HabitatChange: ☐","Technology.OffshoreWind: ☐"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked “Yes,” please describe the nature of the opposition and any actions you may have taken or plan to take to address it.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.StakeholderEngagement ","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy ","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"10. Would the project involve activities or deployments into marine/freshwater aquatic environments?","tags":["Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Reptiles","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☒ | No ☐","tags":["A study was conducted to evaluate the potential impact of a proposed tidal energy project on shorebirds in the area.","","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Consequence.Displacement","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.HabitatChange","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked “Yes,” please provide a detailed description of: (1) the proposed activities or deployment, (2) where and when these activities would occur, and (3) what permit/authorizations have been or would be acquired for this activity.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Management.Compliance","Phase.2Construction"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: The debris diverters and fisheries sampling equipment will be deployed in the Tanana River, the equipment will occupy the top meter of the water surface for up to several weeks during the summer of 2021. Permits have been secured from ADF&G, USACE, and AK DNR. Attached to the end of this document is a figure (figure 1) showing the schematic showing the equipment to be deployed in the Tanana River. A 5kW turbine or a prototype “Water Horse” hydrokinetic energy converter will be attached to the ‘pontoon research platform’ shown in figure 1. The prototype will be installed on the barge using extending forklift while the barge is on land. The barge will then be launched using rollers into the Tanana River. The entire system (research platform, surface debris deflector, and mooring buoy) will be anchored using a drag embedment anchor on the river bed. The power conditioning system, mounted above the water surface on the barge, will be coupled to the Water Horse generator, suspended from the barge. Power (voltage and current) and hydrodynamic variables will be monitored during these tests to characterize the performance of the coupled systems. A replacement drag embedment anchor will be permitted and installed as part of this project.","tags":["Receptor: Fish","Receptor: Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor: Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor: Fish.Sharks","Receptor: Benthos","Stressor: Physical Interaction","Stressor: Physical Interaction.Changes in Flow","Stressor: Physical Interaction.Chemicals","Stressor: Physical Interaction.Dynamic Effects","Management: Compliance","Management: Design Feature","Management: Mitigation","Management: Monitoring","Phase: 1 Site Characterization and Assessment","Phase: 2 Construction","Phase: 3 Operations and Maintenance","Phase: 4 Decommissioning","Technology: Current","Technology: Current.Riverine","Technology: Current.Tidal","Technology OffshoreWind","Technology: OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology: OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"11. Would the proposed project result in a discharge of any type of wastewater, pollutant, or contaminant, including thermal discharges, to a sewer system, stormwater system, soils, retention ponds, or any water resources (e.g., surface water, including lakes, rivers, creeks, and wetlands; and ground water)?","tags":["Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Note: Under Federal law, the term “pollutant” means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). The term “contaminant” means any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water. See 42 U.S.C. § 300f(6).","tags":["Stressor.Chemicals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☐ | No ☒","tags":["The EIA for the offshore wind farm project includes an assessment of effects on marine life","including those on fish","invertebrates","and cetaceans.","","Receptor.Fish ☒","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish ☒","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish ☒ ","Receptor.Fish.Sharks ☒","Receptor.Invertebrates ☒","Receptor.MarineMammals ☒","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans ☒","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds ☒","Technology.OffshoreWind ☒ ","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed ☒","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating ☒ ","Phase.4Decommissioning ☒","Management.Monitoring ☒"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked “Yes”, please quantify and characterize the wastewater or pollutants and provide a detailed description of the: (1) wastewater, pollutants, or contaminants to be released; and (2) the water resources that may be affected.","tags":["Receptor.WaterQuality","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy.Stressor.InvasiveSpecies"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"12. Would the proposed project have the potential to generate noise impacts to adjacent communities, employees working at the project site, wildlife, and/or sensitive receptors including hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, and elderly housing?","tags":["Stressor.Noise","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Fish"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Yes ☐ | No ☒","tags":["The effects of offshore wind turbines on fish mortality.","","No: Consequence.Mortality Receptor.Fish Stressor.PhysicalInteraction Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"If you checked “Yes”, please provide a description of: (1) the receptors that may be impacted and their estimated distance from the project activities, (2) the level of noise generated (in A-weighted decibels (dbA)) to each receptor, and (3) anticipated duration.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: Click here to enter text.","tags":["Management.StakeholderEngagement.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"13. Please provide a detailed description of how the project would be decommissioned, including the disposition of equipment and materials.","tags":["Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Explanation: The demobilization assets at the Tanana River Test Site will include removing all testing equipment from the water. Boats, tools, and other testing instruments will be transported back to University of Alaska Fairbanks for cleaning and storage. Large pieces of equipment will be stored on shore at the Tanana River Test Site. The boat ramp where the barge is launched will be graded using a bulldozer to return it to its original condition.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Phase.4Decommissioning","Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION \r\n\tI hereby certify that I am authorized to submit, and I do so hereby submit, the information in this questionnaire on behalf of the Recipient named below. I certify that the information provided herein is accurate and complete as of the date shown below. I understand that false statements or misrepresentations may result in civil and/or criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. If I receive any information that would indicate that any of the above-referenced answers are no longer correct or complete, I agree to notify EERE immediately. If it is necessary for EERE to modify the information I provide, EERE will request that I recertify the revised form.\r\n\tName\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tTitle \r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tRecipient\r\n\tClick here to enter text.\r\n\tSignature\r\n\tAn electronic signature is required when this form is completed online in the PMC.\r\n\tDate\r\n\tClick here to enter text.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.StakeholderEngagement","HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"________________","tags":["Construction of an offshore wind turbine","","Phase.2Construction ","Technology.OffshoreWind ","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"EERE ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE\r\nATTACHMENT 1","tags":["Phase: 1 Site Characterization and Assessment ","Receptors: Birds","Fish","Marine Mammals","Benthos","Invertebrates","Reptiles","Terrestrial Mammal","Stressor: Noise","Lighting","Physical Interaction"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Definitions for Question 3 –Resources*","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"________________","tags":["The study looks at the impact of a new Offshore Wind energy project on an established marine ecosystem.","","Tags: Receptor.EcosystemProcesses","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Stressor.HabitatChange","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Figure 1: Schematic showing the the research platform, surface debris deflector, \r\nmooring buoy, and anchor system.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Figure 2: Launching the barge from the ramp constructed with the grader.\r\n A picture containing indoor\n\nDescription automatically generated","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Figure 3: Google Earth Image with bathymetry of the site overlaid. Inset: approximate location of the Tanana River Test Site in Nenana, Alaska.","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Stressor.HabitatChange"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"A picture containing indoor\n\nDescription automatically generated","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.VisualImpacts"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Figure 4: Aerial Photo of Test Site, Nenana, AK with buoy location (64 33.6465 N\r\n149 03.9267 W).\r\n)","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.VisualImpacts","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"Nenana 2020 NEPA_V1","text_excerpt":"Version 2.0 | Page","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"Biological Evaluation\r\nMarine Mammal Behavioral Response to Marine Energy Converter Sound","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Consequence.BehavioralChange"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"Prepared for:\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\r\nFERC and Water Diversions Branch\r\nPortland, OR","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","HumanDimensions.Fisheries","HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"US Fish and Wildlife Service\r\nLacey, WA","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Management.NoneIdentified"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"Prepared, on behalf of the US Department of Energy, by:\r\nDr. Brian Polagye\r\nAssociate Professor, University of Washington\r\nNorthwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center\r\n1. Background and History\r\nThe purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address the effect a field study to assess the behavioral changes associated with marine energy converter sound on marine mammals (Proposed Action). In this study, marine energy converter sound will be replicated by an underwater transducer suspended beneath a small, moored vessel. Human observers will make observations of marine mammal location and behavior from shore, complemented by observations from a stationary instrumentation package on the seabed.\r\nSpecifically, this BE evaluates the potential consequences of this research on endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their designated critical habitat. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to allow expenditure of federal funds (Proposed Action) by the University of Washington (UW) for the project described herein (Project) and seeks concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USDFW) that the Project is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nBecause these studies will be conducted with financial support from DOE, the Proposed Action is subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the Proposed Action may qualify for a NEPA categorical exclusion (CX) under 10 CFR Part 1021, section B5.25 Small Scale Renewable Energy Research and Pilot Projects in Aquatic Environments (see Federal Register Vol. 776, No. 198 at p. 63797), provided that it will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat. This BE addresses DOE’s proposed Action to provide federal funding to the proposed Project in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with NMFS and/or USFWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.\r\nAll in-water activities will occur in Admiralty Inlet, Washington. The following ESA-listed marine species that are known to occur in the area: marbled murrelet, Chinook salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, bull trout, bocaccio, canary rockfish[a], yellow rockfish, Pacific eulachon, humpback whales, Southern Resident killer whales, and designated critical habitat for several of these ESA-listed species. Marbled murrelet and bull trout are a trust resource for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFSW). All other ESA-listed species are a trust resource for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).\r\nThe objective of the Proposed Action is to improve the understanding of the behavioral changes (if any) that exposure to marine energy converter sound leads to in two species: harbor porpoises (as a proxy for cetaceans) and harbor seals, California, and Steller sea lions (as a proxy for pinnipeds). This will inform future environmental assessments for proposed marine renewable energy developments, as well as the effectiveness of proposed marine mammal monitoring plans.\r\n________________\r\n2. Description of the Project Activities and Project Areas\r\n 1. Project Area\r\nAdmiralty Inlet is a tidal channel between Whidbey Island and the Kitsap Peninsula. The Proposed Action will take place on the northern side of the channel roughly 1 km southeast of Admiralty Head, as shown in Figure 1. The study site has previously undergone extensive environmental characterization as part of a discontinued tidal energy project (Snohomish PUD 2012).","tags":["Technology.Current.Tidal","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Birds","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"Figure 1 - Map of study area highlighting the selected landmark locations (green dots) and the location of the playback site. The estimated playback 120 dB isopleth (for a 160 dB source) and the two vantage point locations tested in these preliminary surveys is shown in the lower box.\r\nAll vessels involved in test operations will observe marine mammal Best Management Practices (Annex 1).\r\n 2. Shore Observations\r\nObservations of marine mammals presence and behavior will be made by shoreline observers stationed on Admiralty Head. Observations will be made by reticule binoculars and animal position recorded by a combination of a still photography and video. From this, animal location identified by photogrammetric methods (i.e., triangulation based on location of landmarks of known position in the same frame as the animal).\r\n 3. Marine Energy Converter Sound Playback\r\nThe behavior of marine mammals will be evaluated relative to the presence or absence of an acoustic source replicating the sound produced by a marine energy converter. For the purposes of this study, sound from a current turbine will be replicated and, depending on initial results, sound from a wave converter will also be included. These sounds will be produced by a J11 transducer (leased from Naval Sea Systems Command) that will be suspended to a depth of 10 m beneath a moored research vessel (Figure 2). The marine energy converter sound will be amplified to maintain a source level of 160 dB re 1μPa at 1m. Acoustic output will be monitored in real-time from the vessel by a digital hydrophone (icListen HF). The transducer is capable of reproducing sound from 30 Hz to 10 kHz. Marine energy converter sound from the representative current turbine and wave converter is continuous and dominated by tonal characteristics at frequencies of approximately several hundred Hz, but is broadband over the reproducible frequency range.","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Reptiles","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Technology.Current","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.OTEC","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"Figure 2 – Schematic of playback arrangement\r\n 4. Mooring and Stationary Instrumentation\r\nBecause of the strong currents present in Admiralty Inlet, the small research vessel used to deploy the transducer will be unable to deploy a sufficient mooring to hold position. Consequently, prior to playback observations, a larger research vessel will deploy a wheel stack mooring at the project site. This will be recovered at the conclusion of each seasonal observation. Alongside the mooring, the larger research vessel will also deploy and recover a “Sea Spider” tripod equipped with instrumentation to provide supplemental information about the marine environment. This instrumentation will include a C-POD (porpoise click detector), Loggerhead DSG (recording hydrophone), Vemco VR2W (fish tag receiver), and Nortek Continental (acoustic Doppler current profiler).\r\n 5. Passive Acoustic Receivers\r\nTo characterize the sound produced by the J11 transducer as a function of range, during the initial deployment, a set of drifting acoustic receivers will be deployed in the project area. These consist of a surface expression with a GPS logger and a suspended hydrophone at a depth of several meters. Up to three of these drifters will be deployed and recovered by a small research vessel (separate from the one used to deploy the J11 transducer).\r\n3. Listed Species & Critical Habitat in the Project Area\r\nThe following threatened or endangered species are known to be present in Admiralty Inlet (HDR 2009):\r\n* Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997)\r\n* Chinook salmon (Good et al. 2005, NMFS 2005a), \r\n* Chum salmon (NMFS 2005a, Brewer et al. 2005), \r\n* Steelhead (Good et al. 2005, NMFS 2007), \r\n* Bull trout (USFWS 1999, USFWS 2004), \r\n* Bocaccio (Palsson et al. 2009, NMFS 2010a), \r\n* Canary rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009, NMFS 2010a), \r\n* Yelloweye rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009, NMFS 2010a), \r\n* Pacific eulachon (NMFS 2010b),\r\n* Southern Resident killer whale (NMFS 2008a), and\r\n* Humpback whale (NMFS 1991, NMFS 2005c).","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Marine Mammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.Fisheries","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"Of these threatened and endangered species, Admiralty Inlet is included in the critical habitat for Chinook salmon and chum salmon (to a depth of 30 m, NMFS 2005b), and Southern Resident killer whales (NMFS 2006). \r\n4. Environmental Baseline Conditions\r\nAdmiralty Inlet serves as the main route for commercial shipping associated with the ports of Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma and is traversed by a passenger/auto ferry. The ambient noise environment is dominated by vessel traffic at frequencies less than 1 kHz (Bassett et al. 2012) and sediment generated noise at frequencies greater than 1 kHz during periods of strong currents (Bassett et al. 2013). Admiralty Inlet is closed to commercial fishing and this closure is observed by native tribes with Usual & Accustomed treaty rights. Several long-distance telecommunications cables have been laid in Admiralty Inlet and inactive power and communications cables associated with decommissioned coastal fortifications span the inlet between the sites of Fort Worden (Port Townsend), Fort Casey (Admiralty Head), and Fort Flagler (Marrowstone Island). Indian Island, closely adjacent to the inlet, is the site of a Naval Magazine (NAVMAG Indian Island).\r\nBetween Port Townsend and Admiralty Head, the channel is approximately 5 km wide and, on average, 70 m deep. In the Project area associated with deep water testing, the water depth ranges from 50 to 60 m and the seabed is predominantly scoured cobble and gravel, colonized by barnacles, sponges, anemones, and starfish (Greene 2011). Maximum tidal currents can exceed 3.5 m/s and the Sea State is generally below 3 on the Beaufort scale.\r\n5. Effects of the Action\r\nThe effects of the Proposed Action are discussed in the same order as presented in Section 2.\r\n 6. Shore Observations\r\nThe shoreline observations are entirely passive and will have no effect on ESA-listed species.\r\n 7. Marine Energy Converter Sound Playback\r\nEnvironmental stresses associated with playback include:\r\n* The sound produced by the playback,\r\n* The presence of the research vessel deploying the sound source (up to 6 hours/day for 6 consecutive days, 3 times in a 12-month period),\r\n* The presence of the mooring on the seabed (up to three deployments and recoveries), \r\n* The presence of the stationary instrumentation package on the seabed (up to three deployments and recoveries), and\r\n* The presence of drifting spar buoys to characterize received levels on one occasion.\r\n 1. Sound from Playback\r\nThe sound from the playbacks will be audible to marine mammals, including ESA-listed marine mammals that may be present in the project area (Southern Resident Killer Whales, humpback whales). The source level (160 dB re 1μPa at 1m) will constitute acoustic harassment to a range of approximately 500 m from the transducer, based on a harassment threshold of 120 dB re 1μPa. The project research permit granted by NOAA NMFS allows take, through acoustic harassment, non-ESA listed marine mammals (harbor porpoise, harbor seal, Steller sea lion, California sea lion) to a level that would not likely adversely affect the population. Acoustic harassment of Southern Resident Killer Whales is not authorized and the project team will monitor broad-scale killer whale activity in the Salish Sea to limit the potential for killer whales to be present during playback. If a killer whale or baleen whale is detected by shoreline observers during playback studies, acoustic emissions will terminate immediately.\r\nThe sound from playbacks will also be audible to fish, including ESA-listed fish species. NMFS and USFWS use a broadband received level of 150 dB re 1μPa as a threshold for acoustic harassment of fish (Buehler et al. 2015). The playback source level will exceed this to a range ~3 m, which would not likely adversely affect any fish species. A similar threshold is generally applied to diving seabirds and, for the same reasons, would not likely adversely affect any seabird species.\r\n 2. Research Vessel Presence\r\nAdmiralty Inlet is the primary shipping lane for major ports along the shores of Puget Sound. Consequently, the presence of a moored research vessel will be inconsequential relative to the baseline conditions at the site.\r\n 3. Mooring Deployment\r\nWhen the wheel stack mooring is set down, its weight will likely displace cobbles and crush those sessile invertebrates that are in direct contact with the stack. This will likely include a number of non-ESA listed barnacles, starfish, sponges, and anemones. Recolonization of disturbed areas (< 3 m2 in total) would likely occur within twelve months. The limited extent of the disturbance in a homogeneous benthic habitat suggests that these disturbances are unlikely to have an effect on ESA-listed species.\r\n 4. Stationary Instrumentation Package\r\nWhen the Sea Spider is set down, its weight may displace cobbles and crush sessile invertebrates in contact with the tripod feet, similar to the vessel mooring. As the disturbed area is small (< 1 m2 in total) and recolonization would likely occur within twelve months, these disturbances are unlikely to have an effect on ESA-listed species.\r\nMost of the instruments on the Sea Spider are passive and would have no effect on the marine environment. The acoustic Doppler current profiler produces sound when in operation, but at a frequency (470 kHz) beyond the hearing limits of fish or marine mammals.\r\n 5. Passive Acoustic Buoys\r\nThe passive acoustic buoys used to characterize the sound source are inert objects that will not affect the environment through their deployment, operation, or recovery.\r\n6. Committed Actions\r\nThe University of Washington Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, will adhere to the attached Best Management Practices (Annex 1) during all vessel operations, including the transits to and from the survey areas in order to avoid or reduce impacts on protected marine species and their habitats, particularly as they pertain to protected species awareness and avoidance. If whales are sighted they will adhere to the Guidelines for Operations when whales are sited, as summarized in Annex 2. \r\n7. Conclusions\r\nIn conclusion, the DOE’s funding of this Proposed Action is unlikely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species occurring within the Project area or their associated critical habitat. \r\n8. Literature cited\r\nBassett, C., Polagye, B., Holt, M., and Thomson, J. (2012) A vessel noise budget for Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound, Washington (USA), Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(6), 3706–3719.\r\nBassett, C., Thomson, J., and Polagye, B. (2013) Sediment generated noise and bed stress in a tidal channel, Journal of Geophysical Research, 118, 1-17 doi:10.1002/jgrc.20169.\r\nBrewer, S., Watson, J., Christensen, D., Brocksmith, R. (2005) Hood Canal & Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca: Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan. Hood Canal Coordinating Council. November 15, 2005.\r\nBuehler, D., Oestman, R., Reyff, J., Pommerenck, K., Mitchell, B. (2015) Technical guidance for assessment and mitigation of the hydroacoustic effects of pile driving on fish, California Department of Transportation, CTHWANP-RT-15-306.01.01.\r\nGood, T.P., Waples, R.S., and Adams, P. (eds.) (2005) Updated status of federally listed ESUs of west coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NWFSC-66.\r\nGreene, H.G. (2011) Habitat characterization of the SnoPUD turbine site – Admiralty Head, Washington State, Technical Report, June 1, 2011.\r\nNMFS (1991) Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Silver Spring, Maryland.\r\nNMFS (2005a) Endangered and threatened species: Final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of west coast salmon, and final 4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs. 70FR37160.\r\nNMFS (2005b) Endangered and threatened species; Designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon and Idaho; Final rule. 70FR52630.\r\nNMFS (2005c) Humpback whale: eastern north Pacific stock assessment. National Marine Fisheries Service.\r\nNMFS (2006) Endangered and threatened species: Designation of critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whale. Final rule. 71FR69054.\r\nNMFS (2007) Endangered and threatened species: Final listing determination for Puget Sound steelhead. 72FR26722.\r\nNMFS (2008a) Recovery Plan for Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.\r\nNMFS (2010a) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: threatened status for Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segments of yelloweye and canary rockfish and endangered status for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Bocaccio rockfish. Final rule. 75FR22276.\r\nNMFS (2010b) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: threatened status for southern distinct population segment of eulachon. Final rule. 75FR13012.\r\nPalsson, W., Tsou, T., Bargmann, G., Buckley, R., West, J., Mills, M., Cheng, Y., and Pacunski, R. (2009) The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Fish Management Division, Fish Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife September 2009.\r\nSnohomish Public Utility District (2012), Final license application for the Admiralty Inlet tidal project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket P-12690, Mar. 1, 2012.\r\nUSFWS (1997) Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon. 203 pp.\r\nUSFWS (1999) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of threatened status for bull trout in the coterminous United States. 64FR58910. \r\nUSFWS (2004) Draft recovery plan for the coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of II): Puget Sound management unit. Portland, Oregon. 289 + xvii pp.\r\n________________\r\nAttachment 1","tags":["Receptor. Fish","Receptor. Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor. Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor. HumanDimensions","Receptor. HumanDimensions.Fisheries","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Consequence.Mortality","Consequence.EntanglementEntrapment","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"Best Management Practices (BMPs) for In-Water Work[b]\r\nNMFS recommends implementation of the following BMPs to reduce potential adverse effects on protected marine species. These BMPs are in no way intended to supersede or replace measures required by any other authorization or agency including, but not limited to the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, or other NMFS divisions. Compliance with these BMPs is secondary to safety concerns.\r\n• Work window restrictions: All survey activities are restricted to daylight hours only and during weather conditions that allows visual siting of marine mammals.\r\n• Instrument operating procedures: Playback studies must be limited to 6 hours in duration, not to exceed 161 dB re 1μPa at 1 meter. A playback episode must be discontinued if an animal exhibits repetitive strong adverse reactions to the playback activity or the vessel. The sound source must be shut down if a non-target species is observed in the action area. Upon shutdown, the applicant must use a ramp-up protocol of 3 dB per minute to resume full playback signal levels.