Regulatory Issues associated with Pile Driving

WSDOT Structures
19 Ferry Terminals 2,000 bridges over water

Complex Regulatory Environment for In -water Pile Driving

Three main regulatory agencies
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Services

Complex Regulatory Environment for In -water Pile Driving

Three main regulations:
State Hydraulic Project Approval sets in water work window to protect fish life. Endangered Species Act: prohibits take of listed species without incidental take permit.
Administered by both USFWS terrestrial species and bull trout NMFS for marine Species

Marine Mammal Protection Act: Prohibits take of marine mammals without a permit.
Administered by NOAA NMFS but a different section from the ESA section.

Complex Regulatory Environment for In -water Pile Driving

Endangered Species Act Protected Species Present in Puget Sound and potentially impacted by in-water pile driving :
Marbled murrelet Listed fish species including bull trout, 3 listed salmonid species, rock fish (3 listed species), green sturgeon and eulachon. Two listed cetaceans : SR killer whales, and humpback whales. One listed pinniped : Stellers seal lions.

Complex Regulatory Environment for In -water Pile Driving

Marine Mammal Protection Act: Protected Species potentially present in Puget Sound include 31 species of pinnipeds and cetaceans.

 In 2002 WSDOT and California DOT documented their first instance of a fish kill associated with impact pile driving of steel piles.

 The USFWS and NMFS identified thresholds for impact underwater pressures that they felt would result in injury or harm and thresholds that they felt would result in disturbance or harassment.
Pile driving activities that would expose listed species to sounds above these levels could result in take and would require a incidental take permit.

These are the underwater thresholds are set for impulse sounds like those generated by impact pile driving.

Species Fish > 2 grams

Injury Threshold 206 dBpeak and 187 SELcum 206 dBpeak and 183 SELcum 180 dBpeak 180 dBRMS 190 dBRMS

Disturbance Threshold 150 dBRMS

Fish < 2 grams

150 dBRMS

Diving marbled murrelet Whales Steller sea lion

150 dBRMS 160 dBRMS 160 dBRMS

 The Practical Spreading model is used to determine how far out the impulse sound associated with pile driving travels.

The model is also used to determine where the zone of injury and disturbance extends to .

Distance (m) to threshold Onset of Physical Injury Peak dB 5 Cumulative SEL dB** Fish 2 g Fish < 2 g 172 318

Behavior RMS dB 2154

Distance (m) to threshold Onset of Physical Injury Peak dB Cumulative SEL dB** Fish 2 g Fish < 2 g Behavior RMS dB

172

318

2154

In addition to identifying thresholds, the Services and WSDOT have developed minimization measures.
Applying timing restrictions doing work when listed species were not likely to be present. Monitoring for the presence of listed species during pile driving and shutting down the work when the listed species entered the zone of disturbance ( only possible for pinnipeds, cetaceans and marbled murrelets). Using bubble curtains during impact driving to reduce sound levels and alter the pressure wave to minimize and/or avoid take. Using vibratory hammers to avoid impulse sounds, thus avoiding take of listed fish and murrelets.

More Recently NMFS has been implementing a vibratory pile driving disturbance threshold of 120 dB RMS for marine mammals.

Practical Spreading Model SPL RMS) =

177 10 160 dB RMS

177 10 120 db RMS 63096

Distance =

Meters =

136

Miles =

0.08

39.21

Keystone 160 DB RMS Threshold Calculated with the Practical Spreading Model

Keystone 120 DB RMS Threshold Calculated with the Practical Spreading Model

Another area of noise concern is in air thresholds for noise disturbance: 100db RMS for Sea lions

Photo by WSF

What are some of the issues associated with consultations involving pile driving?
How can we accurately predict the extent of noise impacts?
What are the limitation of the noise models? How well do they predict sound attenuation ? ( model verification) How can we achieve agreement on the appropriate noise model between and within agencies?

What are some of the issues associated with consultations involving pile driving?
What are the background underwater noise levels in Puget Sound?
What is the most appropriate sampling design for determining background underwater noise levels given the limited in-water work window? What is the most appropriate sampling design for Puget Sound? How should ambient or background levels be defined?

What are some of the issues associated with consultations involving pile driving?
Can the level of attenuation achieved by a sound pressure attenuation device be accurately predicted? How effective is monitoring and shutting down pile driving at prevent impacts to protected species?
Is it cost effective for the project? Is it protective to the species?

What are some of the issues associated with consultations involving pile driving?
What other methods could be used to prevent impacts to protected species?

Questions?

Photo courtesy of USFWS