\r\n• Implementation of a safety exclusion zone for non-target species: For Killer Whales in Washington State inland waters—If a Killer Whale is seen, Researchers must maintain a distance of at least 183 meters (200 yards) and may not intercept a whale or position a vessel in its path.\r\n• Visual monitoring program: Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) will be on duty during all playback treatments, in order to determine that no Killer Whale or Humpback Whale enter the 183-meter safety zone around the vessel. The MMOs will inform the researchers aboard the survey vessel if animals appear likely to enter the zone, and shut-down procedures will be initiated if the animals enter the zone. MMOs will work four-hour shifts, with a break between shifts. \r\n• Instrument shut-down procedures: Shut-down of playback instruments and all vessel maneuvering activity will cease at the initiation of the MMO, if a Killer Whale or Humpback Whale moves into the 183-meter safety exclusion zone. The MMO will inform the researchers and potentially harmful activity will cease until the animals have cleared the zone and are observed by the MMO to be moving away from the survey site. Re-initiation of potentially harmful survey activities will occur once the MMO has informed the researchers it is safe to do so.\r\n________________","tags":["Consequence.Injury","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Technology.Current"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"Attachment 2","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"Operational Guidelines when in Sight of Whales\r\nWHEN IN SIGHT OF WHALES (2 miles to 1 mile away):\r\n• Reduce speed to 13 knots.\r\n• Post a dedicated lookout to assist the vessel operator in monitoring the location of all marine mammals.\r\n• Avoid sudden changes in speed and direction.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"1 mile to ½ mile away:\r\n• Reduce speed to 10 knots.","tags":["Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"½ mile or less:\r\n• Reduce speed to 7 knots.\r\n• Maneuver to avoid head-on approach.","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.Compliance","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH PROCEDURE (600 feet or closer):\r\n• Parallel the course and speed of moving whales up to the designated speed limit within that distance.\r\n• Do not attempt a head-on approach to whales.\r\n• Approach and leave stationary whales at no more than idle or \"no wake\" speed, not to exceed 7 knots.\r\n• Do not intentionally drift down on whales.","tags":["Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction ","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance ","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects ","Management.Mitigation ","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"STAND-BY ZONE (300 feet to 600 feet away):\r\n• Two vessel limit within the 300- to 600-foot Stand-By Zone at any one time.","tags":["Management.Monitoring","Consequence.BehavioralChange"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH ZONE (100 feet to 300 feet away):\r\n• One vessel limit.","tags":["Consecuence.BehavioralChange","Management.Compliance","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"NO INTENTIONAL APPROACH WITHIN 100 FEET.\r\n• Do not approach within 100 feet of whales. If whales approach within 100 feet of your vessel, put engines in neutral and do not re-engage propulsion until whales are observed clear of harm's way from your vessel.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Consequence.Displacement","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2","text_excerpt":"DEPARTURE PROCEDURE\r\n• All vessels should leave the whales following the same speed and distance procedures described above.\r\n• In order for vessels to be clear of whales before dark, vessels should cease operations and begin their return to port 15 minutes before sunset.\r\n[a]Delisted – remove associated references.\r\n[b]Project specific for playback","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation"]},{"file_name":"NEPA_Nenana 2019_follow_up","text_excerpt":"NEPA Follow-up Questions:\r\n1. When is field testing anticipated to take place? E.g. during what months? Seasons?\r\nField work will take place between June and July in 2020 and 2021. \r\n2) Please describe field testing of the floating platform prototypes.\r\na. How would the prototypes be anchored? Would they be anchored to the shore? To the river bed?\r\nThe prototype will be attached to UAF’s “pontoon research platform” (shown below). A sketch of the pontoon research platform, surface debris deflector, mooring buoy and anchor system is shown below.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Management.DesignFeature"]},{"file_name":"NEPA_Nenana 2019_follow_up","text_excerpt":"b. What type of anchoring system would be used? E.g. weights, hooks, etc.\r\nSee above. There is a drag embedment anchor at the site. \r\nc. How would the prototype be placed in the water? E.g. Would it be hoisted into the water from a boat? Would it be pushed in from the shore?\r\nThe prototype will be installed on the barge using an extending forklift while the barge is on land. The barge is launched using rollers and pushed upstream using a river boat equipped with an outboard motor (see below for additional description). \r\nd. Would any additional equipment, besides the turbine need to be deployed in the river? Please describe if so.\r\nYes. See above. A surface debris deflector and mooring buoy. The anchor, debris deflector, mooring buoy, etc. are permitted by the USACE. \r\n3) Please discuss field testing of the power conditioner. This is only lightly discussed under Task 5 in the SOPO. \r\na. What would field testing consist of?\r\nField testing will be undertaken in tasks 4 and 8 e.g. the power conditioning system developed in task 5 will be tested under task 8. Field testing consists deploying the hydrokinetic energy converter (the Waterhorse) in the Tanana River and monitoring performance of the device based on river velocity and turbulence. The power conditioning system will be coupled to the Waterhorse generator. The power conditioning system will be mounted on the barge (above the water surface) while the Waterhorse is submerged, suspended from the barge. Power (voltage, current) and hydrodynamic variables will be monitored during these tests to characterize the performance of the coupled systems (the Waterhorse and the power conditioning system). \r\nb. Where would field testing take place?\r\nTesting will take place at the Tanana River Test Site in Nenana, AK. The site is operated by UAF for testing and demonstration of hydrokinetic energy related technology. \r\nc. For how long?\r\nFive days of testing will be undertaken in summer 2020 and 10 days of testing in summer 2021. \r\nd. During what part of the year? E.g. during what months? Seasons?\r\nSummer in the month of June and/or July. \r\n4) Task 8 in the SOPO includes preparation of the field test site as one of its activities. Please discuss what this would entail.\r\na. Would any ground disturbing activities be performed? Please describe.\r\nYes. A bulldozer is used to fill in any ruts that develop in the earthen boat ramp over winter. \r\nb. Would any additional permits or authorizations be needed for preparation of the test site?\r\nOperations at the test site are permitted through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The pontoon research platform, surface debris deflector, mooring buoy and anchor system are permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers. \r\n5) The EQ-1 notes that a boat ramp would be prepared using a bulldozer prior to deploying from UAF’s barge. Please provide additional details regarding this construction.\r\na. What would the deployment consist of? E.g. what work activities would need to be undertaken to create the boat ramp? How would the boat ramp be erected?\r\nThe boat ramp is earthen with a grade sloping towards the river. During the spring snow melt, ruts typically develop from runoff from the melting snowpack. The bulldozer is used to fill in any ruts so the barge can be launched using pneumatic rollers. \r\nDeployment of the barge is accomplished by placing pneumatic rollers under the barge and using a bulldozer/front end loader to maneuver the barge to the top of the ramp and then pushing the barge just enough so that it rolls into the river in a controlled fashion. A motorboat is then used to push the barge upstream into position behind the surface debris deflector. A picture showing the launching procedure is below. \r\nb. What would the bulldozer be used for?\r\nThe bulldozer is used for filling in any ruts at the site which may interfere with deployment/retrieval of the barge and for pushing the barge into the river. \r\nc. Please characterize the boat ramp. E.g. would it be made of cement, wood, metal?","tags":["The boat ramp is earthen with a grade sloping towards the river."]},{"file_name":"NEPA_Nenana 2019_follow_up","text_excerpt":"A picture showing the earthen boat ramp and launching of the barge is shown above. \r\nd. Is it anticipated that any dirt or runoff would be deposited into the Tanana river when constructing the ramp? Any other impacts to the river or surrounding areas?\r\nNo dirt or runoff is expected to be deposited into the river during the process as a 3+ foot buffer is maintained between the river and where grading ceases in order to eliminate any chance of runoff.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.HumanDimensions.EnvironmentalImpactAssessment","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality"]},{"file_name":"kasper_alfa_nepa_yakutat_biological_evaluation","text_excerpt":"Biological\r\n Evaluation\r\n Northwest National Marine\r\n Renewable Energy Center\r\n Advanced Laboratory and Field\r\n Arrays (ALFA) for Marine Energy\r\n DE-EE0006816.0000\r\nAugust 15, 2016\r\nPrepared for: \r\nUS Department of Energy \r\nEERE Project Management Center \r\nGolden Field Office \r\n1617 Cole Boulevard \r\nGolden, Colorado 80401","tags":["Receptor.Bats","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.HabitatChange","Management.Monitoring","Management.Mitigation","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Compliance","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"kasper_alfa_nepa_yakutat_biological_evaluation","text_excerpt":"Prepared by:\r\nDr. Jeremy Kasper\r\nResearch Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks\r\nDirector, Alaska Hydrokinetic Energy Research Center\r\nco-Director, National Marine Renewable Energy Research Center\r\n________________","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"kasper_alfa_nepa_yakutat_biological_evaluation","text_excerpt":"1. Background and History\r\nThe purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address the effects that acoustic measurements of bathymetry, soil texture and backscatter might have on species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their designated critical habitat. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to allow expenditure of federal funds (Proposed Action) by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for the project described herein (Project) and seeks concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USDFW) that the Project will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nUAF is a partner along with Oregon State University and the University of Washington in the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Research Center (NNMREC) whose goal is to facilitate the responsible commercialization of marine renewable energy in the United States. The proposed Project will collect field measurements of seafloor debris (e.g. trees) concentration using acoustics (a multibeam echosounder and an imaging sonar, both active acoustic sources). Data will be collected in the coastal region offshore of Yakutat, Alaska in Fall, 2016 (Figure 1). The multibeam echo sounder (MBES) and imaging sonars will be mounted on the side of a ~10 m vessel (c.f. Figure 2) and extend from deck height down below the water-line during operation.","tags":["Technology.Current","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks"]},{"file_name":"kasper_alfa_nepa_yakutat_biological_evaluation","text_excerpt":"Figure 1. Map showing the southern region of Alaska. The approximate location of Anchorage and Yakutat are indicated for reference. The approximate location of Resolute Marine Energy's (RME) preliminary FERC permit area is delineated by the red polygon in the inset. The FERC permit extends ~3 miles seaward from the mean high water mark.\r\n ../../../Instrumentation%20(quotes,%20manuals,docs,etc.)/Multibeam,%20Sidescan/IMG_1323.JPG","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"kasper_alfa_nepa_yakutat_biological_evaluation","text_excerpt":"Figure 2. The acoustic transducer for the multibeam echo sounder mounted on the side of a research vessel. \r\nBecause these studies will be conducted with financial support from DOE, the Proposed Action is subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the Proposed Action may qualify for a NEPA categorical exclusion (CX) under 10 CFR Part 1021, section B5.25 Small Scale Renewable Energy Research and Pilot Projects in Aquatic Environments (see Federal Register Vol. 776, No. 198 at p. 63797), provided that it will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nThe proposed Project would be carried out in the region shown in Figure 1 offshore of Yakutat, Alaska corresponding to the RME FERC preliminary permit area. A number of non-endangered fish species are likely to be present and non-endangered marine mammals may also be present in the project area (e.g. BOEM, 1997). Listed species known to utilize Yakutat Bay, adjacent to the project area include Kittlitz’s Murelets. While humpback whales are known to migrate through the region. A proposal is pending to delist the subpopulation of humpback whales that utilize the Yakutat region. Stellar sea lions in the region were recently delisted as well. Note, the Stellar sea lions remain protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act as would humpback whales. \r\nThis BE addresses DOE’s proposed Action to provide federal funding to the proposed Project in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with NMFS and/or USFWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.\r\n2. Description of the Project Activities and Project Areas\r\n 1. Project Area\r\nThe proposed Project will take place near the community of Yakutat. Yakutat is an isolated community along the northeast coast of the Gulf of Alaska that is currently considering utilizing renewable, wave based electricity generation in order to lessen their reliance on diesel fuel for electricity generation. The Yakutat community is heavily dependent on its abundant natural resources including subsistence, commercial and sport fisheries associated with the numerous nearby rivers, the most well known of which is the Situk River. The Situk supports multiple, robust, steelhead salmon runs in addition to strong runs of coho and sockeye salmon. \r\nPrior Consultation\r\nNo prior consultation regarding the acoustic measurements of debris have taken place with federal resource agencies. \r\nEnvironmental Baseline Conditions\r\nThe Yakutat coastal region is home to a suite of subarctic marine birds, mammals and fish. All five species of Pacific salmon are present in the proposed survey area as well as steelhead salmon and dolly varden. Resident benthic species likely to occur within the proposed survey area include Pacific Halibut and weathervane scallop as well as numerous other bivalves (e.g. BOEM, 1997). \r\nListed seabird species that may inhabit the project area include Kittlitz’s murrelets (Brachyramphus brevirostris). Though their center of activity appears to be Yakutat Bay, northwest of the project area (Schoen et al., 2013). Aleutian and Arctic terns also breed in the region and Common Murres frequent the project area as well (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 2016). Numerous other bird species utilize or reside in the project region as well (e.g. BOEM, 1997)\r\nMarine mammal species known to occur here include fin, humpback, gray, minke, sperm and killer whales, in addition to harbor and Dall’s porpoises. Additionally, there was a sighting of four North Pacific right whales in 1979, one of very few sightings of this species outside of the Bering Sea (Shelden et al. 2005). The closest pinniped haul outs have been identified for harbor seals approximately 8 miles south from the area of interest for the development of the WEC, at Blacksand spit and at the north side of Ocean cape, in Yakutat Bay (NMML unpublished data). \r\nAerial surveys for Steller sea lions have been conducted about bi-annually since 1990, also being focused on a limited spring-summer window (NMML, unpublished data). The nearest Steller sea lion haul-outs consist of just a few animals, one site just east of the Dangerous River (~28 nm from the project site) and another on the outer coast west across Yakutat Bay (~25 nm). Annual surveys conducted from March to April since 2000 have counted between 722 and 1950 animals hauled out on sandbars in the Akwe and Alsek rivers during the eulachon run (Catterson 2005).\r\nNo tracking studies of pinnipeds have been implemented in the project area, but harbor seals tagged in Glacier Bay took extensive migrations along the coast adjacent to and through the project area (Womble 2012). Though utilization of the nearshore area by the Yakutat Forelands (i.e. the proposed project area) was low – which is expected based on the seals’ distant natal site – the area was used throughout the year for transiting and possibly foraging. Though harbor seals are considered philopatric, adults commonly undertake movements of 50-100 km (26-52 nm) and occasionally up to 200 km (104 nm) from their natal area, especially outside the breeding and molting periods (i.e, during fall and winter; Boveng et al. 2012). In their first year of life, young harbor seals commonly undertake trips of >75 km (39 nm), ranging as far as >300 km from their natal area (Small et al. 2005). A joint NPS-NMFS study of harbor seal movements and haul-out behavior in Disenchantment and Icy Bays is planned for FY15 and FY16.\r\nAerial surveys for sea otters in Yakutat Bay have occurred every 5-10 years since 1987 with the latest occurring in 2005 (Gill and Burn 2007). Surveys occur from April to August. Since surveys began the population is believed to be increasing from a low of fewer than 400 to the current level of about 1,600. Over this time, the population has also expanded its range within Yakutat Bay to both the eastern and western shoreline (Fig. 1) in areas shallower than about 40 meters. Otter densities on the outer coast from Cape Yakataga to Cape Spencer (encompassing the project area) are very low with an estimate of only 32 animals (USFWS, 2013). Sea otters are generally not considered migratory, ranging at most 10’s of kilometers, and have relatively small home ranges (< 24 km2).\r\nThe specific location for this proposed project does not seem to be in close range of pinniped haul outs or cetacean hot spots, however the temporary presence of multiple marine mammal species is highly probable. There are no data to describe the seasonality of the different marine mammals observed in this area, aerial surveys typically occur in summer (NMML cetacean surveys occurred in June/July and pinnipeds surveys in August) and flights covering the Yakutat region are made as quickly as in one or two days. However, some coastal species observed in this area are migratory and cross the Gulf of Alaska twice every year on their migration to northern feeding grounds in spring and southern breeding grounds in fall (Perrin et al. 2008). Coastal species such as humpback whales and gray whales likely cross the proposed project area during their migration. Other coastal marine mammals with high probability of being present in the project area are killer whales, harbor porpoises, belugas, harbor seals and Steller sea lions. Killer whales have been tagged with satellite transmitters in 2010 and have been tracked passing by the project area and entering Yakutat Bay (Hanson et al., 2012). Harbor porpoises are commonly seen in shallow waters both inside and outside Yakutat Bay (Hobbs and Waite, 2010). Opportunistic beluga sightings have been reported around Khantaak Island, near Ocean cape in Yakutat Bay, indicating that they could access the project site. Finally, the Northeastern GOA coast appears to be a hot spot for strandings of pelagic and deep water species, including beaked whales and sperm whales.","tags":["Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Management.Monitoring","Management.DesignFeature","Prior.Consultation","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal"]},{"file_name":"kasper_alfa_nepa_yakutat_biological_evaluation","text_excerpt":"3. Effects of the Action\r\nEffects of DOE’s proposed Action are discussed in the same order as presented in Section 2.\r\n 2. Measurements\r\nThe environmental stresses associated with the collection of inflow and wake data are:\r\n* Sound produced by MBES and imaging sonar;\r\n* Entanglement or collision with lines or sonar heads\r\n* Noise associated with small boat operations.\r\nNone of these are likely to significantly affect aquatic species.\r\nThe MBES operates either at 200 or 400 kHz, dependent on water depth, and the imaging sonar at either 900 or 2.250 MHz. These frequencies are outside the range of the auditory thresholds of any fish and marine mammal species (e.g. Hastings and Popper 2005) . Multibeam echosounders and imaging type sonar instruments are commercially available and in common usage by researchers, consultancies, and federal agencies throughout US waters. \r\nMBES and imaging sonar surveys will require the use of a ~10 m survey boat equipped with dual outboard engines, which will temporarily elevate underwater noise levels, but not to an intensity that would be expected cause harm to aquatic species present in the project area.\r\n4. Conclusions\r\nIn conclusion, we have determined that DOE’s proposed Action to fund the proposed Project will not adversely affect any ESA-listed species occurring within the Project area or their associated critical habitat.\r\n5. Literature Cited\r\nBoveng, P. L., J. M. London, and J. M. Ver Hoef. (2012)(. Distribution and abundance of harbor seals in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Task III: Movements, marine habitat use, diving behavior, and population structure, 2004-2006. Final Report. BOEM Report 2012-065. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region.\r\nBureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1997, 1997 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS (Outer Continental Shelf)) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 158, Yakutat Planning Area, Gulf of Alaska: Environmental Impact Statement\r\nCatterson, N. (2005). 2005 abundance of Stellar sea lions at the Akwe and Alsek River houlouts, Alaska. USDA Forest Service. 10 pp.\r\nGill, V.A. and D. Burn. (2007). Aerial Surveys of Sea Otters Enhydra lutris in Yakutat Bay, Alaska 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Technical Report: MMM 2007-01. 18pp.\r\nFERC (2015). Progress Report #4 Yakutat Alaska Wave Energy Project.\r\nHanson M.B., Dahlheim M.E., Webster D.L., Emmons C.K., Schorr G.S., Baird R.W. and R.D. Andrews. (2012). How “resident” are resident-type killer whales in Alaska? New data show both localized and widespread movements. 2012 Alaska Marine Science Symposium.\r\nHastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper (2005) Effects of Sound on Fish. (Subconsultants) Submitted by Jones & Stokes to California Dept. of Transportation Contract No. 43A0139. Task Order 1.\r\nHobbs R.C. and J. M. Waite. (2010). Abundance of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in three Alaskan regions, corrected for observer errors due to perception bias and species misidentification, and corrected for animals submerged from view. Fishery Bulletin 108:251–267.\r\nJansen, J. K., J. L. Bengtson, S. P. Dahle, and J. M. Ver Hoef. 2006. Disturbance of harbor seals by cruise ships in Disenchantment Bay, Alaska: an investigation at three spatial and temporal scales. AFSC Processed Report 2006-02, 75 p. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.\r\nO’Corry-Crowe G., Lucey W., Bonin C., Henniger E. and R.C.Hobbs. 2006. The ecology, status and stock identity of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in Yakutat Bay, Alaska. Report to the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. 22 p.\r\nPerrin W.F., Wursig B. and J.G.M. Thewissen. 2008. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press. 1414 p.\r\nSchoen , S.K., Kissling , M.L., Hatch , N.R., Shanley , C.S., Stephensen , S.W., Jansen , J.K., Catterson , N.T. & Oehlers , S.A. 2013. Marine birds of Yakutat Bay, Alaska: evaluating summer distribution, abundance, and threats at sea. Marine Ornithology 41: 55–61.\r\nShelden, K. E. W., Moore, S.E., Waite, J.M. , Wade, P.R. And Rugh, D.J. (2005). Historic and current habitat use by North Pacific right whales Eubalaena japonica in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. Mammal Rev. 35:129-155.\r\nSmall, R. J., L. F. Lowry, J. M. Ver Hoef, K. J. Frost, R. A. DeLong, and M. J. Rehberg. (2005). Differential movements by harbor seal pups in contrasting Alaska environments. Marine Mammal Science 21:671-694.\r\nU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2013. Draft Stock Assessment Report for Southeast Alaska. Marine Mammals Management, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503\r\nWomble, J. N. 2012. Foraging ecology, diving behavior, and migration patterns of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) from a glacial fjord in Alaska in relation to prey availability and oceanographic features. Ph. D. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 245 pp.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Benthos","Stressor.Noise ","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.Current","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Endurance Testing of Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package\r\nBiological Evaluation","tags":["Consequence.Injury","Consequence.Mortality","Management.Compliance","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.Bats","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.EcosystemProcesses","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.EMF","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.InvasiveSpecies","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Prepared for:\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\r\nOregon Washington Coastal Area Office\r\nPortland, OR\r\n&\r\nUS Fish and Wildlife Service\r\nLacey, WA","tags":["Management.StakeholderEngagement","Receptor.HumanDimensions"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Prepared, on behalf of the US Department of Energy, by:\r\nDr. Brian Polagye\r\nAssistant Professor, University of Washington\r\nNorthwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center","tags":["Management.StakeholderEngagement","Receptor.HumanDimensions"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Dr. Shari Matzner\r\nResearch Engineer\r\nPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Marine Science Laboratory\r\nTable of Contents\r\n1 Background and History 3\r\n2 Description of Project Activities and Project Areas 5\r\n2.1 Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package 5\r\n2.2 Cooperative Targets 8\r\n2.3 Dockside Testing (Portage Bay, WA) 8\r\n2.4 Endurance Testing (Sequim Bay, WA) 9\r\n2.4.1 Sensor Range Testing 12\r\n2.4.2 Target Detection Algorithm Development and Testing 13\r\n3 Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Project Area 13\r\n3.1 Portage Bay, WA 13\r\n3.2 Sequim Bay, WA 14\r\n4 Environmental Baseline Conditions 19\r\n4.1 Portage Bay, WA 19\r\n4.2 Sequim Bay, WA 19\r\n5 Effects of the Action 20\r\n5.1 Dockside Testing 20\r\n5.1.1 Sound from Active Acoustics Sensors and Instruments 20\r\n5.1.2 Light from Strobes 20\r\n5.1.3 Presence of iAMP Hull 20\r\n5.2 Endurance Testing 20\r\n5.2.1 Sound from Active Acoustic Sensors and Instruments 21\r\n5.2.2 Light from Strobes 21\r\n5.2.3 Presence of iAMP Hull, Docking Station, and Utility Cable 21\r\n5.2.4 Presence of Vessels 22\r\n5.2.5 Summary 22\r\n6 Conclusions 23\r\n7 Literature Cited 23\r\nAnnex 1 27\r\nAnnex 2 29","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.EMF","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.InvasiveSpecies","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Technology.Current","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.OTEC","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"1. Background and History\r\nThe purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address the effect that the field of testing of the Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package (iAMP) and its associated deployment system might have on the marine environment. Specific emphasis is placed on species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their designated critical habitat, but a more general discussion of effects on non-ESA listed marine mammals is also presented. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is proposing to allow expenditure of federal funds (Proposed Action) by the University of Washington (UW) for the project described herein (Project) and seeks concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USDFW) that the Project will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nDOE funding would support field testing of an iAMP for future monitoring environmental interactions between marine animals and marine energy converters (Proposed Action). The iAMP is a streamlined instrumentation package that is deployed from a surface vessel by a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV). Because these studies will be conducted with financial support from DOE, the Proposed Action is subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the Proposed Action may qualify for a NEPA categorical exclusion (CX) under 10 CFR Part 1021, section B5.25 Small Scale Renewable Energy Research and Pilot Projects in Aquatic Environments (see Federal Register Vol. 776, No. 198 at p. 63797), provided that it will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nIn-water testing of the iAMP would be carried out in two locations: Portage Bay (Seattle, WA) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Marine Science Lab (Sequim, WA), as shown in Figure 1. The duration of testing activities are summarized in Table 1. Because work would occur in the aquatic environment it has the potential to impact the following ESA-listed marine species that are known to occur in the area[1]: Chinook salmon, chum salmon, North American green sturgeon, Pacific eulachon, Puget Sound bocaccio, Puget Sound yelloweye rockfish, Puget Sound canary rockfish, bull trout, Puget Sound steelhead, marbled murrelet, and short-tailed albatross. Marbled murrelet, short-tailed albatross, and bull trout are trust resources for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFSW). All other species are trust resources for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).\r\nThe use of a package like the iAMP to enable adaptive monitoring of marine energy demonstration projects has been previously discussed with both NMFS and USFWS as part of the permitting and monitoring plan development for the Snohomish PUD/OpenHydro tidal energy demonstration project (Snohomish PUD 2012). The use of this type of package has been supported by both agencies as an effective tool for studying the environmental effects of marine renewable energy development and is of significant interest to the environmental research community (Polagye et al. 2014).\r\nThis BE addresses DOE’s proposed Action to provide federal funding to the proposed Project in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with NMFS and/or USFWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.\r\nThe objective of the Project is to develop an integrated instrumentation package for marine energy monitoring that can observe infrequent, but potentially significant, interactions without generating an unacceptably large amount of data to post-process. To this end, the iAMP would be deployed for up to three months in a location with moderate currents. This would provide a data stream for sensor integration, allow sensor functionality to be benchmarked against “cooperative targets” (i.e., targets under the control of researchers, such as an ROV or drifter), and verify system functionality. \r\nTable 1 – Testing summary\r\nTesting\r\n\tLocation\r\n\tTiming\r\n\tTotal Test Time\r\n\tContinuous Test Time\r\n\tDockside Checkout\r\n\tPortage Bay, WA\r\n\tJuly 1-July 31, 2015\r\n\t31 days\r\n\tUp to 31 days\r\n\tEndurance Testing\r\n\tSequim Bay, WA\r\n\tAugust 1 – November 30, 2015\r\n\t122 days\r\n\tUp to 90 days\r\n\tCooperative Target Testing\r\n\tSequim Bay, WA\r\n\tAugust 1 – November 30, 2015\r\n\t32 hours on four occasions\r\n\tUp to 8 hours","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Stressor.Noise","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.Wind"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Figure 1 – Overview of Project Areas\r\n2. Description of Project Activities and Project Areas\r\n 1. Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package\r\nThe Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package (iAMP) is a refinement on the first generation Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP). The distinction between the two is primarily one of instrument integration, with some modification to the supported sensors. Sensors on the AMP operate independently, while sensors on the iAMP are networked together in a way that will, through this project, allow one sensor to trigger another. This integrated approach is necessary to avoid an overwhelmingly large stream of data (much of which would contain no events of interest) while monitoring marine energy projects. The iAMP (Figure 2) is a streamlined body enclosing multiple oceanographic sensors. The iAMP is deployed to a docking station (Figure 3) by a customized ROV (Figure 4) launched from a surface vessel. The docking station is cabled back to a shore station and the iAMP plugs into a wet-mate connector on the docking station to access shore power and data. This can be can be considered as a “plug and socket” architecture where the docking station in the socket and the iAMP is the plug. When installed on the docking station, the iAMP would sit approximately 2 m above the seabed.\r\nDuring all vessel operations, the University of Washington would adhere to the attached Best Management Practices (Annex 1), including the transits to and from the survey areas in order to avoid or reduce impacts on protected marine species and their habitats, particularly as they pertain to protected species awareness and avoidance. If whales are sighted, vessel operators would adhere to the Guidelines for Operations when whales are sited, as summarized in Annex 2. \r\nThe iAMP is equipped with the following oceanographic sensors:\r\n* Stereo-optical cameras with strobe illuminators to freeze motion and provide artificial light in the absence of ambient light (Joslin et al. 2014)\r\n* An acoustic camera (BlueView M900-2250) with an operating frequency of 2250 kHz\r\n* A multibeam sonar (Kongsberg M3) with an operating frequency of 500 kHz\r\n* A Doppler wave and current profiler (Nortek Signature 500) with an operating frequency of 500 kHz\r\n* An array of four passive hydrophones (OceanSonics icListen HF)\r\n* A passive fish tag receiver (Vemco VR2W)\r\n* A passive echolocation click detector (Chelonia CPOD)\r\nDuring testing, instruments would be operated on either a fixed duty cycle or in a triggered mode (automatic or manual).","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.Bats","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Technology.Current","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"(a) AMP attached to docking station\r\n\t(b) AMP internal structure and sensors\r\n\tFigure 2 – Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP). Rendering and sensor annotation represent the first-generation AMP, which would be adjusted for the iAMP (e.g., no ADV on iAMP, no multibeam sonar on AMP).","tags":["a) Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Management.DesignFeature ","","b) Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Management.DesignFeature","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"(a) iAMP docking station (side view)\r\n\t(b) iAMP docking station (top view)\r\n\tFigure 3 – iAMP docking station","tags":["a) Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","b) Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Figure 4 – Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP) and ROV deployment system\r\nThe iAMP hull and internal bulkheads are constructed primarily of engineered plastic. The extensions from the body supporting the strobes are anodized aluminum. The conic structures on the back of the strobes (protecting the passive hydrophones) and the forward face of hull are constructed of syntactic foam, coated with an epoxy-based paint to increase wear resistance (Interlux 2000E epoxy primer) and metal-free anti-fouling paint (Interlux Pacifica Plus). The use of anti-fouling paint has been restricted to surfaces where barnacle removal would likely damage the component (e.g., barnacle removal from the syntactic foam would be likely to result in severe pitting of the foam). \r\nThe iAMP docking station is constructed primarily of common steel, with stainless steel at the docking point and a PVC shroud around the portion of the docking station contacted by the tool skid during the docking procedure. Surfaces are cathodically protected by zinc anodes, but are otherwise uncoated. Each of the three circular pads on legs of the docking station are 30 cm in diameter, such that the docking station would disturb < 1 m2 of seabed. The docking station resists tidal currents through its mass, specifically a stack of four steel railroad wheels suspended below the docking station (4000 kg). Following the conclusion of testing, the docking station (including all ballast) are recovered.\r\nThe shore cable (Rochester A302351) is armored by three layers of Galvanized Extra-Improved Plow Steel (GEIPS) with an outer diameter of 17.3 mm (0.681 inches). The cable contains three power conductors and four optical fibers. Electrical power is supplied to the iAMP at 56 V DC from an onshore DC power supply. The cable will run down one leg of the docking station, along the seabed, and up to a dock piling where it will be secured by line, zip ties, and/or hose clamps. The weight of the cable in water (0.9 kg/m) is expected to be sufficient to hold it in place against near-bed tidal currents, but as an added measure, it will be secured along its length using screw anchors with a 2 m spacing to prevent any sweep or scour. The screw anchors have a negligible footprint on the seabed compared to the cable. Following the conclusion of testing, the cable and screw anchors will be recovered.\r\n 2. Cooperative Targets\r\nWhile opportunistic presence of marine life (e.g., fish) is likely to occur during endurance testing, because the presence or absence of marine life will not be known to the research group, these represent “uncooperative targets” for the purposes of establishing the range and functionality of the iAMP instrumentation. For this reason, it is desirable to employ “cooperative targets” that are either under the control of the research group or freely drifting with a known position. The two cooperative targets that would be employed are the deployment ROV (the “Millennium” Falcon) and SWIFT drifters (Figure 5).","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Technology.Current","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Wave","Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Figure 5 – SWIFT drifter (waterline at top of grey foam collar)\r\nBoth systems would present a detectable target for active acoustic and optical sensors. In addition, calibration spheres (small targets with known acoustic backscatter properties) would be suspended from the SWIFT for quantitative benchmarking of the acoustic camera and multibeam sonar on the iAMP. The physical presence of the cooperative targets would be augmented by sounds of interest for marine energy monitoring, specifically a fish tag (Vemco V13, 69 kHz operating frequency, 150 dBrms re 1 μPa at 1 m, impulsive sound), such as have been used or proposed for use in studies of fish presence/absence at marine energy sites, and an acoustic projector (OceanSonics icTalk) configured to emit periodic porpoise click trains (120 kHz, 140 dBrms re 1 µPa at 1 m, impulsive sound). The position of the cooperative targets would be tracked by redundant GPS units, either in the SWIFT spar or on a surface-piercing mast for the ROV. \r\nROV and SWIFT spars will be marked with orange flags (e.g., Figure 5) to provide a visual cue for other vessels in the area. A standby vessel will be on station at all times during cooperative target testing to minimize the risk of any vessel coming into contact with either the ROV or SWIFT.\r\n 3. Dockside Testing (Portage Bay, WA)\r\nDockside testing of the iAMP would be conducted at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory dock on Portage Bay in Seattle, WA (Figure 6) at 47o 39’ 13’’ N, 122o 19’ 10’’. The dock is located directly beneath the University Bridge. During dockside testing, the iAMP would be suspended below a research vessel (R/V Henderson) tied up to the dock and the instrument cable would terminate in the vessel’s workspace. Dockside tests would occur for up to four weeks in July 2015, providing researchers with the opportunity to troubleshoot system operation prior to endurance testing. During the dockside tests, neither the ROV nor the SWIFT drifters would be deployed, but calibration spheres, fish tags, and the acoustic projector might be periodically placed in the water to confirm sensor functionality.","tags":["Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Receptor.HumanDimensions.RecreationTourism","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat","Technology.Current","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Figure 6 – iAMP deployment location at UW APL dock\r\n 4. Endurance Testing (Sequim Bay, WA)\r\nExtended testing of the iAMP to develop integrated instrumentation capabilities and verify reliability during multi-month deployments would be conducted in Sequim Bay, WA, adjacent to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s (PNNL) Marine Science Laboratory (MSL) dock. This is a relatively shallow (5 m maximum depth) tidal channel that experiences moderate currents (typically less than 1.5 m/s). During testing, the iAMP would be connected to utility-power and data via its docking station on the seabed. The cable would run from the docking station, along the seabed, and up an MSL dock piling. The deployment location would be at approximately 45o 04’ 45’’ N, 123o 02’ 41’’ W, as shown in Figure 7, 15-20 m south and east of the MSL dock. The location of the iAMP would be marked by a pair of floats to either side of the instrumentation package and would be referenced in a notice to mariners. Floats would be moored by diver-installed screw anchors.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Figure 7 – iAMP Deployment location at PNNL Marine Science Laboratory. Area of detail shows potential iAMP deployment location (dashed outline).\r\nDuring endurance testing, the iAMP and its docking station would be initially deployed in the following sequence:\r\n1. The shore portion of the docking station cable would be positioned to run from the shore station and along the MSL dock in advance of iAMP deployment. The shore station would be a MSL facility with power and data connectivity.\r\n2. Research vessel (R/V Jack Robertson) would arrive on station at the docking station deployment point and establish a three point moor at deployment site. This would involve setting three temporary anchors (one bow, two stern) for the duration of the deployment operation.\r\n3. Docking station would be deployed to seabed via load-bearing release (docking station released once in contact with seabed). \r\n4. During deployment, the vessel’s knuckle crane and crew would manage tension in the umbilical as it is laid down on the seabed. Once the docking station is in position, the docking station umbilical would be strain-reliefed to an MSL dock piling by the dive team. \r\n5. The cable route along the seabed to the dock piling and docking station placement would be inspected by divers and any concerns over cable or docking station stability addressed by repositioning the system. The cable would then be secured by screw anchors at 2 m intervals.\r\n6. The “wet” and “dry” ends of the shore cable would be connected on the MSL dock, providing power and data connectivity from the shore station to the docking station on the seabed.\r\n7. “Millennium” Falcon ROV and iAMP would be launched from R/V Jack Robertson and piloted to the docking station.\r\n8. ROV would be mated the iAMP with the docking station, mechanically securing the iAMP and engaging the wet-mate connector.\r\n9. iAMP systems would be powered up and functionality confirmed.\r\n10. ROV would be disengaged from iAMP and recovered aboard R/V Jack Robertson.\r\nFinal recovery operations would occur in the following sequence:\r\n1. R/V Jack Robertson would arrive on station (no three point moor)\r\n2. iAMP systems would be powered down.\r\n3. Acoustic release would disengage a recovery float trailing a messenger line from the iAMP.\r\n4. Float and line would be recovered by R/V Jack Robertson and spooled onto vessel winch. Winch tension would disengage the securement clamps holding the iAMP to the docking station (via a mechanical linkage) and allow it to be recovered to the surface.\r\n5. The cable from the docking station would be disconnected from the shore station and transferred back from the dock to the R/V Jack Robertson.\r\n6. Acoustic release would disengage a recovery float trailing a messenger line from the docking station.\r\n7. Float and line would be recovered by R/V Jack Robertson and spooled onto vessel winch. Docking station would be recovered to deck.\r\nBetween initial deployment and final recovery, the iAMP may require servicing, in which case it would be recovered by the R/V Jack Robertson using the same procedure as during final recovery but leaving the docking station in place, then serviced and redeployed using the “Millennium” Falcon ROV.\r\nThe iAMP would be deployed in Sequim Bay, WA no earlier than August 1, 2015 and removed no later than November 30, 2015. During this time period, the iAMP would be installed and operating for no longer than 90 days. Operating frequencies and source levels for all active acoustic instruments utilized during testing are listed in Table 2. Initially, the iAMP sensors will be configured for a limited, fixed duty cycle, as described in Table 3, to collect training data sets for automatic target detection and inter-sensor triggering. As triggering algorithms are developed during the test, instrument duty cycles would increase to the limits shown in Table 4.\r\nTable 2 – Properties of active acoustic iAMP sensors\r\nSensor\r\n\tModel\r\n\tFrequency\r\n\tSource Level (dB re 1μPa @ 1 m)\r\n\tSource Type\r\n\tMultibeam sonar\r\n\tKongsberg M3\r\n\t900 kHz\r\n\t190 dB\r\n\tMultiple pulse\r\n\tAcoustic camera\r\n\tBlueView M900-2250\r\n\t2250 kHz\r\n\t> 180 dB\r\n\tMultiple pulse\r\n\tAcoustic Doppler wave and current profiler\r\n\tNortek Signature 500\r\n\t500 kHz\r\n\t> 180 dB\r\n\tMultiple pulse","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Technology.Current","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Table 3 – Initial duty cycle for iAMP sensors\r\nSensor\r\n\tModel\r\n\tDuty Cycle\r\n\tMultibeam sonar\r\n\tKongsberg M3\r\n\t1 minute every 15 minutes (7%); pings interleaved with acoustic camera\r\n\tAcoustic camera\r\n\tBlueView M900-2250\r\n\t1 minute every 15 minutes (7%); pings interleaved with multibeam sonar\r\n\tAcoustic Doppler wave and current profiler\r\n\tNortek Signature 500\r\n\t5 minutes every 15 minutes (33%)\r\n\tOptical camera w/ strobe\r\n\tCustom\r\n\t1 s every 15 minutes (< 1%)\r\n\tHydrophone array\r\n\tOceanSonics icListen\r\n\t1 minute every 15 minutes","tags":["Management.DesignFeature","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Table 4 – Triggered duty cycle for iAMP sensors\r\nSensor\r\n\tModel\r\n\tDuty Cycle\r\n\tMultibeam sonar\r\n\tKongsberg M3\r\n\t15 minutes every 20 minutes (75%); pings interleaved with acoustic camera\r\n\tAcoustic camera\r\n\tBlueView P2250-900\r\n\t15 minutes every 20 minutes (75%); pings interleaved with multibeam sonar\r\n\tAcoustic Doppler wave and current profiler\r\n\tNortek Signature 500\r\n\t5 minutes every 20 minutes (25%)\r\n\tOptical camera w/ strobe\r\n\tCustom\r\n\tUp to 1 s each minute (2%)\r\n\tHydrophone array\r\n\tOceanSonics icListen\r\n\tContinuous (100%)\r\n\tIn addition to opportunistic targets observed in fixed duty cycle operation, cooperative targets would be used on up to four occasions to quantify the range of each sensor, collect data to aid in the developing of target detection algorithms, and test these algorithms for targets at a known spatial position relative to the iAMP. Each test would last for up to eight hours and involve a combination of ROV deployments and small boat work to deploy and recover a SWIFT drifter.\r\n 1. Sensor Range Testing\r\nThe “Millennium” Falcon ROV would serve as the primary cooperative target to determine the maximum effective range of the multibeam sonar, acoustic camera, and optical camera. These tests would be conducted in relatively close proximity to the iAMP (i.e., within 20 m) since the multibeam sonar spread in the vertical direction will intersect the surface and seabed at a range of ~10 m when operating with a moderate vertical aperture. The ROV would be fitted with a surface piercing mast so that its position can be recorded by a GPS logger and its location visually identified by an orange flag. The ROV would be launched and recovered from the end of the MSL dock.\r\nDuring these tests, the fish tag and acoustic projector would be mounted on the ROV. The acoustic projector would simulate echolocation click trains consisting of 15 clicks each with center frequency of 120 kHz and a duration of ~80 µs, separated by 60 ms, and a source level of 140 dBrms re 1 µPa at 1 m. These click train properties mirror those of harbor porpoise (Tielmann et al. 2002), but are lower intensity. Click trains would be generated no more than once per minute. The fish tag would produce a coded pulse once per minute centered at 69 kHz with a source level of 150 dBrms re 1 µPa at 1 m. Both of these sound sources are impulsive and, while audible to some species of marine mammals (high-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds), are at or below the Level B harassment thresholds (currently, 160 dB dBrms re 1 µPa). Properties of active acoustic instruments used during cooperative target testing are summarized in Table 4.\r\nTable 4 – Properties of active acoustic instruments on cooperative targets\r\nInstrument\r\n\tFrequency\r\n\tSource Level (dBrms re 1μPa @ 1 m)\r\n\tSource Type\r\n\tDuty Cycle\r\n\tAcoustic projector (OceanSonics icTalk)\r\n\t120 kHz\r\n\t140 dB\r\n\tImpulsive\r\n\t1 click train (1 s) each minute\r\n\tFish tag (Vecmo V13)\r\n\t69 kHz\r\n\t150 dB\r\n\tImpulsive\r\n\t1 coded pulse (<< 1 s) each minute","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"2. Target Detection Algorithm Development and Testing\r\nFor detection algorithm development and testing, a SWIFT buoy or small boat would be used to maneuver a negatively buoyant target (e.g., calibration sphere) into the field of view of the iAMP instruments. The range at which targets are detected by the multibeam sonar, acoustic camera, and optical camera would be determined by manual review, compared to the position of the SWIFT or small boat recorded by a GPS logger. \r\nSimilarly, the acoustic projector would be deployed from a SWIFT buoy to test detection and tracking of marine mammals by the hydrophone array. The multibeam sonar would be used to track the true position of the drifter at close range, while the GPS logger would be used to track position at greater distance. The SWIFT would also be equipped with a fish tag to test both the ability of the hydrophone array to detect and recognize fish tag transmissions and the range of the fish tag receiver on the iAMP. During cooperative target testing, the SWIFT would be deployed from a small boat no more than 100 m up-current from the iAMP, allowed to drift with the dominant currents, and recovered no more than 100 m down-current from the iAMP.\r\n3. Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Project Area\r\n 1. Portage Bay, WA\r\nThe following threatened or endangered species are known to be seasonally present in Portage Bay: \r\n* Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (70 FR 37160)\r\n* Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distinct population segment (DPS) (72 FR 26722); and\r\n* Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (64 FR 58910).\r\nPortage Bay is included within the Critical Habitat of Puget Sound Chinook (70 FR 52630) and bull trout (75 FR 63898). Chinook salmon have their highest seasonal abundance in July and August, juvenile steelhead migrations are most likely in April and May. There are no federally listed marine mammal species that are known to occur or are likely to occur in Portage Bay.\r\n 2. Sequim Bay, WA\r\nThe following threatened or endangered species are known to be seasonally present in Sequim Bay: \r\n* Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (70 FR 37160); \r\n* Hood Canal summer-run chum (Oncorhynchus keta) ESU (70 FR 37160); \r\n* Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distinct population segment (DPS) (72 FR 26722); \r\n* North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) southern DPS (71 FR 17757); \r\n* Pacific eulachon (Columbia River smelt) (Thaleichthys pacificus) southern DPS (75 FR 13012); \r\n* Puget Sound bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (75 FR 22276); \r\n* Puget Sound yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (75 FR 22276); \r\n* Puget Sound canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (75 FR 22276);\r\n* Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (64 FR 58910);\r\n* Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (57 FR 45328); and\r\n* Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) (65 FR 46643).\r\nFederally listed species with designated critical habitat in Sequim Bay include Puget Sound Chinook (70 FR 52630), Hood Canal summer-run chum (70 FR 52630), North American green sturgeon (76 FR 1392), bull trout (75 FR 63898), bacaccio (78 FR 47635), yelloweye rockfish (78 FR 47635), and canary rockfish (78 FR 47635). Critical habitat that includes Sequim Bay has been proposed for Puget Sound steelhead (78 FR 2726) and there is designated terrestrial critical habitat for the marbled murrelet. No critical habitat exists in the project area for any of the other species noted above. \r\nThere are no federally listed marine mammal species that are known to occur or are likely to occur in Sequim Bay. Note that from 1990 to 2008 Southern Resident orca (Orcinus orca, endangered) were sighted in March just outside and north of Sequim Bay. At no time of year were orcas sighted within Sequim Bay from 1990 through 2008 (Osborne 2008). Thus, orcas would be unlikely to occur in Sequim Bay. The nearest known haul-out point for Steller's sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) is Protection Island (DNR 2010) located about four miles to the northeast in the Strait of Juan de Fuca; this species would be unlikely to occur in Sequim Bay. Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) have been sighted near Protection Island (DNR 2010) and are found mainly in shallow coastal waters, and would be unlikely to occur in Sequim Bay. The humpback whale (Eschrichtius robustus, endangered) is found mainly in coastal waters, and would also be very unlikely to occur in Sequim Bay (NMFS 2011b), particularly given the relatively shallow entrance channel.\r\nThere are no federally listed marine mammal species with designated critical habitat in Sequim Bay. Note that designated critical habitat exists for the Southern Resident orca just outside and north of Sequim Bay (north of Travis Spit) (71 FR 69054). This is adjacent to (300 m separation), but outside of, the Project area. There is no designated critical habitat for Steller's sea lion outside of Alaska and California (58 FR 45269). There is no designated critical habitat for the humpback whale.\r\nBecause the above-noted federally listed marine mammal species and their critical habitat are not known or are unlikely to occur in Sequim Bay, the project would have no effect on them, and they will not be discussed further.\r\nChinook Salmon\r\nThe Puget Sound Chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Straits of Juan De Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward (70 FR 37160). There are no Puget Sound Chinook populations that spawn in streams flowing into Sequim Bay[2]. The closest Puget Sound Chinook population is in the Dungeness River watershed located 10 km northwest of Sequim Bay. Nevertheless, the near-shore environment of Sequim Bay may be used for rearing (NMFS 2005). Limited information exists on Chinook salmon habitat use of marine waters. The whole of Sequim Bay has been designated critical habitat (70 FR 52630). The Sequim Bay near-shore environment (from extreme high water out to a depth of 30 meters) encompasses photic zone habitats supporting plant cover (e.g., eelgrass and kelp) important for rearing, migrating, and maturing salmon and their prey. Deeper waters are occupied by sub-adult and maturing fish. Thus, juvenile Chinook could occupy the nearshore, while sub-adult and maturing fish could occupy deeper water.\r\nChum Salmon\r\nThe Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of summer-run chum salmon in Hood Canal and its tributaries as well as populations in Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay (70 FR 37160). The Hood Canal summer-run chum population nearest to the project area spawns in Jimmycomelately Creek at the south end of Sequim Bay (7 km from the project site), which serves as spawning and rearing habitat (NMFS 2005b). The whole of Sequim Bay has been designated critical habitat (70 FR 52630). The Sequim Bay near-shore environment (from extreme high water out to a depth of 30 meters) generally encompasses photic zone habitats supporting plant cover (e.g., eelgrass and kelp) important for rearing, migrating, and maturing salmon and their prey. Deeper waters are occupied by sub-adult and maturing fish. Thus, juvenile chum could occupy the nearshore, while sub-adult and maturing fish could occupy deeper water.\r\nSteelhead\r\nThe Puget Sound steelhead DPS includes including all naturally spawned anadromous populations from streams in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (72 FR 26722). Most spawning takes place in Jimmycomelately, Johnson, and Gierin creeks, tributaries to Sequim Bay (WDFW 2011). The nearest of these to the project site, Johnson Creek, is 1.5 km to the south of the project site. The whole of Sequim Bay and many of its tributaries have been proposed as critical habitat. The nearshore migration pattern of Puget Sound steelhead is not well understood, but it is generally thought that smolts move quickly offshore. Unlike most other Pacific salmonids (e.g., Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum), steelhead appear to make only ephemeral use of nearshore marine waters. The species’ lengthy freshwater rearing period results in large smolts that are prepared to move rapidly through estuaries and nearshore waters to forage on larger prey in offshore marine areas. Although data specific to Puget Sound steelhead are limited, recent studies of steelhead migratory behavior strongly suggest that juveniles spend little time in estuarine and nearshore areas and do not favor migration along shorelines (in contrast, Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon are known to make extensive use of nearshore areas in Puget Sound). Therefore, unlike for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, there are not specific nearshore areas within the geographical area occupied by Puget Sound steelhead which are likely to be essential to their conservation (78 FR 2726).\r\nNorth American Green Sturgeon\r\nThe nearest and only currently known spawning population is from the Sacramento River in California. Green sturgeon spend a large portion of their lives in coastal marine waters as sub-adults and adults. Critical habitat for the species includes Sequim Bay. Primary constituent elements for nearshore coastal marine areas include migratory corridors for passage of fish within marine and between estuarine and marine habitats; nearshore marine waters with adequate dissolved oxygen levels and acceptably low levels of contaminants that may disrupt the normal behavior, growth, and viability of sub-adult and adult fish; and abundant prey which may include benthic invertebrates and fishes (74 FR 52300).\r\nPacific Eulachon\r\nIn the portion of the species' range that lies south of the United States-Canada border, most eulachon production originates in the Columbia River basin, with the major and most consistent spawning runs returning to the main stem of the Columbia River and the Cowlitz River. Shortly after hatching, larval eulachon may remain in low salinity, surface waters of estuaries for several weeks or longer before entering the ocean. Once juvenile eulachon enter the ocean, they move from shallow nearshore areas to deeper areas over the continental shelf. There is currently little information available about eulachon movements in nearshore marine areas (76 FR 65324). However, adults and juveniles commonly forage at moderate depths (20 - 150 m) in nearshore marine waters. Nearshore foraging sites are an essential habitat feature for the conservation of eulachon, and abundant forage species and suitable water quality are specific components of this habitat (NMFS 2011). Based on depth of use of nearshore areas, eulachon could potentially occur in the project area, but would spend very little of their lifetime there.\r\nPuget Sound Bocaccio\r\nBocaccio is a large Pacific coast rockfish. Bocaccio is most common 50 and 250 m depth, but may be found as deep as 475 m. Adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age but usually exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky bottoms and outcrops. Juveniles and subadults may be more common than adults in shallower water, and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms. In Puget Sound, most bocaccio is found south of Tacoma Narrows (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/bocaccio.htm#regulations). Thus, it is likely that bocaccio would be relatively scarce in Sequim Bay.\r\nPuget Sound Yelloweye\r\nYelloweye rockfish is a large Pacific coast rockfish. Juveniles and subadults tend to be more common than adults in shallower water, and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms. Adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age, but usually exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky bottoms and outcrops. Yelloweye rockfish occur in waters 25 to 475 m deep, but are most commonly found between 91 and 180 m. Yelloweye rockfish range from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, but are most common from central California northward to the Gulf of Alaska (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/yelloweyerockfish.htm). It is likely that yelloweye rockfish would be relatively scarce in Sequim Bay.\r\nPuget Sound Canary Rockfish\r\nCanary rockfish is a large Pacific coast rockfish. Canary rockfish primarily inhabit waters 50 to 250 m deep but may be found to 425 m. Juveniles and subadults tend to be more common than adults in shallow water and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms. Adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age but usually exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky bottoms and outcrops where they hover in loose groups just above the bottom. Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett, Baja California, and the Western Gulf of Alaska. Within this range, canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/canarvrockfish.htm). It is likely that canary rockfish would be relatively scarce in Sequim Bay.\r\nBull Trout\r\nThe population of bull trout in the coastal-Puget Sound DPS that is closest to the project area is from the lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River. In 1999, this population was considered depressed due to declining abundance, likely influenced by road density, sedimentation, urbanization, poaching, and competition and hybridization from introduced brook trout (64 FR 5891 0). \r\nBull trout in the coastal-Puget Sound DPS exhibit anadromous (Brenkman and Corbett 2005), adfluvial, fluvial, and possibly resident life history patterns. The Coastal-Puget Sound DPS is significant to the species because it contains the only anadromous life form of bull trout in the coterminous United States. Anadromous bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear 1 to 4 years before migrating to saltwater to rear as sub-adults or to live as adults, and then return to freshwater to spawn (FWS 2004). \r\nThe anadromous life history form typically has widely distributed foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat, using non-natal watersheds (habitat outside of their spawning and early rearing habitat) to forage, migrate, and overwinter (Brenkman and Corbett 2005). Anadromous bull trout use marine waters as migratory corridors to reach seasonal habitats in non-natal watersheds. Benefits to anadromous bull trout include greater growth in the more productive waters of larger estuaries and nearshore marine areas; greater fecundity resulting in increased reproductive potential; and dispersal of the population across space and time. Larger juvenile and sub-adult bull trout can migrate throughout a core area (core areas contain one or more local populations of bull trout and their habitat) looking for feeding opportunities, or they can move through marine areas to independent tributaries (tributaries that connect directly to marine waters). Because bull trout forage on salmon fry and eggs, streams accessible to salmon both within core areas and in independent tributaries outside of core areas have been identified as freshwater foraging habitat for bull trout. Independent tributaries used by bull trout on the Olympic Peninsula are not believed to support spawning populations of bull trout and are only accessible to bull trout by swimming through marine waters from core areas (FWS 2004). \r\nThe Bell foraging, migrating, and overwintering (FMO) area includes the Bell Creek independent tributary which is located east of the Dungeness River and which empties into the western portion Sequim Bay in a lagoon to the north of the iAMP deployment area. This habitat is located outside and east of the Dungeness River core area and is within watersheds not believed to support spawning (FWS 2004). \r\nBecause bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats fish should not be expected to simultaneously occupy all available habitats (FWS 2004). Although the distribution of bull trout and patterns of use in Sequim Bay are well known, because of the nearby Bell FMO and to be conservative, it is assumed that bull trout use Sequim Bay for foraging, overwintering, and moving between Bell Creek and the Dungeness River core area. \r\nBased on a study of anadromous bull trout on the north Olympic Peninsula (Brenkman and Corbett 2005), adult bull trout begin moving into natal streams May through July, spawn in the fall, and then return to marine waters to overwinter. Thus, iAMP testing activities from August to October would occur when adult bull trout will be in natal streams for spawning and would thus not be affected. \r\nHowever, sub-adult bull trout rearing in Sequim Bay could be present in the project area. In coastal areas of western Washington, sub-adult (and adult) bull trout feed on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) in marine waters (USFWS 2004). Although foraging bull trout are likely to concentrate in forage fish spawning areas, they can be found throughout accessible estuarine and nearshore habitats (USFWS 2004). \r\nHerring stock which once existed in Sequim Bay might now be extinct, as no eggs were found in the 1990s. Sequim Bay contains very dense Pacific sand lance spawning sites close to the high water mark (WDOE 2013, CCMRC 2013). Sand lance spawning occurs at high tide in shallow water on sand-gravel beaches and juvenile sand lances rear in nearshore waters along Puget Sound during the summer (DOE 2013). Surf smelt spawning habitat has been documented in Sequim Bay. Surf smelt spawn in summer along the Strait of Juan de Fuca on high intertidal beaches of sand and gravel, under only a few inches of slack water on the high tide (WDOE 2013, Whatcom County 2013). Juvenile surf smelt linger in spawning areas and feed in shallow waters throughout Puget Sound (WDOE 2013). \r\nWith sand lance and surf smelt likely common in the near-shore waters of Sequim Bay, it would be expected that sub-adult bull trout present in Sequim Bay would opportunistically forage in areas of forage fish concentrations. Sub-adult bull trout foraging in near-shore areas would not likely come into routine contact with the iAMP, deployed in deep, faster moving water of the entrance channel to the bay. \r\nMarbled Murrelet \r\nThe marbled murrelet's breeding range extends from Bristol Bay, Alaska to northern Monterey Bay in central California. The marbled murrelet nests in the terrestrial environment where it would not be affected by iAMP testing. Birds winter throughout the breeding range and spend most of their lives in the marine environment where they forage in near-shore areas and consume a diversity of prey species including small fish and invertebrates (57 FR 45328 [1992]). The marbled murrelet is known or believed to occur in Clallam County, Washington where there is critical habitat for the species in the terrestrial environment at the south end of Sequim Bay (61 FR 26255 [1996], 76 FR 61599 [2011]). \r\nIf the species forages in Sequim Bay, it would most likely be in nearshore areas where it would be unlikely to be affected by iAMP testing in the deep, faster moving water of the entrance channel. \r\nShort-Tailed Albatross \r\nThe short-tailed albatross breed only on islands off of Japan, and may occur anywhere in its range during the non-breeding season. The species consumes squid. The marine range of the short-tailed albatross within U.S. territorial waters includes Alaska's coastal shelf break areas and the marine waters of Hawaii for foraging, but it is unknown how much or to what extent it utilizes open ocean areas of the Gulf of Alaska, North Pacific Ocean, and Bering Sea. There is no information on specific habitat or area use patterns within the shelf break areas used by the species (65 FR 46643 [2000]). \r\nThe short-tailed albatross is known or believed to occur in Clallam County, Washington. It has been suggested that short-tailed albatross may be relatively common nearshore, but only where upwelling foraging “hotspots” occur in proximity to the coast; and that it would be more accurate to label the species as a \"continental shelf-edge specialist\" than a coastal or nearshore species (USFWS 2008). Thus, it is unlikely that the species would be present in Sequim Bay.\r\n4. Environmental Baseline Conditions\r\n 1. Portage Bay, WA\r\nPortage Bay is a fresh-water, urbanized waterway located within the Seattle metropolitan area. Human activities include heavy industry (vessel fabrication at yards along the ship canal leading in to Portage Bay), construction associated with replacement for the Evergreen Point floating bridge (state highway 520), and recreational boating and fishing. Portage Bay is mud-bottomed.\r\n 2. Sequim Bay, WA\r\nSequim Bay is a salt-water body connected to the Strait of Juan de Fuca by a relatively narrow channel (200 m wide). The tidal exchange between the bay and strait results in moderate tidal currents in this channel (up to 1.5 m/s). The bay is bordered by residential properties, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Marine Science Laboratory, and includes a small boat marine (John Wayne Marina). Recreational vessel traffic is common throughout the area.\r\nThere are no eelgrass or other submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) at the iAMP deployment location or along the cable route to the dock[3].\r\nHarbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are common in Sequim Bay, where they feed on fish, shellfish and crustaceans, and are often observed in the near-shore waters. Travis Spit, on the opposite side of the channel from the MSL dock, serves as a haul out area (WDFW 2013).\r\n5. Effects of the Action\r\n 1. Dockside Testing\r\nEnvironmental stresses associated with dockside testing of the iAMP in Portage Bay include:\r\n* Emission of sound from active acoustic sensors and instruments (e.g., fish tag, acoustic projector)\r\n* Emission of light from optical camera strobes\r\n* Presence of the iAMP hull in the water\r\nThe biological significance of these stresses is discussed sequentially in the same order as the bullet list.\r\n 3. Sound from Active Acoustics Sensors and Instruments\r\nAll active acoustic sensors on the iAMP operate at frequencies above fish hearing and would not be audible. Fish are most sensitive to sound < 1 kHz and are not generally sensitive to sound > 10 kHz (Popper and Fay 2011, Hawkins et al. 2014). Similarly, the acoustic projector and fish tag both operate at frequencies > 50 kHz. Consequently, these sounds will not affect aquatic species present in Portage Bay.\r\n 4. Light from Strobes\r\nLight from the strobes will be intermittent, not to exceed 1 minute every 15 minutes during diagnostic testing in daylight hours (7% duty cycle) and 1 second every 15 minutes during duty-cycled operation in nighttime hours (< 1% duty cycle). During daylight hours, operation of the strobe would not substantially increase light beyond ambient levels and would be unlikely to affect aquatic species. During nighttime hours, the effect of artificial illumination is likely to vary with species. For example, artificial light has been shown to result in attraction behavior by some surface species (Marchesan et al. 2005), while it has been shown to result in avoidance behavior in relatively deep water (Raymond and Widder 2007). The extent of artificial illumination would be roughly hemispherical with a range of < 6 m (Joslin et al. 2014). Similar illumination systems are used for benthic habitat surveys (Shortis et al. 2007), to monitor the effectiveness of trawls (Williams et al. 2010), and for ROV surveys to evaluate species presence and absence (Pacunksi et al. 2008). Consequently, while the activation of the strobes may result in a temporary behavioral response for the duration of the illumination (1 second every 15 minutes) during nighttime periods, this is unlikely to be biologically significant.\r\n 5. Presence of iAMP Hull\r\nOver the four-week testing period, the iAMP hull is unlikely to significantly foul in fresh water and, therefore, would not develop as an artificial reef, making fish attraction unlikely. Neither the presence of the iAMP hull in the water nor its removal at the conclusion of testing would cause any biologically effect.\r\n 2. Endurance Testing\r\nEnvironmental stresses associated with endurance testing of the iAMP in Sequim Bay include:\r\n* Emission of sound from active acoustic sensors and instruments (e.g., fish tag, acoustic projector)\r\n* Emission of light from optical camera strobes\r\n* Presence of the iAMP hull in the water and docking station/utility cable on the seabed\r\n* Presence of the R/V Jack Robertson at the mouth of Sequim Bay during deployment and recovery operations, presence of the ROV and/or SWIFT drifter in the water during cooperative target testing, and presence of a small boat in the water for SWIFT drifter recovery during cooperative target testing\r\nThe biological significance of these stresses is discussed sequentially in the same order as the bullet list. Stressor considerations applicable to dockside testing of the system are not repeated here.\r\n 6. Sound from Active Acoustic Sensors and Instruments\r\nMarine Fishes\r\nAs discussed under the effects of dockside testing, all active acoustic sensors on the iAMP and sources on cooperate targets operate at frequencies above fish hearing and would not be audible. \r\nAvian Species\r\nMaximum sensitivity to avian species for airborne sound is between 1 and 5 kHz (Dooling 1982), so it is unlikely that any of the active acoustics would be audible to a diving marbled murrelet for short-tailed albatross.\r\nMarine Mammals\r\nWhile marine mammal hearing is more sensitive to higher frequencies, the harbor seals present in Sequim Bay have a poor hearing above 100 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2009). This is below the operating frequency of the acoustic camera (2250 kHz), multibeam sonar (500 kHz), acoustic Doppler current profiler (500 kHz), and acoustic projector simulating porpoise click trains (120 kHz). Consequently, none of these instruments are likely to be audible to the harbor seals in the Project area.\r\nThe operating frequency of the fish tags (69 kHz) is within the hearing range of the harbor seals present in Sequim Bay. Given that these sources will be deployed in a limited manner (up to eight hours on four occasions, with a signal repetition rate of no more than once per minute), no biologically significant behavioral response to the sound would be expected. The intensity of the impulsive sound transmitted by the fish tag is also below the statutory limit for acoustic harassment of marine mammals (150 dBrms re 1 µPa source level versus 160 dBrms re 1 µPa limit for Level B harassment).\r\n 7. Light from Strobes\r\nFish, marine mammals and diving seabirds may exhibit temporary behavioral responses to artificial illumination, but the restricted duty cycle for artificial illumination during nighttime periods means that this is unlikely to be biologically significant (a maximum of 1 second each minute once automated triggering algorithms are developed and a maximum of 1 second every 15 minutes during initial operation).\r\n 8. Presence of iAMP Hull, Docking Station, and Utility Cable\r\nThe iAMP would be deployed in Sequim Bay for up to 90 days over a fourth month period. While the deployment window (August 1 – November 30) is outside the period of most intense biological fouling, some colonization of the hard structures is to be expected. Fish may make use of the current “shadow” downstream of the iAMP as an area of refuge from strong currents, but biologically significant reef effects within critical habitat would not be expected.\r\nInstallation of the docking station and shore cable will disturb less than 2 m3 of seabed (< 1 m3 for the docking station feet and < 1 m3 for the cable, including screw anchors as a preventative measure to secure the cable against the currents). Any disturbance to colonized substrate (e.g., sponges, barnacles, anemones) would be minimal. Consequently, the presence of the system for a short-term test is unlikely to have biologically significant effects. No eelgrass or other submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is located in the area proposed for docking station deployment or cable routing to the MSL dock[4].\r\n 9. Presence of Vessels\r\nInstallation and recovery of the iAMP will involve operations from the R/V Jack Robertson, a 60’ research vessel equipped with an A-frame and deck crane. The Robertson would be present on two occasions for less than 12 hours in each instance for initial iAMP deployment and final iAMP recovery. If intermediate maintenance is required, the Robertson would need to be on station for recovery and redeployment, each of which is approximately a 30 minute operation. During cooperative target testing, a combination of small boat activity, SWIFT drifts, and ROV operations would be anticipated over an eight hour window on up to four occasions. \r\nGiven the limited duration of these activities and similarity to the recreational boat traffic common in Sequim Bay, vessel operations are not likely to cause biologically significant effects to any of the ESA-listed species identified in Section 3.2.\r\n 10. Summary\r\nESA-listed fish species (Section 3) may come into proximity with the iAMP or surface vessels during testing. If an ESA-listed fish species were present in the Project area, the species' movements or foraging could be temporarily disrupted by project activities such as vessel activity during iAMP deployment/recovery or cooperative target testing. Based on the analysis presented in this document, such effects would be insignificant and discountable at the individual and population level. Further, nearshore areas do not have characteristics that make them essential to conservation of the threatened or endangered fish. Thus, the project is unlikely to have any effect on threatened or endangered fish species.\r\nMurrelets foraging in deeper water may be temporarily disturbed by vessel traffic in the narrow channel during iAMP deployment/recovery and cooperative target testing. This could result in minor energy expenditures and lost foraging opportunities, but not at a level that would be biologically significant. Thus, the project is unlikely to have any effect on the marbled murrelet.\r\nThe dock station and cable to the dock would be deployed in critical habitat. However, the total affected area of substrate would be less than two square meters. Thus, the scale of effect on critical habitat is discountable. \r\n6. Conclusions\r\nIn conclusion, we have determined that DOE’s proposed Action to fund the proposed Project would not affect any ESA-listed species occurring within the Project area or their associated critical habitat, as defined in Section 3.1 (Portage Bay, WA) and Sequim 3.2 (Sequim Bay, WA). Testing activities are summarized in Table 5.\r\nTable 5 – Testing summary\r\nTesting\r\n\tLocation\r\n\tTiming\r\n\tTotal Test Time\r\n\tContinuous Test Time\r\n\tDockside Checkout\r\n\tPortage Bay, WA\r\n\tJuly 1-July 31, 2015\r\n\t31 days\r\n\tUp to 31 days\r\n\tEndurance Testing\r\n\tSequim Bay, WA\r\n\tAugust 1 – November 30, 2015\r\n\t122 days\r\n\tUp to 90 days\r\n\tCooperative Target Testing\r\n\tSequim Bay, WA\r\n\tAugust 1 – November 30, 2015\r\n\t32 hours on four occasions\r\n\tUp to 8 hours","tags":"TEXT_TOO_LONG"},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"7. Literature Cited\r\n57 FR 45328. October 1, 1992. \"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Washington, Oregon, and California Population of the Marbled Murrelet.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. \r\n58 FR 45269. August 27, 1993. \"Designated Critical Habitat; Steller Sea Lion. Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n61 FR 26255. May 24, 1996. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior.\r\n64 FR 58910. November 1, 1999. \"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule. Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. \r\n65 FR 46643. July 31, 2000. \"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the Short-Tailed Albatross as Endangered in the United States. Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. \r\n70 FR 37160. June 28, 2005. \"Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Final4(d) Protective Regulations for Threatened Salmonid ESUs. Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n70 FR 52630. September 2, 2005. \"Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Salmon and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Washington, Oregon and Idaho.\" Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n71 FR 69054. November 29, 2006. \"Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whale. Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n72 FR 26722. May 11, 2007. \"Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determination for Puget Sound Steelhead.\" Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n74 FR 52300. October 9, 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rulemaking To Designate Critical Habitat for the Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon; Final Rule.\" Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n75 FR 63898. October 18, 2010. \"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bull Trout; Final Rule.\" Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. \r\n76 FR 61599. October 5, 2011. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior.\r\n76 FR 65324. October 20, 2011. \"Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon.\" Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n78 FR 2726. January 14, 2013. \"Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat fof Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead.\" Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n78 FR 47635. August 6, 2013. “Designation of Critical Habitat for the Distinct Population Segments of Yelloweye Rockfish, Canary Rockfish, and Bocaccio.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\nBrenkman, S.J. and S.C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of Anadromy in Bull Trout and Implications for Conservation of a Threatened Species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1073-1081.\r\nClallam County Marine Resources Commission (CCMRC) (2013) Resource Concerns and Priorities for the Clallam County Marine Resources Commission. http://www.clallam.net/ccmrc/concernspriorities.html#washington\r\nDooling, R.J. (1982) Auditory perception in birds. In Acoustic communication in birds, ed.\r\nKroodsma, D.E., E.H. Miller and H. Ouellet. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press. 95-130.\r\nHawkins A, Popper A, Fay R, Mann D, Bartol S, Carlson T, et al. (2014) Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report. Cham, Switzerland: ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014 prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standard Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI.\r\nJoslin, J., Polagye, B., & Parker-Stetter, S. (2014) Development of a stereo-optical camera system for monitoring tidal turbines. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 8(1), 083633-083633.\r\nKastelein, R. A., Wensveen, P. J., Hoek, L., Verboom, W. C., & Terhune, J. M. (2009) Underwater detection of tonal signals between 0.125 and 100kHz by harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(2), 1222-1229.\r\nMarchesan, M., Spoto, M., Verginella, L., and Ferrero, EA. (2005) Behavioral effects of artificial light on fish species of commercial interest. Fish. Res. 73:171-185.\r\nNMFS (2005) Endangered and threatened species; Designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon and Idaho; Final rule. 70FR52630.\r\nNMFS (2011) Critical Habitat for the Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon Final Biological Report. Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division. Available on line at: \r\nhttp:1/www.nwr.noaa.gov/pubiications/protectedspecies/other/eulachon/eulachon-ch- bio-rpt.pdf\r\nNMFS (2011b) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. Humpback Whale: California/Oregon/Washington Stock. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2010whhb-cow.pdf\r\nOsborne, R.W. (2008) The Whale Museum, Southern Resident Killer Whale Sighting Compilation 1990-2008. Available at NOAA Fisheries Branch Office, Lacey, WA.\r\nPackunski, R.E., Palsson, W.A., Greene, H.G., Gunderson, D. (2008) Conducting visual surveys with a small ROV in shallow water. In Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska, J.R. Reynolds and H.G. Greene (eds.) Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/mhmta.2008.08\r\nPolagye, B., Copping, A., Suryan, R., Kramer, S., Brown-Saracino, J., & Smith, C. (2014). Instrumentation for monitoring around marine renewable energy converters: Workshop final report. PNNL-23110, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.\r\nPopper A and Fay R (2011) Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hearing Research, 273, 25-36.\r\nRaymond, E.H. and Widder, E.A. (2007) Behavioral responses of two deep-sea fish species to red, far-red, and white light. Marine Ecology Progress Series 350:291-298.\r\nShortis, M.R., Seager, J.W., Wouldiams, A., Barker, B.A., and Sherlock, M. (2007) A towed body stereo-video system for deep water benthic habitat surveys. In: Grun, A. and Kahmen, H. (eds.) Eighth Conference on Optical 3-D Measurement Techniques, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, p. 150-157.\r\nSnohomish Public Utility District (2012), Final license application for the Admiralty Inlet tidal project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket P-12690, Mar. 1, 2012.\r\nTeilmann, J., Miller, L. A., Kirketerp, T., Kastelein, R. A., Madsen, P. T., Nielsen, B. K., & Au, W. W. (2002). Characteristics of echolocation signals used by a harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in a target detection experiment. Aquatic Mammals, 28(3), 275-284.\r\nUSFWS (2008) Short-tailed albatross recovery plan, Anchorage, AK. 105 pp.\r\nWashington Department of Ecology (WDOE) (2013) Puget Sound Shorelines. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/species/smelt.html\r\nWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (2011) Conservation. Available on line at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/species/population details.jsp?stockld=6292\r\nWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (2013) \"Priority Habitats and Species.\" Olympia, Washington. Available on line at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/.\r\nWashington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (2010) Protection Island Aquatic Reserve Management Plan.\r\nWhatcom County Marine Resources Commission (WCMRC) (2013) Marine Life in Whatcom County. http://www.whatcomcounty.org/Fact Sheets/surf smelt.htm\r\nWilliams, K., Rooper, C.N., and Towler, R. (2010) Use of stereo camera systems for assessment of rockfish abundance in untrawlable areas and for recording pollock behavior during midwater trawls. Fisheries Bulletin 108:352-362.\r\n________________","tags":["Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"Annex 1\r\nBest Management Practices (BMPs) for General In-Water Work Including Boat and Diver Operations\r\nThe following BMPSs are intended to reduce potential adverse effects on protected marine species. These BMPs are in no way intended to supersede or replace measures required by any other agency including, but not limited to the ACOE, USFWS, USEPA, or NMFS. Compliance with these BMPs is secondary to safety concerns. \r\nA. Constant vigilance shall be kept for the presence of ESA-listed marine species during all aspects of the proposed action, particularly in-water activities such as boat operations, diving, and deployment of anchors and mooring lines.\r\n1. The project manager shall designate an appropriate number of competent observers to survey the marine areas adjacent to the proposed action for ESA-listed marine species. \r\n2. Surveys shall be made prior to the start of work each day, and prior to resumption of work following any break of more than one half hour. Periodic additional surveys throughout the work day are strongly recommended. \r\n3. All in-water work shall be postponed or halted when ESA-listed marine species are within 50 yards of the proposed work, and shall only begin/resume after the animals have voluntarily departed the area. If ESA-listed marine species are noticed within 50 yards after work has already begun, that work may continue only if, in the best judgment of the project supervisor, that there is no way for the activity to adversely affect the animal(s). For example; divers performing surveys or underwater work would likely be permissible, whereas operation of heavy equipment is likely not.\r\n4. When piloting vessels, vessel operators shall alter course to remain at least 100 yards from whales, and at least 50 yards from other marine mammals and sea turtles.\r\n5. Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when piloting vessels at or within the ranges described above from marine mammals and sea turtles. Operators shall be particularly vigilant to watch for turtles at or near the surface in areas of known or suspected turtle activity, and if practicable, reduce vessel speed to 5 knots or less.\r\n6. If despite efforts to maintain the distances and speeds described above, a marine mammal or turtle approaches the vessel, put the engine in neutral until the animal is at least 50 feet away, and then slowly move away to the prescribed distance.\r\n7. Marine mammals and sea turtles should not be encircled or trapped between multiple vessels or between vessels and the shore.\r\n8. Do not attempt to feed, touch, ride, or otherwise intentionally interact with any ESA-listed marine species.\r\nB. No contamination of the marine environment should result from project-related activities.\r\n1. A contingency plan to control toxic materials is required.\r\n2. Appropriate materials to contain and clean potential spills will be stored at the work site, and be readily available.\r\n3. All project-related materials and equipment placed in the water will be free of pollutants. The project manager and heavy equipment operators will perform daily pre-work equipment inspections for cleanliness and leaks. All heavy equipment operations will be postponed or halted should a leak be detected, and will not proceed until the leak is repaired and equipment cleaned.\r\n4. Fueling of land-based vehicles and equipment should take place at least 50 feet away from the water, preferably over an impervious surface. Fueling of vessels should be done at approved fueling facilities. \r\n5. Turbidity and siltation from project-related work should be minimized and contained through the appropriate use of effective silt containment devices and the curtailment of work during adverse tidal and weather conditions.\r\n6. A plan will be developed to prevent debris and other wastes from entering or remaining in the marine environment during the project.","tags":["Consequence.BehavioralChange","Consequence.Collision","Consequence.Displacement","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.Fish","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"________________\r\nAnnex 2\r\nOperational Guidelines when in Sight of Whales\r\nWHEN IN SIGHT OF WHALES:\r\n* 2 miles to 1 mile away:\r\n* Reduce speed to 13 knots.\r\n* Post a dedicated lookout to assist the vessel operator in monitoring the location of all marine mammals.\r\n* Avoid sudden changes in speed and direction.\r\n* 1 mile to ½ mile away:\r\n* Reduce speed to 10 knots.\r\n* ½ mile or less:\r\n * Reduce speed to 7 knots.\r\n * Maneuver to avoid head-on approach.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH PROCEDURE:\r\n* 600 feet or closer:\r\n * Parallel the course and speed of moving whales up to the designated speed limit within that distance.\r\n * Do not attempt a head-on approach to whales.\r\n * Approach and leave stationary whales at no more than idle or \"no wake\" speed, not to exceed 7 knots.\r\n * Do not intentionally drift down on whales.","tags":["Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"STAND-BY ZONE\r\n* 300 feet to 600 feet away:\r\n * Two vessel limit within the 300- to 600-foot Stand-By Zone at any one time.","tags":["Management.DesignFeature","Consequence.BehavioralChange","Management.Compliance","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.Displacement"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH ZONE\r\n* 100 feet to 300 feet away:\r\n * One vessel limit.","tags":["* 300 feet to 500 feet away:","* Swimming and diving is not permitted within the close approach zone.","","Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Monitoring","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.Navigation","Receptor.HumanDimensions.RecreationTourism","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"NO INTENTIONAL APPROACH WITHIN 100 FEET.\r\n * Do not approach within 100 feet of whales. If whales approach within 100 feet of your vessel, put engines in neutral and do not re-engage propulsion until whales are observed clear of harm's way from your vessel.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"DEPARTURE PROCEDURE\r\n * All vessels should leave the whales following the same speed and distance procedures described above.\r\n * In order for vessels to be clear of whales before dark, vessels should cease operations and begin their return to port 15 minutes before sunset.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Management.Monitoring","Management.Compliance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.7 - iAMP - Sequim","text_excerpt":"________________\r\n[1] The specific Evolutionary Specific Units and corresponding federal statutes are presented in Section 3.\r\n[2] http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/maps data/species population boundaries.html\r\n[3] Video survey conducted around pier and dock by MSL staff on May 12, 2015.\r\n[4] Video survey conducted around pier and dock by MSL staff on May 12, 2015.","tags":["[1] Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","[2] Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","[3] Phase.2Construction Management.Monitoring","[4] Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 2","text_excerpt":"Advanced Laboratory and Field Arrays: Cross-flow Turbine Field Testing (Task 5)\r\n&\r\nLaboratory Collaboration Projects: Quantifying Collision Risks for Fish and Turbines (Task 10)\r\nBiological Evaluation","tags":["Consequence.Injury","Consequence.Mortality","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds","Reception.Bats","Reception.MarineMammals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 2","text_excerpt":"Prepared for:\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\r\nPortland, OR\r\n&\r\nUS Fish and Wildlife Service\r\nLacey, WA","tags":["Phase.2Construction","","Management.Compliance","","Management.Mitigation","","Management.Monitoring","","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 2","text_excerpt":"Prepared, on behalf of the US Department of Energy, by:\r\nDr. Brian Polagye\r\nAssociate Professor, University of Washington\r\nNorthwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center\r\n________________","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.StakeholderEngagement","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 2","text_excerpt":"Table of Contents\r\n1 Background and History 1\r\n2 Description of Project Activities and Action Area 1\r\n2.1 Lake Washington (Seattle, WA) 1\r\n2.2 Cross-flow Turbine Array Testing 2\r\n2.3 Collision Detection Study 4\r\n2.4 Action Area 5\r\n3 Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Action Area 5\r\n4 Environmental Baseline Conditions 5\r\n5 Effects of the Action 6\r\n5.1 Fish Species 6\r\n5.2 Avian Species 6\r\n6 Conclusions 7\r\n7 Literature Cited 7","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Birds.GroundNestingBirds","Receptor.Birds.Passerines","Receptor.Birds.Raptors","Receptor.Birds.Seabirds","Receptor.Birds.Shorebirds","Receptor.Birds.Waterfowl","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 2","text_excerpt":"1. Background and History\r\nThe purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address the effect of two, related types of field testing involving cross-flow turbines (Proposed Action). In the first, a pair of cross-flow turbines would be mounted to the bow of a catamaran-hull research vessel (R/V Russel Light), with the velocity required to drive the turbines produced by motoring the vessel through the water. The purpose of the study is to evaluate whether the performance observed in a laboratory setting (at 1:4 scale) for closely-spaced cross-flow turbines are representative of unconfined field conditions. In the second, a single cross-flow turbine would be mounted to the vessel and used to evaluate the capabilities of an integrated instrumentation system to detect collisions with small objects (for example, neutrally buoyant floats). \r\nBecause these studies will be conducted with financial support from DOE, the Proposed Action is subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the Proposed Action may qualify for a NEPA categorical exclusion (CX) under 10 CFR Part 1021, section B5.25 Small Scale Renewable Energy Research and Pilot Projects in Aquatic Environments (see Federal Register Vol. 776, No. 198 at p. 63797), provided that it will not affect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nAll in-water activities would occur on Lake Washington, a freshwater body near Seattle, Washington. The following ESA-listed marine species that are known to occur in the area: the threatened Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), threatened steelhead trout (O. mykiss), threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and threatened streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata). The area is designated as critical habitat for Chinook salmon and bull trout. Bull trout, marbled murrelet, and streaked horned lark are trust resources for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Chinook salmon and steelhead are trust resources for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).\r\nThis BE addresses DOE’s Proposed Action to provide federal funding to the proposed Project in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with NMFS and/or USFWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.\r\n2. Description of Project Activities and Action Area\r\n 1. Lake Washington (Seattle, WA)\r\nLake Washington is a fresh-water body bordered by a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential properties within the Seattle metropolitan area. Current human activities include the installation of light rail on the Interstate 90 (I-90) floating bridge, and recreational boating. The lake is mud-bottomed.\r\nTesting would occur to the north of the state highway 520 floating bridge and to the east of the interstate 5 bridge, as shown in Figure 1.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.HabitatChange","Technology.Current","Technology.SalinityGradient"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 2","text_excerpt":"Figure 1: Location of proposed turbine field testing. (Source: Google Earth)\r\n 2. Cross-flow Turbine Array Testing\r\nField testing would occur aboard R/V Russel Light, a catamaran-hulled research vessel. Renderings of the vessel are shown in Figure 2. The vessel is a reconfigurable platform that, in a bare configuration (Figure 2a) consists of twin catamaran hulls spanned by a work deck, engine spaces, and pilot house. For turbine testing, the vessel would be equipped with a gantry mounted to the bow (yellow frame, Figure 2b) and container with data acquisition and power systems equipped (green container). Cross-flow turbines would be mounted within the gantry (a single turbine is shown in the rendering). Once the vessel is in position to begin testing, the gantry is lowered into the water and the vessel motors ahead to produce the relative velocity necessary to drive the turbines. During dual-turbine tests, maximum vessel speed will be 2.0 meters per second (m/s, or approximately 4 knots).\r\n C:\\Users\\BRIANP~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\PORT BOW NO GEAR-01.jpg","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.HabitatChange","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Monitoring","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 2","text_excerpt":"(a) Bare vessel configuration for the R/V Russel Light\r\n\t C:\\Users\\BRIANP~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\PORT BOW-01.jpg","tags":["Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Reptiles","Management.DesignFeature","Management.Compliance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 2","text_excerpt":"(b) R/V Russel Light equipped for testing with gantry system, data acquisition systems, and a single cross-flow turbine. Turbine and gantry would be lowered into the water for testing.\r\n\tFigure 2: R/V Russel Light\r\n\tThe turbines are cross-flow designs (i.e., the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction of the relative current). Each turbine would have a maximum height of 1.2 m, diameter of 1.0 m, and would be equipped with two straight-blades with a symmetric airfoil profile. The turbines operate at a tip-speed ratio between 1 and 3 – this means that the blades are moving at up to 3 times the speed of the relative current. During these experiments, the downstream turbine would be located 1.5 – 2 diameters (measured axis-to-axis) of the upstream turbine and slightly overlapped in the transverse direction, as shown in Figure 2.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment.WaterQuality","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 2","text_excerpt":"Figure 3: Turbine arrangement schematic. View is top-down, with circles denoting the perimeter of the area swept by the blades.\r\nA single turbine test would involve up to 4 hours of operating time and up to three tests are possible.\r\nTesting would be conducted during the work window established by the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE): between July 16 and March 15. This window brackets the time ESA-listed fish species are least likely to present in Lake Washington. \r\nDuring tests, the vessel would be equipped with an integrated instrumentation system (the Adaptable Monitoring Package, or AMP) to observe the area around the turbines. The AMP would be instrumented with optical cameras with strobe illumination (red and white spectrum), an acoustic camera with an operating frequency of 2.25 MHz, and a passive acoustic hydrophone. \r\n 3. Collision Detection Study\r\nField testing would use the R/V Russel Light. For this study, a single cross-flow turbine would be installed in the gantry and the AMP sensors expanded to include a broader suite of active acoustics, including multibeam sonars, split-beam echosounders, and single-beam echosounders. The minimum operating frequency of these sonars will be 30 kHz. The purpose of this test is to evaluate the capability of range of sensors to identify collisions between fish and turbines, using inert targets as a proxy for fish. \r\nTesting would involve simple “cooperative targets” (for example, a plastic shell instrumented with a pressure gauge and accelerometer). Initial tests would involve deploying these targets in close proximity to a stationary or motored (i.e., motor-driven) turbine to establish baseline sensor performance in the absence of energetic inflow. To evaluate sensor performance under more realistic conditions, cooperative targets would be deployed upstream of the vessel and intentionally targeted for turbine collision. All targets will be recovered at the conclusion of testing using a buoyancy engine (either a compressed air bladder or solid piston to change the cooperative target buoyancy from neutral to positive). \r\nTwo cooperative target tests, each four hours in duration, with a moving vessel are possible.\r\nThese tests would also be conducted during the USACE work window.\r\n 4. Action Area\r\nThe overall action area is defined as the combined area of all of the described components. It includes the greater of the limits of testing, as defined in Section 2.1 (i.e., Lake Washington to the north of state highway 522 and to the east of interstate highway 5). This is a conservative estimate of the extent to which disturbance from testing activities has the potential to affect ESA-listed species. \r\n3. Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Action Area\r\nThe following threatened species are known to be present in Lake Washington.\r\n* Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (NMFS 2005a), \r\n* Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (NMFS 2007), \r\n* Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (USFWS 2004),\r\n* Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (USFWS 1997), and\r\n* Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) (USFWS 2016)\r\nLake Washington is designated as critical habitat for Chinook salmon (NOAA 2005b) and bull trout (USFWS 2010).\r\n4. Environmental Baseline Conditions\r\nThe Lake Washington waterfront is heavily developed along its perimeter, primarily by residential housing. Two floating bridges allowing automotive traffic span the lake – State Route 520 at the northern end and Interstate 90 at the southern end. Recreational vessel traffic is common on the lake, as is tug and tow traffic. For the past several years, commercial traffic has expanded as a consequence of the reconstruction of the State Route 520 floating bridge and the installation of light rail along I-90.\r\n5. Effects of the Action\r\n 1. Fish Species\r\nThe potential risk to ESA-listed fish species posed by these tests is collision with the turbine. However, because turbine testing will only take place during USACE work windows, when ESA-listed fish species are unlikely to be present in the action area, there is no pathway for effect. Similarly, because the vessel will not disturb the lake bed, there is no pathway to affect their critical habitat. Further, fish are likely to be alerted to the presence of the testing vessel by the acoustic emissions from its propulsion system and disperse in advance of passage.\r\nCross-flow turbines of this type have been demonstrated to pose little risk to aquatic species. Viehman and Zydlewski (2015) analyzed acoustic camera observations of fish interacting with a larger-scale cross-flow turbine. They observed fish entering, avoiding, passing, or pausing in the wake of the turbine. They were not able to observe collision within the rotor swept area due to the positioning of the acoustic cameras. Hammar et al. (2013) evaluated fish interactions with a turbine of similar size to the one proposed for testing here (1.5 m height, 0.7 m in diameter, 3 helical blades). Their study utilized stereo-optical cameras in tropical water during daylight hours, such that they were able to track fish through the rotor. No collisions between fish and the turbine were observed and only two individual fish passed through the rotor swept area, though several hundred fish were observed around the turbine, primarily during low currents.\r\nDuring both types of testing, R/V Russel Light will be equipped with an Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP). The optical and acoustic cameras will continuously observe the turbines and the acoustic camera will trigger data archiving if any targets are detected in the field of view (cooperative targets deployed by the vessel crew or opportunistic non-ESA fish species). The existing suite of algorithms have been previously demonstrated to detect fish schools, diving birds, seals, and kelp with high accuracy (Cotter et al. 2017).\r\nWe have determined that the proposed project will have No Effect on ESA-listed fish species identified above. As testing will occur from a boat, the proposed project will have No Effect on designated critical habitats for these species.\r\n 2. Avian Species\r\nLake Washington is within the range of the marbled murrelet (Desimone 2016). Because marbled murrelet forage for prey beneath the water surface, there is a potential pathway for effect through collision with the turbine. However, population densities at this location are extremely low. As of 2016, there was a single reported breeding occurrence of a marbled murrelet in southern Lake Washington in the WDFW Wildlife Survey Data Management Corporate data base (Desimone 2016). Population density in the action area is sufficiently low that Lake Washington is not included in annual population surveys and the nearest population survey sites have a reported density of < 1 bird/km2 (Flaxa et al. 2008). Given this population density and a maximum of 12 hours of turbine run time on the lake, the likelihood of a random encounter with a diving marbled murrelet is discountably low. Further, given observations of fish behavior around a similar type of turbine (e.g., Hammar et al. 2013), testing would not be expected to create a foraging attractor. \r\nMarbled murrelet prefer dense, shady old growth forests, of which this habitat criteria does not occur within or near the project site (Desimone 2016). The closest known critical habitat area is over 30 miles east of the action area. As testing will only occur in Lake Washington, there is no pathway to affect the marbled murrelet’s critical habitat.\r\nLake Washington is also within the range of the streaked horned lark, though is not a location with a known population (closest known population is in southern Puget Sound, USFWS 2016). The streaked horned lark uses flat, sparsely vegetated sites dominated by grasses and forbs, including native prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and active agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely-vegetated edges of grass fields, recently planted Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground, moderately- to heavily-grazed pastures, gravel roads, or gravel shoulders of lightly-traveled roads (Stinson 2016). Large open areas are not present within the project area or adjacent to it. Given that the species does not forage beneath the water surface, the likelihood of encounter between a streaked horned lark and a turbine is unlikely.\r\nWe have determined that the proposed project will have No Effect on ESA-listed avian species identified above. As there is no critical habitat within the project area, the proposed project will have No Effect on designated critical habitats for these species.\r\n6. Conclusions\r\nThe presence of the Adaptable Monitoring Package also ensures that any interactions between the turbines and non-ESA-listed species will be captured for review which could help to inform future consultations where the probability of encounter is not discountable. Therefore, we have determined that DOE’s proposed Action to fund the proposed Project would not affect any ESA-listed species occurring within the project area or their associated critical habitat. Testing activities are summarized in Table 1.\r\nTable 1: Testing summary on Lake Washington, Seattle, WA\r\nTest Type\r\n\tTesting Window\r\n\tContinuous Test Time\r\n\tCross-flow turbine array performance testing (ALFA Task 5)\r\n\tJuly 16, 2018 – March 15, 2019\r\n\tUp to 12 hours, split over 4 hours on 3 occurrences\r\n\tCollision detection evaluation (LCP Task 10)\r\n\tJuly 16, 2019 – March 15, 2020\r\n\tUp to 8 hours, split over 4 hours on 2 occurrences\r\n\t7. Literature Cited\r\nCotter, E., Murphy, P., and Polagye, B., 2017. Benchmarking sensor fusion capabilities of an integrated instrumentation package. International Journal of Marine Energy. doi: 10.1016/j.ijome.2017.09.003.\r\nDesimone, S. M. 2016. Periodic status review for the Marbled Murrelet in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 28+iii pp.\r\nFalxa, G., J. Baldwin, D. Lynch, S.K. Nelson, S.L. Miller, S.F. Pearson, C.J. Ralph, M.G. Raphael, C. Strong, T. Bloxton, B. Galleher, B. Hogoboom, M. Lance, R. Young, and M.H. Huff. 2008. Marbled murrelet effectiveness monitoring, Northwest Forest Plan: 2004-2007 summary report. 25 pp.\r\nHammar L, Andersson S, Eggertsen L, Haglund J, Gullström M, et al., 2013. Hydrokinetic Turbine Effects on Fish Swimming Behaviour. PLoS ONE 8(12): e84141. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084141\r\nNMFS, 2005a. Endangered and threatened species: Final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of west coast salmon, and final 4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs. 70 FR 37160.\r\nNMFS, 2005b. Endangered and threatened species; Designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon and Idaho; Final rule. 70 FR 52630.\r\nNMFS, 2007. Endangered and threatened species: Final listing determination for Puget Sound steelhead. 72 FR 26722.\r\nUSFWS, 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon. 203 pp.\r\nUSFWS, 2004. Draft recovery plan for the coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of II): Puget Sound management unit. Portland, Oregon. 289 + xvii pp.\r\nUSFWS, 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. 75 FR 63898.\r\nUSFWS, 2016. Recovery outline for the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon. 40 pp.\r\nViehman, H.A. and Zydlewski, G.B., 2015. Fish interactions with a commercial-scale tidal energy device in the natural environment. Estuaries and Coasts, 38(1), pp.241-252.","tags":["Technology.Current.Tidal","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.Fish","Fish Species","Avian Species","No Effect","ESA-listed Species","Critical Habitat"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"Field Testing of Autonomous Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package\r\nBiological Evaluation","tags":["Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Reptiles"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"Prepared for: \r\nUS Department of Energy \r\nEERE Project Management Center \r\nGolden Field Office \r\n1617 Cole Boulevard \r\nGolden, Colorado 80401","tags":["Phase.Construction"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"Prepared by:\r\nDr. Brian Polagye\r\nAssociate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington\r\nNorthwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy ","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement ","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicsData"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"Dr. Sarah Henkel\r\nAssistant Professor, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University\r\nNorthwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center\r\n________________\r\nTable of Contents\r\n1 Background and History 1\r\n2 Description of Project Activities and Project Areas 4\r\n2.1 Autonomous version of the Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package 4\r\n2.2 Cooperative Targets 6\r\n2.3 Dockside Testing (Portage Bay, WA) 6\r\n2.4 Field Testing (Newport, OR) 7\r\n3 Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Project Area 9\r\n3.1 Portage Bay, WA 9\r\n3.2 PMEC-SETS (Newport, OR) 9\r\n4 Environmental Baseline Conditions 11\r\n4.1 Portage Bay, WA 11\r\n4.2 PMEC-SETS (Newport, OR) 11\r\n4.2.1 Acoustic Environment 11\r\n4.2.2 Vegetation 11\r\n4.2.3 Zooplankton, Crab Larvae and Fish Larvae 11\r\n4.2.4 Benthic Invertebrates 12\r\n4.2.5 Fish 13\r\n4.2.6 Sea Turtles 14\r\n4.2.7 Marine Mammals 14\r\n5 Effects of the Action 14\r\n5.1 Dockside Testing 14\r\n5.1.1 Sound from Active Acoustics Sensors and Fish Tags 15\r\n5.1.2 Presence of iAMP Platform 15\r\n5.2 Field Testing 15\r\n5.2.1 Sound from Active Acoustic Sensors and Instruments 15\r\n5.2.2 Presence of iAMP Platform 16\r\n5.2.3 Presence of Vessels 16\r\n5.2.4 Presence of SWIFT Drifters 16\r\n5.2.5 Summary 16\r\n6 Conclusions 16\r\n7 Literature Cited 16\r\nAnnex 1 20\r\nAnnex 2 22","tags":["Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.EMF","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"1. Background and History\r\nThe purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address the effect that the field of testing of the autonomous version of Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package (iAMP). Specific emphasis is placed on species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their designated critical habitat, but a more general discussion of effects on non-ESA listed marine mammals is also presented. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is proposing to allow expenditure of federal funds (Proposed Action) by the University of Washington (UW) for the project described herein (Project).\r\nDOE funding would support field testing of an autonomous iAMP that allows for future monitoring of environmental interactions between marine animals and marine energy converters. The autonomous iAMP is an integrated instrumentation package that is deployed to the seabed from a surface vessel. Because these studies will be conducted with financial support from DOE, the Proposed Action is subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the Proposed Action may qualify for a NEPA categorical exclusion (CX) under 10 CFR Part 1021, section B5.25 Small Scale Renewable Energy Research and Pilot Projects in Aquatic Environments (see Federal Register Vol. 776, No. 198 at p. 63797), provided that it will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nIn-water testing of the autonomous iAMP would be carried out in two locations: Portage Bay (Seattle, WA) and the Pacific Ocean off of Newport, OR at the proposed South Energy Test Site of the Pacific Marine Energy Center (PMEC-SETS), as shown in Figure 1. The duration of testing activities are summarized in Table 1. Because work would occur in the aquatic environment it has the potential to impact ESA-listed marine species that are known to occur in the area.\r\nThe use of a cabled version of the iAMP has been previously discussed with both NMFS and USFWS as part of the permitting, monitoring plans, and adaptive management process for the Snohomish PUD/OpenHydro tidal energy demonstration project (Snohomish PUD 2012). The use of this type of package has been supported by both agencies as an effective tool for studying the environmental effects of marine renewable energy development and is of significant interest to the environmental research community (Polagye et al. 2014). In a previous Biological Evaluation for endurance testing of the cabled system, DOE found that deployment and operation of the system would have “no effect” on the marine environment. NMFS and USFWS reviewed the Biological Evaluation and did not object to DOE’s determination.\r\nThis BE addresses DOE’s proposed Action to provide federal funding for the Proposed Action in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with NMFS and/or USFWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.\r\nThe objective of the Proposed Action is to demonstrate an autonomous version of an integrated instrumentation package for marine energy monitoring. To this end, the autonomous iAMP would be deployed for up to two months for dockside checkout and up to two months at an open ocean site where wave energy test facility development has been proposed. The latter would provide a stream of contextual data for permitting discussions and to assess the utility of the iAMP for further pre- or post-installation monitoring. In both cases, instrument functionality would be benchmarked against “cooperative targets” (i.e., drifters with known position and detection signature). \r\nTable 1 – Testing summary\r\nTesting\r\n\tLocation\r\n\tTesting Window\r\n\tContinuous Test Time\r\n\tComment\r\n\tDockside Checkout\r\n\tPortage Bay, WA\r\n\tDecember 1 – February 28\r\n\tUp to 60 days\r\n\t30 days of testing for milestone requirements, with option for second round of testing if problems encountered.\r\n\tField Testing\r\n\tNewport, OR\r\n\tApril 1 – July 31\r\n\tUp to 60 days\r\n\t30 days of testing for milestone requirements, with option for second round of testing if problems encountered.\r\n\tCooperative Target Testing\r\n\tNewport, OR\r\n\tApril 1 – July 31\r\n\tUp to 8 hours\r\n\tCooperative target tests conducted at initial system deployment","tags":["Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.EcosystemProcesses","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.Habitat.Benthos","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.EMF","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.Current","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"(a) Dockside testing in Portage Bay, WA","tags":["Receptor.HumansDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Phase.2Construction","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"(b) Field testing at PMEC-SETS (Newport, OR)\r\n\tFigure 1 – Overview of Project Areas\r\n2. Description of Project Activities and Project Areas\r\n 1. Autonomous version of the Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package\r\nThe autonomous version of the Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package (iAMP) is a variant of the cabled system that was endurance-testing at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Marine Science Laboratory in 2015 and 2016. In the cabled version, instruments are powered and controlled over a cable to shore. In the autonomous version, there is not a cable and instruments are powered by a local battery bank and controlled by an on-board computer that is periodically activated to collect data. A comparison of the two systems is shown in Figure 2 – iAMP variants: (a) cabled system deployed at PNNL MSL in 2015 and 2016, (b) autonomous system proposed for deployment at PMEC-SETS in 2017. Unlike the cabled iAMP, the autonomous iAMP does not require an ROV or docking station for deployment. Rather, the entire system is deployed by a surface vessel and sits on the seabed, with sensors oriented in an upward facing configuration.\r\nDuring all vessel operations, the University of Washington and its subcontractors would adhere to the attached Best Management Practices (Annex 1), including the transits to and from the deployment area to avoid or reduce impacts on protected marine species and their habitats, particularly as they pertain to protected species awareness and avoidance. If whales are sighted, vessel operators would adhere to the Guidelines for Operations when whales are sited, as summarized in Annex 2. \r\nThe autonomous iAMP is equipped with the following oceanographic sensors:\r\n* An acoustic camera (BlueView P900-2250) with an operating frequency of 2250 kHz\r\n* A multibeam sonar (Kongsberg M3) with an operating frequency of 500 kHz\r\n* A Doppler wave and current profiler (Nortek Signature 500) with an operating frequency of 500 kHz\r\n* An array of four passive hydrophones (OceanSonics icListen HF)\r\n* A passive fish tag receiver (Vemco VR2C)\r\nDuring autonomous testing, instruments would be operated on either a fixed duty cycle or in a triggered mode (automatic or manual).","tags":["Phase.2Construction ","","Management.Monitoring ","","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent ","","Technology.Current.Riverine ","","Technology.Current.Tidal ","","Technology.OffshoreWind ","","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed ","","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating ","","Stressor.Noise ","","Stressor.Noise.Airborne ","","Stressor.Noise.Underwater ","","Receptor.Birds ","","Receptor.Fish ","","Receptor.HumanDimensions ","","Receptor.Invertebrates ","","Receptor.MarineMammals ","","Receptor.Reptiles ","","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"(a) Cabled iAMP, docking station, and deployment ROV","tags":["Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.OTEC","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"(b) Autonomous iAMP\r\n\tFigure 2 – iAMP variants: (a) cabled system deployed at PNNL MSL in 2015 and 2016, (b) autonomous system proposed for deployment at PMEC-SETS in 2017\r\nThe autonomous iAMP platform and instrument frame are constructed primarily of engineered plastics and fiberglass. To prevent biofouling, which was significant during endurance trials of the cabled system, all surfaces would be coated with an epoxy-based paint to increase wear resistance (Interlux 2000E epoxy primer, or equivalent) and metal-free anti-fouling paint (Interlux Pacifica Plus, or equivalent). By minimizing biofouling, artificial reef effects are minimized, thereby limiting the risk for the autonomous iAMP to alter the environment that it is trying to observe. Following the conclusion of testing, all components of the autonomous iAMP are recovered to the surface.\r\n 2. Cooperative Targets\r\nWhile opportunistic presence of marine life (e.g., fish) is likely to occur during endurance testing, because the presence or absence of marine life will not be known to the research group, these represent “uncooperative targets” for the purposes of establishing the functionality of the iAMP sensors. For this reason, it is desirable to employ “cooperative targets” that are freely drifting with a known position and signature. For this testing, a SWIFT drifter (Figure 3) would be used as a cooperative target. The surface expression of the SWIFT would contain a tracking GPS and a meteorological station. Suspended beneath the SWIFT, a depth of approximately 20 m, would be a pair of fishing floats (providing a target for active acoustics on the iAMP) and a fish tag used to wake-up the autonomous iAMP. The specific tag is a Vemco V13, with a 69 kHz operating frequency that produces sound at 150 dBrms re 1 μPa at a range of 1 m (impulsive sound), and is routinely used in studies of fish presence/absence at marine energy sites. When the Vemco receiver on the iAMP detects a tag, it would turn on the other sensors in the system to capture contextual information associated with the tag detection (e.g., how many other fish or marine mammals are also present when a tagged individual is present?). The surface expression of the SWIFT spars will be marked with orange flags to provide a visual cue for any other vessels in the area and will be monitored by radio telemetry throughout their deployment.","tags":["Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Attraction","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.EMF","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.InvasiveSpecies","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.Chemicals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.OTEC","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.SalinityGradient","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"Figure 3 – SWIFT drifter equipped with active acoustic targets and fish tags\r\n 3. Dockside Testing (Portage Bay, WA)\r\nDockside testing of the autonomous iAMP would be conducted at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory dock on Portage Bay in Seattle, WA (Figure 4) at 47o 39’ 13’’ N, 122o 19’ 10’’. The dock is located directly beneath the University Bridge. During dockside testing, the iAMP would be suspended at mid-water next to the dock. Testing would occur for up to eight weeks during a three month period, allowing the project team to troubleshoot system operation prior to open ocean testing. During the dockside tests, the SWIFT would not be deployed, but fishing floats and fish tags would be periodically suspended to confirm sensor functionality.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.ChangesinFlow","Technology.Current","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"Figure 4 – iAMP deployment location at UW APL dock\r\n 4. Field Testing (Newport, OR)\r\nField testing of the autonomous iAMP would demonstrate its technical capabilities for pre- and post-installation monitoring at a wave energy test site. The system would be deployed for up to two months at a location within the boundary of PMEC-SETS. The deployment location would be approximately 44o 33.0’ N, 124o 13.75’ W, as shown in Figure 5, in a depth of 70 m on a sandy bottom. The location of the autonomous iAMP would be referenced in a notice to mariners.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"Figure 5 – iAMP deployment location at PMEC-SETS. The location of other DOE-supported instrumentation at PMEC-SETS is indicated for reference.\r\nFor testing, the autonomous iAMP would be deployed in the following sequence:\r\n1. R/V Elakha would arrive on station with the autonomous iAMP lander aboard.\r\n2. iAMP would be deployed to the seabed via a load-bearing acoustic release, using the R/V Elakha’s A-frame and winch. During this operation, the R/V Elakha would operate “live boat” without any moorings or anchors.\r\n3. Once system set-down is confirmed, the acoustic release would be disengaged from the iAMP and recovered to the surface.\r\nOnce the system is deployed, cooperative target tests with up to two SWIFTs would be conducted to provide an initial confirmation of system functionality.\r\nThe iAMP would be recovered in the following sequence:\r\n1. R/V Elakha would arrive on station.\r\n2. An acoustic release aboard the iAMP would disengage a recovery float trailing a messenger line from the iAMP.\r\n3. The float and line would be recovered by R/V Elakha and spooled onto vessel winch, returning the iAMP to the surface.\r\nThe iAMP would be deployed at PMEC-SETS no earlier than April 1, 2017 and recovered no later than July 31, 2017. During this time period, the iAMP would be deployed continuously for no longer than 60 days. Operating frequencies and source levels for all active acoustic instruments utilized during testing are listed in Table 2. Battery constraints will limit operational time to no longer than 20 hours during this period.\r\nTable 2 – Properties of active acoustic iAMP sensors\r\nSensor\r\n\tModel\r\n\tFrequency\r\n\tSource Level (dB re 1μPa @ 1 m)\r\n\tSource Type\r\n\tMultibeam sonar\r\n\tKongsberg M3\r\n\t500 kHz\r\n\t190 dB\r\n\tMultiple pulse\r\n\tAcoustic camera\r\n\tBlueView P900-2250\r\n\t2250 kHz\r\n\t> 180 dB\r\n\tMultiple pulse\r\n\tAcoustic Doppler wave and current profiler\r\n\tNortek Signature 500\r\n\t500 kHz\r\n\t> 180 dB\r\n\tMultiple pulse","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LifeCycleAssessment","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Technology.Current","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"The fish tag used for cooperative target testing would produce a coded pulse once per minute centered at 69 kHz with a source level of 150 dBrms re 1 µPa at 1 m. This sound is impulsive and, while audible to some species of marine mammals (high-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds), is at or below the Level B harassment thresholds for impulsive sounds (currently, 160 dB dBrms re 1 µPa). Cooperative target testing would occur for a period of no longer than 8 hours during the field test.\r\n3. Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Project Area\r\n 1. Portage Bay, WA\r\nThe following threatened or endangered species are known to be seasonally present in Portage Bay: \r\n* Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (70 FR 37160)\r\n* Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distinct population segment (DPS) (72 FR 26722); and\r\n* Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (64 FR 58910).\r\nPortage Bay is included within the Critical Habitat of Puget Sound Chinook (70 FR 52630) and bull trout (75 FR 63898). Chinook salmon have their highest seasonal abundance in July and August, juvenile steelhead migrations are most likely in April and May. There are no federally listed marine mammal species that are known to occur or are likely to occur in Portage Bay.\r\n 2. PMEC-SETS (Newport, OR)\r\nListed species potentially present in the project area during all or part of the year are identified in Table 3 below, which is adapted from the Final Environmental Assessment prepared in 2012 for the U.S. Department of Energy’s funding of the PMEC-NETS and from the Biological Evaluation prepared in 2013 for the U.S. Department of Energy’s funding of the NNMREC Environmental Baseline Studies for the PMEC-SETS.\r\nTable 3 – Listed species potentially occurring at PMEC-SETS (Newport, OR)\r\nSPECIES\r\n\t \r\n\tSTATUS*\r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\tSTATE\r\n\tFEDERAL\r\n\tSeabirds\r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\tBrown Pelican\r\n\tPelecanus occidentalis\r\n\tE\r\n\t -\r\n\tFish\r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\tChinook salmon, lower Columbia River ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus tshawytscha\r\n\tE\r\n\tT\r\n\tChinook salmon, upper Willamette River ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus tshawytscha\r\n\t-\r\n\tT\r\n\tChinook salmon, upper Columbia River spring-run ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus tshawytscha\r\n\t-\r\n\tE\r\n\tChinook salmon, Snake River spring/summer run ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus tshawytscha\r\n\t-\r\n\tT\r\n\tChinook salmon, Snake River fall-run ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus tshawytscha\r\n\tT\r\n\tT\r\n\tChinook salmon, Central Valley spring‐run ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus tshawytscha\r\n\tT\r\n\t \r\n\tChinook salmon, Sacramento River winter‐run ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus tshawytscha\r\n\t-\r\n\tE\r\n\tChinook salmon, California coastal ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus tshawytscha\r\n\t-\r\n\tT\r\n\tCoho salmon, Southern Oregon/ Northern California coast ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus kisutch\r\n\t-\r\n\tT\r\n\tCoho salmon, Oregon coast ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus kisutch\r\n\t-\r\n\tT\r\n\tCoho salmon, lower Columbia River ESU\r\n\tOncorhynchus kisutch\r\n\t-\r\n\tT\r\n\tGreen sturgeon, southern DPS\r\n\tAcipenser medirosris\r\n\t-\r\n\tT\r\n\tEulachon\r\n\tThaleichthys pacificus\r\n\t-\r\n\tT\r\n\tHerpetiles\r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\tLeatherback sea turtle\r\n\tDermochelys coriacea\r\n\tE\r\n\tE\r\n\tGreen sea turtle\r\n\tChelonia mydas\r\n\tE\r\n\tT\r\n\tLoggerhead sea turtle, Pacific DPS\r\n\tCaretta caretta\r\n\tT\r\n\tT\r\n\tOlive (Pacific) Ridley sea turtle\r\n\tLepidochelys olivacea\r\n\tT\r\n\tT\r\n\tMammals\r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\tKiller whale, Southern Resident DPS\r\n\tOrcinus orca\r\n\t-\r\n\tE\r\n\tHumpback whale\r\n\tMegaptera novaeangliae\r\n\tE\r\n\tE\r\n\tBlue whale\r\n\tBalaenoptera musculus\r\n\tE\r\n\tE\r\n\tFin whale\r\n\tBalaenoptera physalus\r\n\tE\r\n\tE\r\n\tNorthern Pacific right whale\r\n\tEubalaena japonica\r\n\tE\r\n\tE\r\n\tSei whale\r\n\tBalaenoptera borealis\r\n\tE\r\n\tE\r\n\tSperm whale\r\n\tPhyseter macrocephalus\r\n\tE\r\n\tE\r\n\tGray whale\r\n\tEschrichtius robustus\r\n\t-\r\n\tE\r\n\t* Species status is noted as either Endangered (E) or Threatened (T)","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Fish.DemersalFish","Receptor.Fish.PelagicFish","Receptor.Fish.Sharks","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Receptor.MarineMammals.Pinnipeds","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction.DynamicEffects"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"________________","tags":["The construction of an offshore wind farm may cause physical","behavioral","and light stressors for a surrounding marine ecosystem.","","Receptor.Birds ","Receptor.Fish ","Receptor.MarineMammals ","Receptor.Invertebrates ","Receptor.Reptiles ","Stressor.HabitatChange ","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction ","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction ","Stressor.Lighting ","Phase.2Construction ","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"Critical habitat has been designated for some of the listed species identified in Table 3. Vertebrate species listed under the ESA may include intraspecific taxa described as Distinct Population Segments (DPS), some of which have been described by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU). Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) for the following species occurs in or near the project area:\r\n* Coho salmon - On February 11, 2008, NMFS listed the Oregon coast coho salmon ESU as threatened and DCH. Critical habitat for Oregon coast coho salmon includes riverine and estuarine areas within 80 occupied watersheds in 13 associated sub-basins. Critical habitat for coho salmon includes the waters of Yaquina Bay, but does not extend out to the offshore waters of PMEC-SETS project area. \r\n* Green sturgeon - In October 2009, NMFS designated all nearshore waters to a depth of 60 fathoms (360 feet or 110 meters) offshore Oregon as critical habitat for the southern DPS of the green sturgeon (ICF 2012). As such, the green sturgeon DCH includes the PMEC-SETS project areas. \r\n* Leatherback sea turtle - Critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle was previously designated only in the Atlantic Ocean (44 FR 17710), but on January 26, 2012, NMFS designated critical habitat in the Pacific Ocean off areas of Washington, Oregon, and California (77 FR 4170). The area designated includes the offshore waters between Cape Flattery, Washington, and Cape Blanco, Oregon, out to the 2,000-meter depth contour and an similar area offshore California (ICF 2012). As such, the leatherback sea turtle DCH occurs within the PMEC- SETS project area. \r\nThe Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) manages four groups of fish along the West Coast of the United States under federal Fishery Management Plans (FMPs): groundfish; salmon; highly migratory species; and coastal pelagic species. The groundfish FMP includes more than 80 species of fish and the salmon FMP includes all species of salmon occurring along the west coast of the United States that are commercially fished. The highly migratory species FMP includes the tunas, some shark species and billfish. The coastal pelagic FMP includes five taxa: northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax); market squid (Loligo opalescens); Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax); Pacific (chub) mackerel (Scomber japonicas); and jack mackerel (Trachus summetricus). As required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, EFH has been designated for each of these groups except highly migratory species, and all waters within and adjoining the PMEC- SETS project areas constitute EFH. Specifically, EFH has been designated as follows (Pacific Fisheries Management Council 2010): \r\n* Groundfish - Water depths less than or equal to 11,483 feet (3,500 meters) to the mean higher high water level or the upriver extent of saltwater intrusion, defined as upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts measure less than 0.5 parts per thousand during the period of average annual low flow; seamounts in depths greater than 11,483 feet (3,500 meters) as mapped in the EFH assessment geographic information service (GIS) data; areas designated as habitat areas of particular concern not already identified by the above criteria. \r\n* Salmon - All waters of the United States between the Canadian border and the Mexican border and out 200 miles (370 kilometers) to the western extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone. \r\n* Pelagic - All waters of the United States from the Canadian border to the Mexican border and out 200 miles (370 kilometers) to the western extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone.\r\n4. Environmental Baseline Conditions\r\n 1. Portage Bay, WA\r\nPortage Bay is a fresh-water, urbanized waterway located within the Seattle metropolitan area. Human activities include heavy industry (vessel fabrication at yards along the ship canal leading in to Portage Bay), construction associated with replacement for the Evergreen Point floating bridge (state highway 520), and recreational boating and fishing. Portage Bay is mud-bottomed.\r\n 2. PMEC-SETS (Newport, OR)\r\nThe marine environment off the coast of Newport, OR has been characterized in a large number of studies, due largely to research and sampling programs performed by OSU’s School of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences (CEOAS) and local presence of the Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC). The following section provides an overview of the environmental conditions and attributes of the action area, including ESA-listed species and designated critical habitats. Much of this information has been adapted from the Final Environmental Assessment prepared in 2012 for the PMEC-NETS (DOE 2012) and the Biological Evaluation developed for the NNMREC Environmental Baseline Studies for PMEC-SETS in 2013 (Henkel et al. 2013).\r\n 1. Acoustic Environment\r\nThe area off the coast near Newport experiences considerable commercial marine vessel traffic from the Port of Newport, which is home to one of Oregon’s largest commercial fishing fleets. The project area is close enough to shore to possibly be affected by surf sound. Therefore, existing underwater sound levels in the project areas are expected to be moderate to high (OWET 2009). \r\n 2. Vegetation\r\nMarine plants off the coast of Newport, Oregon include phytoplankton and sessile algae. Phytoplankton are comprised of simple free‐floating uni- and multi-cellular organisms like cyano-bacteria, diatoms, dinoflagellates, silicoflagellates, and coccolithophorids. Sessile algae, commonly termed seaweeds, include many species of large brown and red algae. Sessile algae occur in rocky intertidal and sub-tidal areas of the coast within the photic zone (water depths to which sunlight can penetrate). The largest such algae include several species of brown kelp, that along the Oregon coast consist almost exclusively of bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana), which grows sub-tidally. This species has special legal status because of its value as a commercial raw material and habitat for protected fish species (ICF 2012). \r\nNo hard or rocky substrate is known to occur within the vast majority of the PMEC-SETS project site; however, a small amount of rocky reef exists in a narrow area in approximately 40 meters (131 feet) of water off Yaquina Head. Bull kelp was not observed on this rocky area during videographic surveys in 2010, likely because water depths (i.e., lack of sufficient light) preclude the growth of any bull kelp (ICF 2012).\r\n 3. Zooplankton, Crab Larvae and Fish Larvae\r\nThe zooplankton community inhabiting offshore central Oregon consists of small invertebrate organisms that either spend their entire life cycle in the water column (holozooplankton) or spend only a brief developmental time in the water column before a metamorphosis to an adult life in a nektonic or benthic habitat (merozooplankton). Species composition changes and is influenced by various periodic and episodic factors including prevailing ocean currents, coastal upwelling, and offshore wind direction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency describe the coastal zooplankton community inhabiting central Oregon as being dominated by copepods (Keister and Peterson 2003). In total, fifty-eight copepod species are reported being present in these waters, of which eight occur throughout the year, seven occur only during the summer, and six occur only in the winter. Species composition is seasonally dependent. Overall biomass population and individual species abundance are typically lower in the winter than in the summer months. During the summer months, when the offshore winds blow predominantly from the northwest, surface waters move southward and offshore due to Ekman drift, allowing the colder, more saline, and nutrient‐rich waters from deeper water depths to upwell along the coast. Between January and May, the megalopae larvae of the Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) are abundant inshore.\r\nThree species assemblages of fish larvae have been described as inhabiting the coastal waters of Oregon: coastal, transitional, and offshore. The coastal assemblage occurring in the PMEC-SETS project area is typically dominated by smelts (Osmeridae), which account for 50% of the population, and English sole (Parophrys vetulus), sandlance (Ammodytes hexapterus), sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), and Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus). The highest fish larvae abundance is reported to occur between February and July (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001). Auth et al. (2007) reported northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), slender sole (Lyopsetta exilis), rockfish (Sebastes spp.), northern lampfish (Stenobrachius leucopsarus), and blue lanternfish (Tarletonebeania crenulairs) as the dominant taxa along the Newport hydrographic line (43° 39’N) (ICF 2012).\r\n 4. Benthic Invertebrates\r\nBenthic invertebrate communities inhabiting the nearshore marine environment provide important secondary production in marine food webs and are integral to the breakdown and recycling of organic material in the marine ecosystem. They also provide a key food source for important commercial and recreational fish and macroinvertebrate species like Dungeness crab, as well as for other protected or managed fish species. In 2010 and 2011, the HMSC conducted surveys in and around PMEC-NETS, a site several miles to north of PMEC-SETS, to document the presence of a number of demersal fishes and benthic invertebrate species. Although this research was not conducted to identify species at the PMEC-SETS, a review of the observations may provide insight as to species presence and abundance within the SETS.\r\nBenthic habitats at and near the PMEC-NETS were characterized by Henkel (2011), reporting results of box cores, trawls, and videography performed on 10 occasions between May 2010 and December 2011. Six sampling stations were located within the NETS study area; three sampling stations were located outside of the site to the north and three stations were located outside of the site to the south (between the project site and the north Newport jetty), at water depths of 30 to 50 meters. Sample frequencies and sizes were designed to be large enough to detect potential changes in the future. Principal findings from monitoring at NETS included (Henkel 2011):\r\n* Two distinct sediment types: silty sand at approximately 30 meters, and potentially shallower; and nearly pure sand at 40 meters and deeper. \r\n* Distinct infaunal invertebrate assemblages occur in the two sediment types. \r\n* Distinct infaunal invertebrate assemblages occur north and south of Yaquina Head at the deeper stations. \r\n* Mysid and Crangonid shrimp are highly abundant and likely form the basis of the food web in this nearshore zone, as opposed to the krill‐supported food web further offshore. \r\n* Videography observations are more effective than trawls for sampling large invertebrate species such as crabs, sea stars, and sea pens. \r\n 1. Fish\r\nThe nearshore and offshore regions of the Yaquina Head area encompass both rocky and soft bottom sub-tidal habitats and the open water pelagic environment. This area, therefore, supports a variety of fish species that typically inhabit all three habitats with frequent movement of fish between them. Typical fish species that inhabit these areas are discussed below. Although very little hard bottom substrate is known to be present in the project areas, natural sub-tidal reefs closer inshore at Yaquina Head support pelagic and benthic fish communities that associate with rocky, rather than soft, substrate.\r\nFish species commonly observed in sandy bottom areas offshore Yaquina Head include English sole (Parophrys vetulus), butter sole (Isopsetta isolepis), Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus), and starry flounder (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2011; Henkel 2011). Sampling by Henkel (2011) found that the fish assemblage varies with season. High densities of flatfish characterized the catch in summer, and speckled sanddab were usually the dominant species. In October, flatfish densities were significantly lower but prickle breast poachers (Stellerina xyosterna) were abundant. In February, a variety of smelt (Osmerus spp.) were in higher abundances.\r\nRocky sub-tidal, or hard bottom, habitats typically experience a wide variety of wave and current regimes, substrate, depths, and food sources, producing diverse biological communities (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006). The rocky reefs off Newport provide important habitat for fish species that include sculpins (Cottidae), surf perch (Embiotocidae), and rocky reef fishes. Shallow reefs up to 20 meters (66 feet) in depth are dominated by black rockfish (Sebastes melanops), while deeper reefs are dominated by lingcod (Ophiodon elongates), black‐and‐yellow rockfish (Sebastes chrysomelas), and black rockfish (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2011). Although these areas of rocky sub-tidal habitat are located outside the PMEC-SETS project area, juvenile lingcod and rockfish would likely use pelagic and soft bottom habitats, and older mature fish typically associated with rocky sub-tidal habitats could be found swimming in the deeper soft bottom regions. As a consequence, these taxa might be present in the vicinity of the project.\r\nA number of environmental factors affect the fish species present in the pelagic zone, including light penetration, water temperature, proximity to river plumes, and underwater currents. Pelagic species commonly found in the area include Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), northern anchovy, and Pacific Ocean perch (Sebastes alutus). The area is also utilized by salmon, steelhead, and shad that migrate alongshore; including those stocks that migrate through the Yaquina Bay estuary to spawn upriver (ICF 2012) and any of the species listed in Table 3.\r\n 2. Sea Turtles\r\nPacific leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are known to occur in offshore waters of the central Oregon coast (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, 2007). Green sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean are generally found south of San Diego, California; however, they have been found from Baja, California to Alaska (National Marine Fisheries Service 2011). Loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) also have been seen as far north as Alaska, but most U.S. sightings have been made off the California coast. The olive Ridley sea turtle is also more commonly seen in California waters, although there is at least one case of a hypothermic olive Ridley sea turtle washing ashore off the coast of Newport, Oregon (Hanson 2009).\r\n 3. Marine Mammals\r\nMarine mammal species potentially present in the PMEC-SETS project area include cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals and sea lions). The most common year‐round inhabitants are the pinnipeds: Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Male California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) are occasionally observed foraging in southern and central Oregon coastal areas but are not regular inhabitants.\r\nCetaceans potentially present in the project areas include transient killer whales (Orcinus orca), which appear along the Oregon coast in April, in conjunction with the California gray whales’ northward migration. Killer whales of the southern resident group occasionally pass by during migrations from their principal range in Washington and British Columbia, en route to foraging grounds off central California, where they seasonally feed on migrating Chinook salmon (Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2007). Other whales observed offshore of the Oregon coast include blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), finback whale (Balaenoptera physatus), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), Pacific right whale (Balaena glacialis japonica), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and sperm whale (Physeter catodon).\r\nCalifornia gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) occur along the central Oregon coast throughout the year with a small population of resident whales present between May and October. Migrating gray whales occur between March and June on their northward migration, and between December and March on their southward migration. Ortega‐Ortiz and Mate (2008) report that in 2008, gray whales were observed offshore of Yaquina Head transiting the area during both southward and northward migrations. Gray whales migrated southward through the area beginning in mid‐January, with the peak of the migration occurring in late January. Northbound migrating gray whales were observed as early as late February, with the peak migration occurring between late March and mid‐April. Ortega‐Ortiz and Mate (2008) further reported observing gray whale movements predominantly occurring in parts of the ocean where water depths are between 10 and 70 meters (33 and 230 feet) \r\n5. Effects of the Action\r\n 1. Dockside Testing\r\nEnvironmental stresses associated with dockside testing of the iAMP in Portage Bay, WA include:\r\n* Emission of sound from active acoustic sensors and fish tag\r\n* Presence of the iAMP platform in the water\r\nThe biological significance of these stresses is discussed sequentially in the same order as the bullet list.\r\n 4. Sound from Active Acoustics Sensors and Fish Tags\r\nAll active acoustic sensors on the iAMP operate at frequencies above fish hearing and would not be audible. Fish are most sensitive to sound < 1 kHz and are not generally sensitive to sound > 10 kHz (Popper and Fay 2011, Hawkins et al. 2014). Consequently, these sounds will not affect aquatic species present in Portage Bay.\r\n 5. Presence of iAMP Platform\r\nOver the dockside testing period, the iAMP platform is unlikely to significantly foul (duration of testing and use of anti-fouling coatings). Therefore, the platform would not develop as an artificial reef and fish attraction is unlikely. Neither the presence of the iAMP platform in the water nor its removal at the conclusion of testing would cause any biologically effect.\r\n 2. Field Testing\r\nEnvironmental stresses associated with field testing of the autonomous iAMP at PMEC-SETS include:\r\n* Emission of sound from active acoustic sensors and fish tags\r\n* Presence of the iAMP platform on the seabed\r\n* Presence of the R/V Elakha during deployment and recovery operations\r\n* Presence of SWIFT drifts in the water during cooperative target testing\r\nThe biological significance of these stresses is discussed sequentially in the same order as the bullet list. Stressor considerations applicable to dockside testing of the system are not repeated here.\r\n 6. Sound from Active Acoustic Sensors and Instruments\r\nMarine Fishes\r\nAs discussed under the effects of dockside testing, all active acoustic sensors on the iAMP and sources on cooperate targets operate at frequencies above fish hearing and would not be audible. \r\nAvian Species\r\nMaximum sensitivity to avian species for airborne sound is between 1 and 5 kHz (Dooling 1982), so it is unlikely that any of the active acoustics would be audible to brown pelicans.\r\nMarine Mammals\r\nWhile marine mammal hearing is more sensitive to higher frequencies, hearing thresholds for pinnipeds and cetaceans do not exceed 200 kHz (Johnson 1967, Szymanksi et al. 1999, Kastelein et al. 2009, Kastelein et al. 2002). This is below the operating frequency of the acoustic camera (2250 kHz), multibeam sonar (500 kHz), and acoustic Doppler current profiler (500 kHz). Consequently, none of these instruments are likely to be audible to marine mammals in the project area.\r\nThe operating frequency of the fish tags used in cooperative target testing (69 kHz) is within the hearing range of pinnipeds, mid-frequency cetaceans, and high-frequency cetaceans that may be present in the project area. Given that these sources will be deployed in a limited manner (up to eight hours in total, with a signal repetition rate of no more than once per minute), no biologically significant behavioral response to the sound would be expected. The intensity of the impulsive sound transmitted by the fish tag is also below the statutory limit for acoustic harassment of marine mammals (150 dBrms re 1 µPa source level versus 160 dBrms re 1 µPa limit for Level B harassment).\r\n 7. Presence of iAMP Platform\r\nGiven the deployment depth of the iAMP and application of anti-fouling coatings to the hull and structure, not significant fouling of the platform would be expected during testing. Consequently, biologically significant reef effects within critical habitat would not be expected. The deployment of the iAMP would disturb less than 0.25 m3 of sandy seabed. Because gently sloping sandy bottom habitat is abundant off the Oregon coast, the temporary placement of the small iAMP platform is unlikely to have biologically significant effects.\r\n 8. Presence of Vessels\r\nInstallation and recovery of the autonomous iAMP will involve operations from the R/V Elakha, a 54’ research vessel equipped with an A-frame and deck crane. The R/V Elakha would be present on two occasions for less than 10 hours in each instance for iAMP deployment, cooperative target testing, and recovery. \r\nGiven the limited duration of these activities and the relatively high levels of commercial vessel traffic associated with the port of Newport, OR, vessel operations are not likely to cause biologically significant effects to any of the ESA-listed species.\r\n 9. Presence of SWIFT Drifters\r\nThe SWIFT drifters used in cooperative target testing are inert objects that drift with the dominant winds, wave, or current. As these will be deployed for short drifts through the project area, no biologically significant effects are likely.\r\n 10. Summary\r\nESA-listed species (Section 3) may come into proximity with the autonomous iAMP or surface vessels during testing. If an ESA-listed species were present in the project area, the species' movements or foraging could be temporarily disrupted by project activities such as vessel activity during iAMP deployment/recovery or cooperative target testing. Based on the analysis presented in this document, such effects would be insignificant and discountable at the individual and population level. Thus, the project would have no effect on threatened or endangered species.\r\n6. Conclusions\r\nIn conclusion, we have determined that DOE’s decision to fund the Proposed Action would have no effect on any ESA-listed species occurring within the project area or their associated critical habitat, as defined in Section 3.1 (Portage Bay, WA) and Section 3.2 (PMEC-SETS, Newport, OR). \r\n7. Literature Cited\r\n64 FR 58910. November 1, 1999. \"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule. Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior.\r\n70 FR 37160. June 28, 2005. \"Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Final4(d) Protective Regulations for Threatened Salmonid ESUs. Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n70 FR 52630. September 2, 2005. \"Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Salmon and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Washington, Oregon and Idaho.\" Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n72 FR 26722. May 11, 2007. \"Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determination for Puget Sound Steelhead.\" Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.\r\n75 FR 63898. October 18, 2010. \"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bull Trout; Final Rule.\" Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. \r\nAuth, T.D., R.D. Broeder and K.M. Fisher. 2007. Diel variation in vertical distribution of an offshore ichthyoplankton community. Fish. Bull. (105): 313-326.\r\nDepartment of Energy (DOE). 2012. Final Environmental Assessment for the Oregon State University and Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center Wave Energy Test Project. U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, Golden, Colorado.\r\nDooling, R.J. 1982. Auditory perception in birds. In Acoustic communication in birds, ed.\r\nHanson, C. 2009. Oregon Coast Aquarium Rehabilitating Stranded Green and Olive Ridley Sea Turtles. December 1. Available at: www.zandavisitor.com/newsarticle-2638/Oregon_Coast_Aquarium_Rehabilitating_Stranded_Green_and_Olive_Ridley_Sea_Turtles. Accessed: October 24, 2011. \r\nHawkins A, Popper A, Fay R, Mann D, Bartol S, Carlson T, et al. (2014) Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report. Cham, Switzerland: ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014 prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standard Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI.\r\nHenkel, S. 2011. Baseline Characterization and Monitoring of the OSU Mobile Ocean Test Berth Site: Benthic Habitat Characteristics and Organisms on the Central Oregon Coast. Prepared for Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET). 31 p. \r\nHenkel, S., A. Hofford and G. McMurray. 2013. Biological Evaluation for the Oregon State University and Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center Environmental Baseline Studies Project. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, Golden, Colorado.\r\nICF International. 2012. Biological Assessment. Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center and Oregon State University Wave Energy Test Project. May. Portland, OR. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Golden, CO. 202 p. \r\nJohnson, C. 1967. Sound detection thresholds in marine mammals, Proceedings Marine Bio-acoustics, vol. 2, p. 247.\r\nKastelein, R., P. Bunskoek, M. Hagedoorn, W. Au, and D. de Haan, 2002. Audiogram of a harbor porpoise (phocoena phocoena) measured with narrow-band frequency-modulated signals, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 112, p. 334.\r\nKastelein, R. A., Wensveen, P. J., Hoek, L., Verboom, W. C., & Terhune, J. M. 2009. Underwater detection of tonal signals between 0.125 and 100kHz by harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(2), 1222-1229.\r\nKeister, J.E. and W.T. Peterson. 2003. Zonal and seasonal variations in zooplankton community structure off the central Oregon coast, 1998-2000. Progr. Oceanogr. (57): 341-361. \r\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center. 2007. Marine Mammal Program. Available at: www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/marine_mammal/marinemammal.cfm. Accessed: July 26, 2010. \r\nNMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Recovery Plan for United States Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Available at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/ turtle_leatherback_pacific.pdf. Accessed: July 27, 2010. \r\nNMFS and USFWS. 2007. Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. Available at: www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-leatherback-turtle-5-yearreview- final.pdf. Accessed: July 27, 2010. \r\nNMFS. 2011. Endangered and threatened species: final rule to revise the critical habitat designation for the endangered leatherback sea turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service. Final rule. Federal Register 77:17(26 January 2012):4170-4201. \r\nOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. The Oregon Nearshore Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Division, Newport. \r\nOregon Wave Energy Trust. 2009. Assessment of Underwater Noise Generated by Wave Energy Devices. December. Prepared by JASCO Applied Sciences on behalf of Oregon Wave Energy Trust.\r\nOrtega-Ortiz, J. and B.R. Mate. 2008. Distribution and Movement Patterns of Gray Whales Off Central Oregon: Shore-Based Observations from Yaquina Head during the 2007/2008 Migration. Report submitted to the Oregon Wave Energy Trust. Prepared by the Oregon State University Marine Mammal Institute. 44 p. \r\nPacific Fisheries Management Council. 2010. Management Plans for groundfish, pelagic species, and salmon. Available at www.pcouncil.org/ Accessed: May 22, 2010. \r\nPolagye, B., Copping, A., Suryan, R., Kramer, S., Brown-Saracino, J., & Smith, C. 2014. Instrumentation for monitoring around marine renewable energy converters: Workshop final report. PNNL-23110, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.\r\nPopper, A. and Fay, R. 2011. Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hearing Research, 273, 25-36.\r\nSzymanski, M., D. Bain, K. Kiehl, S. Pennington, S. Wong, and K. Henry, 1999. Killer whale (orcinus orca) hearing: Auditory brainstem response and behavioral audiograms,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 106, p. 1134.\r\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. 2001. Yaquina Bay Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation Study and Environmental Assessment. Final Report. July 2001. 46 p plus appendices.\r\n________________\r\nAnnex 1\r\nBest Management Practices (BMPs) for General In-Water Work Including Boat and Diver Operations\r\nThe following BMPSs are intended to reduce potential adverse effects on protected marine species. These BMPs are in no way intended to supersede or replace measures required by any other agency including, but not limited to the ACOE, USFWS, USEPA, or NMFS. Compliance with these BMPs is secondary to safety concerns. \r\nA. Constant vigilance shall be kept for the presence of ESA-listed marine species during all aspects of the proposed action, particularly in-water activities such as boat operations, diving, and deployment of anchors and mooring lines.\r\n1. The project manager shall designate an appropriate number of competent observers to survey the marine areas adjacent to the proposed action for ESA-listed marine species. \r\n2. Surveys shall be made prior to the start of work each day, and prior to resumption of work following any break of more than one half hour. Periodic additional surveys throughout the work day are strongly recommended. \r\n3. All in-water work shall be postponed or halted when ESA-listed marine species are within 50 yards of the proposed work, and shall only begin/resume after the animals have voluntarily departed the area. If ESA-listed marine species are noticed within 50 yards after work has already begun, that work may continue only if, in the best judgment of the project supervisor, that there is no way for the activity to adversely affect the animal(s). For example; divers performing surveys or underwater work would likely be permissible, whereas operation of heavy equipment is likely not.\r\n4. When piloting vessels, vessel operators shall alter course to remain at least 100 yards from whales, and at least 50 yards from other marine mammals and sea turtles.\r\n5. Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when piloting vessels at or within the ranges described above from marine mammals and sea turtles. Operators shall be particularly vigilant to watch for turtles at or near the surface in areas of known or suspected turtle activity, and if practicable, reduce vessel speed to 5 knots or less.\r\n6. If despite efforts to maintain the distances and speeds described above, a marine mammal or turtle approaches the vessel, put the engine in neutral until the animal is at least 50 feet away, and then slowly move away to the prescribed distance.\r\n7. Marine mammals and sea turtles should not be encircled or trapped between multiple vessels or between vessels and the shore.\r\n8. Do not attempt to feed, touch, ride, or otherwise intentionally interact with any ESA-listed marine species.\r\nB. No contamination of the marine environment should result from project-related activities.\r\n1. A contingency plan to control toxic materials is required.\r\n2. Appropriate materials to contain and clean potential spills will be stored at the work site, and be readily available.\r\n3. All project-related materials and equipment placed in the water will be free of pollutants. The project manager and heavy equipment operators will perform daily pre-work equipment inspections for cleanliness and leaks. All heavy equipment operations will be postponed or halted should a leak be detected, and will not proceed until the leak is repaired and equipment cleaned.\r\n4. Fueling of land-based vehicles and equipment should take place at least 50 feet away from the water, preferably over an impervious surface. Fueling of vessels should be done at approved fueling facilities. \r\n5. Turbidity and siltation from project-related work should be minimized and contained through the appropriate use of effective silt containment devices and the curtailment of work during adverse tidal and weather conditions.\r\n6. A plan will be developed to prevent debris and other wastes from entering or remaining in the marine environment during the project.","tags":"TEXT_TOO_LONG"},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"________________\r\nAnnex 2\r\nOperational Guidelines when in Sight of Whales\r\nWHEN IN SIGHT OF WHALES:\r\n* 2 miles to 1 mile away:\r\n* Reduce speed to 13 knots.\r\n* Post a dedicated lookout to assist the vessel operator in monitoring the location of all marine mammals.\r\n* Avoid sudden changes in speed and direction.\r\n* 1 mile to ½ mile away:\r\n* Reduce speed to 10 knots.\r\n* ½ mile or less:\r\n * Reduce speed to 7 knots.\r\n * Maneuver to avoid head-on approach.","tags":["Tag: Management.Mitigation","Technology.OffshoreWind","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH PROCEDURE:\r\n* 600 feet or closer:\r\n * Parallel the course and speed of moving whales up to the designated speed limit within that distance.\r\n * Do not attempt a head-on approach to whales.\r\n * Approach and leave stationary whales at no more than idle or \"no wake\" speed, not to exceed 7 knots.\r\n * Do not intentionally drift down on whales.","tags":["Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"STAND-BY ZONE\r\n* 300 feet to 600 feet away:\r\n * Two vessel limit within the 300- to 600-foot Stand-By Zone at any one time.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"CLOSE APPROACH ZONE\r\n* 100 feet to 300 feet away:\r\n * One vessel limit.","tags":["* Avoidance: Management.Compliance","Management.DesignFeature","Consequence.Avoidance"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"NO INTENTIONAL APPROACH WITHIN 100 FEET.\r\n * Do not approach within 100 feet of whales. If whales approach within 100 feet of your vessel, put engines in neutral and do not re-engage propulsion until whales are observed clear of harm's way from your vessel.","tags":["Management.Mitigation","Management.Compliance","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Avoidance","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.1 - iAMP - Newport","text_excerpt":"DEPARTURE PROCEDURE\r\n * All vessels should leave the whales following the same speed and distance procedures described above.\r\n * In order for vessels to be clear of whales before dark, vessels should cease operations and begin their return to port 15 minutes before sunset.","tags":["Management.Compliance","Management.Mitigation","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.MarineMammals.Cetaceans","Stressor.BehavioralInteraction.Displacement","Stressor.Noise.Airborne"]},{"file_name":"2015_2_5_Tanana River Biological Evaluation","text_excerpt":"Biological\r\n Evaluation\r\n Northwest National Marine\r\n Renewable Energy Center\r\n Advanced Laboratory and Field\r\n Arrays (ALFA) for Marine Energy\r\n DE-EE0006816.0000\r\nJanuary 15, 2015\r\nPrepared for: \r\nUS Department of Energy \r\nEERE Project Management Center \r\nGolden Field Office \r\n1617 Cole Boulevard \r\nGolden, Colorado 80401","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Ecosystem Processes","Receptor.Physical Environment","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Habitat Change","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance ","Phase.4Decommissioning"]},{"file_name":"2015_2_5_Tanana River Biological Evaluation","text_excerpt":"Prepared by:\r\nDr. Jeremy Kasper\r\nResearch Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks\r\nDirector, Alaska Hydrokinetic Energy Research Center\r\nco-Director, National Marine Renewable Energy Research Center\r\n________________","tags":["Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.1SiteCharacterizationandAssessment","Phase.2Construction","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance","Phase.4Decommissioning","Receptor.HumanDimensions","Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData","Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement."]},{"file_name":"2015_2_5_Tanana River Biological Evaluation","text_excerpt":"1. Background and History\r\nThe purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address the effects that acoustic and mechanical measurements of woody debris might have on species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their designated critical habitat. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to allow expenditure of federal funds (Proposed Action) by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for the project described herein (Project) and seeks concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USDFW) that the Project will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nUAF is a partner along with Oregon State University and the University of Washington in the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Research Center (NNMREC) whose goal is to facilitate the responsible commercialization of marine renewable energy in the United States. The proposed Project will collect field measurements of debris using acoustics (a split beam and an imaging sonar, both active acoustic sources). Acoustic data will be verified using mechanical and visual techniques. Data will be collected from the Tanana River in Summer, 2015 at UAF’s Tanana River Test Site, in Nenana, AK.\r\nAncillary information on river conditions including river velocity and turbulence will be collected simultaneously to inform understanding of debris transport. River velocity and turbulence will be collected using a surface mounted acoustic Doppler current profilers and acoustic Doppler velocimeters (active acoustics). Profilers will be mounted at the bow of a pontoon research platform and velocimeters will be suspended mid-water from sounding weights (streamlined weight) from the bow of the pontoon research platform. A mechanical debris detection that consists of a two submerged splines with pressure sensors to record debris impacts will be suspended below the barge pontoons. The split beam and imaging sonar systems will be mounted in parallel and offset to the starboard side of the pontoon research platform on an auxiliary platform that consists of 2 jon boats joined together using a purpose built rigid platform. The split beam and imaging sonar will be pointed towards the mechanical debris detection system. Power for the sonars will be supplied via a propane generator, a battery bank and solar panels. Operations will be supported by 1 ~6 and 1 ~7 m motorized jon boats.\r\nBecause these studies will be conducted with financial support from DOE, the Proposed Action is subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the Proposed Action may qualify for a NEPA categorical exclusion (CX) under 10 CFR Part 1021, section B5.25 Small Scale Renewable Energy Research and Pilot Projects in Aquatic Environments (see Federal Register Vol. 776, No. 198 at p. 63797), provided that it will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nThe proposed Project would be carried out on the Tanana River near Nenana, AK. Though the work occurs in the aquatic environment, there are no known ESA-listed species known to occur in the area. A number of non-endangered fish species are likely to be present and non-endangered marine mammals may be present in the project area (e.g. Seitz et al. 2011). UAF maintains permits with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (FH09-III-024), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (POA-2009-1261) and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (LAS 70274) for both on-water and on-shore research activities at the site. \r\nThis BE addresses DOE’s proposed Action to provide federal funding to the proposed Project in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with NMFS and/or USFWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.\r\n2. Description of the Project Activities and Project Areas\r\n 1. Project Area\r\nThe proposed Project will take place on the Tanana River, near the community of Nenana, Alaska. Nenana has long been a transportation hub in interior Alaska since two river’s meet just to the west of the community. Nenana is also served by the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway. The closest urban area is Fairbanks, ~60 miles to the north.\r\n http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/AK_map_Tanana_river.svg/800px-AK_map_Tanana_river.svg.png \r\n \r\nFigure 1 – Project Area (regional and local detail)\r\nUAF maintains the Tanana River Test Site in Nenana for in-river testing of hydrokinetic related monitoring and testing. As part of this DOE funded project, UAF’s pontoon research platform and sonars would be deployed at (64°33'38.84\"N, 149° 3'55.49\"W) approximately at the location encircled by red in Figure 1 (left) and marked “buoy” in Figure 1 (right). The Tanana River Test Site is well characterized and is the site of ongoing research (e.g. Johnson et al. 2014, Seitz et al. 2011, Toniolo et al. 2010, TerraSond, 2010). The water depth at the deployment location is approximately 8 m, the river width is approximately 200 m across, the riverbed is composed of fine sand and silt, and peak current velocity is expected to be <3 m/s.\r\nA schematic of the proposed deployment set up is shown in Figure 2. The pontoon barge is moored behind the “research debris diversion platform” (RDDP) which is attached to an upstream buoy. In turn, the buoy is attached to an embedment anchor buried in the river bed (Figure 2). The shallow drafted (~1 m) RDDP deflects surface debris from impacting the barge. The auxiliary floating platform for suspending the sonars is shown on the starboard side of the pontoon research platform in Figure 2.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.DesignFeature","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.Current","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.Current.Tidal"]},{"file_name":"2015_2_5_Tanana River Biological Evaluation","text_excerpt":"Figure 2 Schematic of the deployment infrastructure.\r\n \r\n 2. Inflow and Wake Measurements\r\nMeasurements of the water velocity upstream from the mechanical debris detection device will use acoustic Doppler instruments. \r\nOne Nortek Vector velocimeter (ADV, 6 MHz operating frequency) will be used to measure the small scale flow features (length scales < 2 m, time scales < 1 s) and one RD Instruments Workhorse Sentinel acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP, 1.2 MHz operating frequency) will be used to map out the large scale flow features (length scale > 2 m, time scales < 1 s). The downlooking ADCP will be mounted from the bow of the pontoon barge, using a pole mount that extends down into the river between the pontoons. The ADV will be mounted to a USGS type sounding weight lowered to the depth of the mechanical debris detection system (the approximate height at which a hydrokinetic turbine would sit) using a davit and synthetic line from the bow of the pontoon research platform. This will allow precision measurements of small-scale turbulence at the actual depth of the turbine, to be compared with the low resolution measurements from the ADCP.\r\nPrior Consultation\r\nNo prior consultation regarding the acoustic measurements of debris have taken place with federal resource agencies. The general operation of Tanana River Test Site and the deployment of a mechanical debris detection system and active acoustics specifically are the subject of a continuing dialog with state agencies and permitting actions:\r\n* On June 9, 2009, AHERC received authorization from the US Corps of Engineers via a letter of permission, file # POA-2009-1261, to place an anchor, mooring buoy and floating platform in the Tanana River. On May 29, 2012, AHERC received a letter of permission authorizing the addition of a floating surface debris diverter to the AHERC equipment.\r\n* In November 2009, AHERC obtained a title 16 habitat permit from the Alaska Department of fish and Game for the placement of a river bank founded floating research platform in the Tanana River. In subsequent years the permit was amended to allow the placement of mid channel anchors, mooring buoys, multiple floating research platforms and hydrokinetic generators. \r\n* In January 2010, AHERC was issued a State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Land Use Permit for the use of state shorelands for hydrokinetic research. The amended Land Use Permit currently addresses the anchor, buoy, floating research platforms and hydrokinetic generators.\r\n* Testing of mechanical and sonar debris detection systems complies with or satisfies the NEPA requirements of 10 CFR Part 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B (effective November 11, 2011) DOE’s Categorical Exclusion B5.25 Small-scale renewable energy research and development and pilot projects in aquatic environments. The project meets all general conditions for the class of action.\r\nEnvironmental Baseline Conditions\r\nThe project site is on the Tanana River in Nenana, which supports runs of anadromous fish including coho, chinook and chum salmon and Arctic lamprey as well as resident species including Lake chub (Cousius plumbeus), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). Resident migratory species include Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus), Humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian), Least cisco (Coregonus sardinella), Broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus), Round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum), Sheefish or inconnu (Stenodus leucichthys), Northern pike (Esox lucius) Burbot (Lota lota) and Dolly varden char(Salvelinus malma) as reviewed by Seitz et al. 2011. \r\n3. Effects of the Action\r\nEffects of DOE’s proposed Action are discussed in the same order as presented in Section 2.\r\n 3. Inflow and Wake Measurements\r\nThe environmental stresses associated with the collection of inflow and wake data are:\r\n* Sound produced by acoustic Doppler current profiler, velocimeters, split beam sonar or imaging sonar;\r\n* Entanglement or collision with sounding weights, lines, sonar heads, or debris detection splines\r\n* Noise associated with small boat operations.\r\nNone of these are likely to significantly affect aquatic species.\r\nInstallation and removal of the Manson anchors will disturb the cobble and gravel pavement of the riverbed over a relatively small area (approx. 0.25 m3 per anchor). Given that the cobbles are scoured clean by the currents, the small disturbance to the riverbed should be imperceptible to aquatic species.\r\nThe acoustic Doppler current profiler operates at a frequency of 1.2 MHz and the acoustic Doppler velocimeters operate at a frequency of 6 MHz whereas the split beam sonar operates at 120 kHz and the imaging sonar at either 900 or 2.250 MHz. These frequencies are several orders of magnitude higher than the auditory thresholds of any fish (Hastings and Popper 2005Doppler, split beam and imaging type sonar instruments are commercially available and in common usage by researchers, consultancies, and federal agencies throughout US waters. \r\nThe line between the pontoon research platform and the ADV sounding weight will be held taut by the currents for the duration of their deployment. Consequently, the risk of entanglement by birds or fish is likely negligible. While collision with the sounding weight supporting the acoustic Doppler velocimeters is possible, the streamlined form factor will result in an upstream “bow wake” that will naturally advect aquatic species around the weight if approaching from the upstream direction. Migration from the downstream direction occurs primarily along the edges of the river for energetic reasons.\r\nDeployment and recovery of the velocity sensors will require the use of river jon boats, which will temporarily elevate underwater noise levels, but not to an intensity that would be expected cause harm to aquatic species present in the project area.\r\n4. Conclusions\r\nIn conclusion, we have determined that DOE’s proposed Action to fund the proposed Project will not adversely affect any ESA-listed species occurring within the Project area or their associated critical habitat.\r\n5. Literature Cited\r\nHastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper (2005) Effects of Sound on Fish. (Subconsultants) Submitted by Jones & Stokes to California Dept. of Transportation Contract No. 43A0139. Task Order 1.\r\nSeitz, A.C., K. Moerlein, M.D. Evans and A.E. Rosenberger. (2011) Ecology of fishes in a high latitude turbid river, with implications for the impacts of hydrokinetic devices. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, DOI 10.1007/s11160-011-9200-3.\r\nTerraSond (2010) Nenana Hydrokinetic Energy Research Site Physical Characterization Survey, prepared for the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. \r\n________________","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.Compliance","Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.PhysicalEnvironment","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.EMF","Stressor.Lighting","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.PhysicalInteraction","Technology.OTEC","Technology.OffshoreWind","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed","Technology.OffshoreWind.Floating"]},{"file_name":"2015_2_5_Tanana River Biological Evaluation","text_excerpt":"Appendix 2: US Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation Letter","tags":["Management.Compliance","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.HabitatChange","Stressor.InvasiveSpecies","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Lighting"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2 - iAMP - WETS","text_excerpt":"Integrated of the Adaptable Monitoring Package with the Fred. Olsen Lifesaver Wave Energy Converter\r\nBiological Evaluation","tags":["Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Invertebrates","Technology.Wave"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2 - iAMP - WETS","text_excerpt":"Prepared for:\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\r\nPacific Islands Regional Office\r\nHonolulu, HI","tags":["Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Marine Mammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Habitat","Receptor.HumanDimensions"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2 - iAMP - WETS","text_excerpt":"Prepared, on behalf of the US Department of Energy, by:\r\nDr. Brian Polagye\r\nAssociate Professor, University of Washington\r\nNorthwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center\r\n________________","tags":["Management.Compliance Management.StakeholderEngagement Receptor.HumanDimensions.LegalPolicy Receptor.HumanDimensions.SocialEconomicData"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2 - iAMP - WETS","text_excerpt":"Table of Contents\r\n1 Background and History 1\r\n2 Description of Project Activities and Project Areas 2\r\n2.1 Adaptable Monitoring Package Integration 2\r\n2.2 Wave Energy Test Site (Kaneohe, HI) 4\r\n3 Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Project Area 4\r\n4 Environmental Baseline Conditions 4\r\n5 Effects of the Action 4\r\n5.1 Sound from Active Acoustic Sensors 5\r\n5.2 Light from Strobes 5\r\n5.3 Summary 5\r\n6 Conclusions 5\r\n7 Literature Cited 5","tags":["Phase.2Construction ","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance ","Phase.4Decommissioning ","Stressor.Lighting ","Stressor.Noise.Airborne ","Stressor.Noise.Underwater ","Technology.Wave"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2 - iAMP - WETS","text_excerpt":"1. Background and History\r\nThe purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address the effect that operation of the Adaptable Monitoring Package might have while integrated with a wave energy converter, the Fred. Olsen Lifesaver. Specific emphasis is placed on species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their designated critical habitat, but a more general discussion of effects is also presented. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is proposing to allow expenditure of federal funds (Proposed Action) by the University of Washington (UW) for the project described herein (Project) and seeks concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that the Project will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nDOE funding would enable the operation of the AMP to observe the marine environment and interactions between marine animals and marine energy converters (Proposed Action). The AMP is an integrated instrumentation system equipped with an acoustic camera, multibeam sonar, passive acoustic hydrophones, and strobe-illuminated optical cameras. During this deployment, the AMP would be integrated into the hull of a WEC and be powered by the WEC via a battery bank. Because these studies will be conducted with financial support from DOE, the Proposed Action is subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the Proposed Action may qualify for a NEPA categorical exclusion (CX) under 10 CFR Part 1021, section B5.25 Small Scale Renewable Energy Research and Pilot Projects in Aquatic Environments (see Federal Register Vol. 776, No. 198 at p. 63797), provided that it will not affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat.\r\nAMP operations would occur at the US Navy Wave Energy Test Site (WETS) in Kaneohe, HI for up to 6 months, starting on or after March 1, 2018. Because work would occur in the aquatic environment it has the potential to impact the following ESA-listed marine species that are known to occur in the area: Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi), the Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) distinct population segment, the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the Central North Pacific distinct population segment of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the giant manta ray (Manta birostris), and the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus).\r\nThe environmental effects of field testing an AMP in the inland waters of Puget Sound with a broader instrumentation suite have been previously reviewed by NMFS and the USFWS. The use of integrated instrumentation has been supported by both agencies as an effective tool for studying the environmental effects of marine renewable energy development and is of significant interest to the environmental research community (Polagye et al. 2014).\r\nThis BE addresses DOE’s proposed Action to provide federal funding to the proposed Project in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with NMFS and/or USFWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.\r\nThe objectives of this Project are to:\r\n1. Integrate the AMP directly into the hull of a WEC;\r\n2. Use the AMP to observe the marine environment and any interactions between marine animals at the WEC;\r\n3. Power an AMP directly from a WEC, thereby demonstrating the ability of a WEC to enable persistent environmental monitoring;\r\n4. Evaluate the portability of automatic detection and classification algorithms for marine animals developed at other locations; and\r\n5. Take advantage of the high optical clarity of Hawai’ian waters to expand the library of sonar imagery of marine animals with classifications verified by optical imagery.\r\n2. Description of Project Activities and Project Areas\r\n 1. Adaptable Monitoring Package Integration \r\nThe AMP integrates multiple sensors into a common power and data backbone that is controlled by a computer. This arrangement allows the computer to monitor the data streams in real-time and thereby:\r\n1. Minimize the potential for AMP observations to affect marine life (e.g., behavioral response to strobe illumination);\r\n2. Capture relatively rare events (e.g., presence of a sea turtle near a WEC); and\r\n3. Not accrue an unmanageable volume of data.\r\nThe AMP sensor payload for this deployment consists of an acoustic camera, multibeam camera, hydrophones, and cameras with strobe illumination. Specifications are given in Table 1.\r\nTable 1: AMP sensor specifications\r\nSensor Type (Quantity)\r\n\tMake and Model\r\n\tTransmit Frequency [kHz]\r\n\tComment\r\n\tAcoustic Camera (x1)\r\n\tTeledyne BlueView M900-2250\r\n\t2250 \r\n(900 kHz head inactive)\r\n\t-\r\n\tMultibeam Sonar (x1)\r\n\tKongsberg M3\r\n\t500\r\n\t-\r\n\tPassive Acoustic Hydrophone (x2)\r\n\tOceanSonics icListen HF\r\n\t-\r\n\t-\r\n\tOptical Camera (x2)\r\n\tAllied Vision Manta\r\n\t-\r\n\tIllumination using red or white strobe (x4) \r\n\tThe AMP sensors will be operated as follows:\r\n* All sensors will continually acquire data and transmit it to a control computer on the WEC. During this mode of operation, the strobes will not be illuminated.\r\n* Every 15 minutes, 45 seconds of data will be archived to disk. If there is insufficient natural illumination, the strobes (either red or white) will be used to illuminate the camera field of view for 3 seconds. The red strobes are an experimental concept that are likely to be less perceptible to marine life, but will have a reduced operating range (Fitzpatrick et al. 2013).\r\n* If a target of interest is automatically detected in the multibeam sonar or acoustic camera data streams (exceeding thresholds of size and intensity), the 45 seconds of data surrounding that detection will be archived to disk. If there is insufficient natural illumination and the target is likely in range of the optical cameras, the strobes will be illuminate the camera field of view for 3 seconds following the automatic detection. \r\nDuring this deployment, the AMP will be integrated into the hull of the Fred. Olsen Lifesaver. The general arrangement is shown in Figure 1. The Lifesaver is designed to support up to five power take-off (PTO) units (not shown) positioned over through-holes in the hull. Only three of these positions will be occupied during the deployment at WETS and the AMP sensor frame will be inserted into one of the unused positions, as shown in Figure 2. The AMP sensor head will be attached to an adjustable-height support tower that can be lowered to sufficient depth for the AMP sensors to be beneath air bubbles from breaking waves or retracted for inspection and maintenance.","tags":["Phase.2Construction","Management.Mitigation","Management.Monitoring","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.Benthos","Receptor.Fish","Receptor.Habitat.Intertidal","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Invertebrates","Receptor.Reptiles","Receptor.TerrestrialMammals","Stressor.Noise.Airborne","Stressor.Noise.Underwater","Stressor.HabitatChange","Technology.Current","Technology.Current.OceanCurrent","Technology.Current.Riverine","Technology.Current.Tidal","Technology.Wave."]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2 - iAMP - WETS","text_excerpt":"Figure 1: AMP integration with Fred. Olsen Lifesaver.","tags":["Receptor.HumanDimensions.StakeholderEngagement","Technology.OffshoreWind.Fixed"]},{"file_name":"Biological Evaluation REV 1.2 - iAMP - WETS","text_excerpt":"Figure 2: Cross-section of Fred. Olsen Lifesaver hull showing AMP support tower.\r\n 2. Wave Energy Test Site (Kaneohe, HI)\r\nThe Wave Energy Test Site (WETS) is located within the boundaries of Marine Corps Bay Hawai’i, in Kaneohe, HI on the island of Oahu. The site has three berths for testing wave energy converters, located in 30 m, 60 m, and 80 m of water. Each berth has a cabled connection back to shore (power and data connectivity) and mooring infrastructure provided by the US Navy. The deployment, operation, and retrieval of wave energy converters, as well as more limited environmental monitoring than is proposed here, has been previously found to be Not Likely to Adversely Affect any of the ESA-listed species known to be present within the project area.\r\n3. Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Project Area\r\nThe following ESA-listed species are known to occur in the project area:\r\n* green sea turtle, Central North Pacific DPS (Chelonia mydas) (NMFS 2016a)\r\n* hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) (NMFS 1970)\r\n* Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi) (NMFS 1976, NMFS 2015)\r\n* false killer whale, Main Hawaiian Insular DPS (Pseudorca crassidens) (NMFS 2012)\r\n* giant manta ray (Manta birostris) (NMFS 2018a)\r\n* oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) (NMFS 2018b)\r\nThere is no designated critical habitat for any ESA listed species within the project area. The 60 m and 80 m berths fall within the area currently under consideration as critical habitat for the false killer whale, Main Hawaiian Insular DPS (NMFS 2017), but the 30 m berth where the AMP would be deployed does not.\r\nHumpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) had been considered for ESA listing, but the Hawai’ian DPS was determined to not be at risk (NMFS 2016b) and is not listed as either threatened or endangered.\r\n4. Environmental Baseline Conditions\r\nBecause WETS lies within the boundaries of Marine Corps Bay Hawai’i, there is relatively sparse civilian vessel traffic, primarily restricted to recreational and fishing vessels. Military vessels are occasionally present in the project area, as are contractor vessels associated with wave energy converter installation, operation, and maintenance. Military aircraft, including fighters, cargo planes, and anti-submarine warfare craft taking off from Marine Corps Base Hawai’i pass directly over the site. The waterfront is predominantly sandy beach, backed by WWII era bunkers, a golf course, and military housing.\r\n5. Effects of the Action\r\nEnvironmental stresses associated with operation of the AMP include:\r\n* Emission of sound from active acoustic sensors\r\n* Emission of light from optical camera strobes\r\nNeither of these are expected to affect marine animals, including ESA-listed animals, within the project area.\r\n 3. Sound from Active Acoustic Sensors\r\nThe acoustic camera operates at a frequency of 2250 kHz and the multibeam sonar operates at a frequency of 500 kHz. High-frequency hearing limits for coarse taxonomic groupings are:\r\n* Fish: Fish, including sharks, are most sensitive to sound < 1 kHz and are not generally sensitive to sound > 10 kHz (Popper and Fay 2011, Hawkins et al. 2014). \r\n* Marine Mammals: While marine mammal hearing is more sensitive to higher frequencies, even high-frequency specialists such as harbor porpoises are not sensitive to sound > 200 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2002). The high-frequency hearing limits for pinnipeds, such as the Hawai’ian monk seal, and mid-frequency cetaceans, such as the false killer whale, are considerable lower than 200 kHz (Southall et al. 2007, NMFS 2016c).\r\n* Birds: The maximum sensitivity to avian species for airborne sound is between 1 and 5 kHz (Dooling 1982). \r\n* Sea Turtles: While sea turtle hearing has not been extensively characterized, Bartol and Ketten (2006) suggest that their high-frequency limit is less than 1 kHz.\r\nConsequently, all active acoustic sensors on the AMP operate at frequencies above fish, marine mammal, and sea turtle hearing and would not be audible.\r\n 4. Light from Strobes\r\nFish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and diving seabirds may exhibit temporary behavioral responses to artificial illumination. However, the duty cycle for artificial illumination is limited (a maximum of 3 seconds of illumination every 45 seconds in the event of continuous automatic target detection in the absence of sufficient ambient light) and of limited spatial extent (strobe illumination is unlikely to propagate more than 10 m). Consequently, any temporary behavioral response is unlikely to be biologically significant. The use of red light has been found to further reduce behavioral effects (Fitzpatrick et al. 2013) and will be evaluated during the deployment.\r\n 5. Summary\r\nThe ESA-listed species described in Section 3 may come into proximity with the AMP during its operation. However, interactions are likely to be insignificant and discountable at the individual and population level. Thus, the project is unlikely to have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species.\r\n6. Conclusions\r\nWe have determined that DOE’s proposed Action to fund the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed species occurring within the project area or their associated critical habitat. Testing activities are summarized in Table 2.\r\nTable 2: Testing summary\r\nLocation\r\n\tTesting Window\r\n\tContinuous Test Time\r\n\tKaneohe, HI\r\n\tMay 1, 2018 – April 28, 2019\r\n\tUp to 6 months\r\n\t7. Literature Cited\r\nBartol, S.M. and Ketten, D.R., 2006, Turtle and tuna hearing. Sea turtle and pelagic fish sensory biology: developing techniques to reduce sea turtle bycatch in longline fisheries.\r\nDooling, R.J., 1982, Auditory perception in birds. In Acoustic communication in birds, ed.\r\nFitzpatrick, C., McLean, D. and Harvey, E.S., 2013. Using artificial illumination to survey nocturnal reef fish. Fisheries research, 146, pp.41-50.\r\nHawkins A, Popper A, Fay R, Mann D, Bartol S, Carlson T, et al., 2014, Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report. Cham, Switzerland: ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014 prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standard Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI.\r\nKastelein, R.A., Bunskoek, P., Hagedoorn, M., Au, W.W. and de Haan, D., 2002. Audiogram of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) measured with narrow-band frequency-modulated signals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(1), pp.334-344. \r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1970, Conservation of Endangered Species and Other Wildlife, 35 FR 8491.\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1976, Hawai’ian Monk Seal Final Regulations, 41 FR 51611.\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2012, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer Whale Distinct Population Segment, 77 FR 70915.\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2015, Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Rulemaking to Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals, 80 FR 50925.\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2016a, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List Eleven Distinct Population Segments of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings Under the Endangered Species Act, 81 FR 20057.\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2016b, Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification of 14 Distinct Population Segments of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and Revision of Species-Wide Listing, 81 FR 62259.\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2016c, Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55.\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2017, Proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale DPS, 82 FR 51186.\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2018a, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the Giant Manta Ray as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act, 83 FR 2916.\r\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2018b, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Oceanic Whitetip Shark as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act, 83 FR 4153.\r\nPopper, A. and Fay, R., 2011, Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hearing Research, 273, 25-36.\r\nSouthall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene Jr, C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E. and Richardson, W.J., 2007. Overview. Aquatic mammals, 33(4), p.411.","tags":["Receptor.Fish","Receptor.MarineMammals","Receptor.Birds","Receptor.SeaTurtles","Stressor.Noise","Stressor.Lighting","Management.NoneIdentified","Phase.3OperationsandMaintenance"]}],"options":{"mode":"tree","modes":["code","form","text","tree","view"]}},"evals":[],"jsHooks":[]}</script>
</div>
</div>
</section>
</main>
<!-- /main column -->
<script id="quarto-html-after-body" type="application/javascript">
window.document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function (event) {
const toggleBodyColorMode = (bsSheetEl) => {
const mode = bsSheetEl.getAttribute("data-mode");
const bodyEl = window.document.querySelector("body");
if (mode === "dark") {
bodyEl.classList.add("quarto-dark");
bodyEl.classList.remove("quarto-light");
} else {
bodyEl.classList.add("quarto-light");
bodyEl.classList.remove("quarto-dark");
}
}
const toggleBodyColorPrimary = () => {
const bsSheetEl = window.document.querySelector("link#quarto-bootstrap");
if (bsSheetEl) {
toggleBodyColorMode(bsSheetEl);
}
}
toggleBodyColorPrimary();
const icon = "";
const anchorJS = new window.AnchorJS();
anchorJS.options = {
placement: 'right',
icon: icon
};
anchorJS.add('.anchored');
const clipboard = new window.ClipboardJS('.code-copy-button', {
target: function(trigger) {
return trigger.previousElementSibling;
}
});
clipboard.on('success', function(e) {
// button target
const button = e.trigger;
// don't keep focus
button.blur();
// flash "checked"
button.classList.add('code-copy-button-checked');
var currentTitle = button.getAttribute("title");
button.setAttribute("title", "Copied!");
let tooltip;
if (window.bootstrap) {
button.setAttribute("data-bs-toggle", "tooltip");
button.setAttribute("data-bs-placement", "left");
button.setAttribute("data-bs-title", "Copied!");
tooltip = new bootstrap.Tooltip(button,
{ trigger: "manual",
customClass: "code-copy-button-tooltip",
offset: [0, -8]});
tooltip.show();
}
setTimeout(function() {
if (tooltip) {
tooltip.hide();
button.removeAttribute("data-bs-title");
button.removeAttribute("data-bs-toggle");
button.removeAttribute("data-bs-placement");
}
button.setAttribute("title", currentTitle);
button.classList.remove('code-copy-button-checked');
}, 1000);
// clear code selection
e.clearSelection();
});
function tippyHover(el, contentFn) {
const config = {
allowHTML: true,
content: contentFn,
maxWidth: 500,
delay: 100,
arrow: false,
appendTo: function(el) {
return el.parentElement;
},
interactive: true,
interactiveBorder: 10,
theme: 'quarto',
placement: 'bottom-start'
};
window.tippy(el, config);
}
const noterefs = window.document.querySelectorAll('a[role="doc-noteref"]');
for (var i=0; i<noterefs.length; i++) {
const ref = noterefs[i];
tippyHover(ref, function() {
// use id or data attribute instead here
let href = ref.getAttribute('data-footnote-href') || ref.getAttribute('href');
try { href = new URL(href).hash; } catch {}
const id = href.replace(/^#\/?/, "");
const note = window.document.getElementById(id);
return note.innerHTML;
});
}
const findCites = (el) => {
const parentEl = el.parentElement;
if (parentEl) {
const cites = parentEl.dataset.cites;
if (cites) {
return {
el,
cites: cites.split(' ')
};
} else {
return findCites(el.parentElement)
}
} else {
return undefined;
}
};
var bibliorefs = window.document.querySelectorAll('a[role="doc-biblioref"]');
for (var i=0; i<bibliorefs.length; i++) {
const ref = bibliorefs[i];
const citeInfo = findCites(ref);
if (citeInfo) {
tippyHover(citeInfo.el, function() {
var popup = window.document.createElement('div');
citeInfo.cites.forEach(function(cite) {
var citeDiv = window.document.createElement('div');
citeDiv.classList.add('hanging-indent');
citeDiv.classList.add('csl-entry');
var biblioDiv = window.document.getElementById('ref-' + cite);
if (biblioDiv) {
citeDiv.innerHTML = biblioDiv.innerHTML;
}
popup.appendChild(citeDiv);
});
return popup.innerHTML;
});
}
}
});
</script>
</div> <!-- /content -->
</body></html>