20050785_Other Agency Comments_20090225

f?/ FLATIRON/UNITED
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 1587
1710 N. Memorial Drive
Greenville, NC 27835
Attention: Bill Kincannon,
Resident Engineer
FLATIRON/UNITED A JOINT VENTURE
2895 US R 17 SOl
CHOCOWINRY. NC 27817
PHONE 252+9469112 FA.`L' 2529469522
February 25, 2009
Re: Washington Bypass - US 17,
Beaufort County, R-2510B
NCDOT Contract No. C201560
Proposed Fish Monitoring Plan Study
Dear Mr. Kincannon,
We met with NCDOT and project permitting agencies on February 19, 2009 regarding our request
to continue bridge construction thru a portion of the 2009 in water work moratorium. As required by the
agencies approval, Flatiron/United has consulted with Environmental BioAcoustics LLC to study and design
a plan to monitor the effects of in-water pile driving work on anadromous fishes. We hereby submit the
following for review and approval prior to "in water" pile driving work being permitted to resume.
We are available to meet to discuss this issue at your earliest convenience. Please contact the
undersigned if you have any comments or questions at 252-946-9112 x-228.
Regards,
Mark Mallett
Project Manager
Flatiron / United JV
Copy:
Dr. Arthur N. Popper
Ron Johnson
Environmental BioAcoustics LLC
Earth Tech - Senior Biologist
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
r
FLATIRON/UNITED FLATIRON/UN rEDaJO1NT VENTURE
2895 US Hwv 17 SOViN
A CBocowiHm. NC Z 817
PRONE' 2529469112 Fn. 2529 522
Monitoring Plan - Tar River Bridge Pile Driving Effects on Anadromous Fishes
A number of methods and techniques were evaluated to study the effects of in-water pile driving on
anadromous fish. Attached is a memorandum from Environmental BioAcoustics' Dr. Arthur N. Popper that
provides a detailed discussion of that analysis. It was concluded that the only practical methodology to
evaluate fish mortality is through visual surveys downstream of the pile driving operation. These surveys
will be conducted by experienced and qualified biologists. The qualifications of the biologists will be
submitted to the permitting agencies for your review and approval prior to commencement of the monitoring
activities.
Required Monitoring
Visual monitoring of in-water pile driving operations will be conducted to evaluate the effects of the
operations on anadromous fish. Visual surveys for dead, dying, or damaged fish will be conducted
downstream of the pile driving operation. Boat(s) will be stationed downstream prior to commencement of
the pile driving. All dead or dying fish will be collected using dip nets. The fish will be identified as to
species, measured, and photographed. Additional notes will be recorded regarding the date and time of
collection, condition of the fish (i.e. level of tissue decay, observable damage, presence of sores or
lesions). Finally, the fish will be properly preserved for later analysis if such analysis is deemed necessary.
All in-water pile driving operations will be monitored.
In-water work will cease and the NCDOT, (and subsequently the permitting agencies), will be
notified immediately if either of the following criteria is met:
A Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is collected and identified.
25 fish per bent installation of any combination of the following species are collected and
identified
o River herring (Alosa aestivalis and Alosa pseudoharengus)
o Hickory shad (Alosa mediocris)
o American shad (Alosa sapidissima)
o Striped bass (Moron saxatilis).
Mitigation Measures
If fish mortality is observed due to pile driving activities, the following measures will be
implemented:
First level mitigation- ramp up
a. Strike Pile a few times per minute for 5 -10 minutes prior to commencing pile driving
production.
b. If no fish mortality, then continue
c. If observed fish mortality quantities do not decline to acceptable levels, implement Second
level mitigation
2. Second level mitigation -cofferdam or air curtain system
a. Install air curtain device to reduce sound levels fish will be subjected to.
b. If observed fish mortality quantities do not decline to acceptable levels, review status with
permitting agencies prior to driving further river piles during moratorium.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNrt EMPLOYER
February 24, 2009
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Mullett and Ted Kirk'
Flatiron/United, A Joint Venture
FROM: Dr. Arthur N. Popper
Environmental BioAcoustics LLC
RE: Proposed Mitigation of Pile Driving Sounds in Tar River
Following our telecom of February 20, 2009, 1 am providing suggestions for determining
whether there arc possible effects of driving 30" cement piles in the Tar River. This analysis is
based upon, and expanded from, my report of March 19, 2008. While I will not re-review
literature in this memo, I will refer to two new pieces of information that will be of potential use
in making mitigation decisions. Most importantly, the recent work provides support for the
suggestion that the level of pile driving to be done on the Tar River is not likely to result in any
harm to fish, or impact their ability to survive and reproduce. And that, coupled with the very
low per cent time that pile driving will take place (4 hours within one 24-hour period out of each
7-day week), makes impact on fish even less likely.
Recent Information
to a recent unpublished study, Ruggerone and colleagues2 investigated the effects of pile
driving exposure on caged yearling coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch Walbaum).' Fish were
placed at in cages near (1.8-6.7 m) and distant (15 m) from piles being driven in Washington.
Fish were exposed to 1,627 strikes on 14 hollow steel pipe piles (0.51 m diameter, 1.3 cm wall
thickness) over a 4.3 hour period. Sound levels were measured in both the near and far cages. In
the near cage, peak sound pressure levels reached 208 decibels (dB), RMS levels reached 194
dB, and sound exposure levels (SEL) reached 179 dB, leading to a cumulative SEL of
approximately 207 dB during the 4.3 hour period. Sounds did not exceed ambient in control
cages that were kept away from the region of pile driving. The investigators found no mortality
or tissue damage in exposed fish that were examined 10 and 19 days post exposure, indicating
' "Kirk, Ted" <[e-mail]>, "Mallelt, Mark" <mmal lett@ flatironcorp.eom>
2 Ruggerone, G. T., Goodman, S. E., & Miner, R. (2108) Behavioral response and survival of juvenile coho salmon
to pile driving sounds. Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. for Port of Washington.
Flatiron Mitigation Proposal 2-24-2009 Page 1
that received sound sounds at these levels do not harm coho salmon.3 While it is not possible to
say whether these results can be extrapolated to other species, and to species in the Tar River,
they are potentially instructive.
There has also been the determination by the National Marine Fisheries Service West
Coast offices in July 2008 that physical injury to fish begins when peak sound pressure level
reaches 206 dB (re: IpPa) during a single strike and/or when the accumulated SEL4 from
multiple strikes reaches 187 dB for large fishes (>2 g) or 183 dB for small fishes (< 2 g). The
recommended levels are considered interim criteria and would be modified as new data becomes
available.
It is critical to note that the NMFS did not take into consideration "best available science"
in making determinations since they would not accept the levels proposed in an analysis of the
best available science by Popper et al. (2006)5 which called for interim criteria being somewhat
higher (sec Table below). Moreover, the levels accepted as interim criteria by the NMFS are
substantially below those now suggested by Ruggerone et al. (2008) to have no effect on one of
the species of most concern to the NMFS on the West Coast, coho salmon. The various potential
criteria are shown in the Table below.
Ru erone et al. NMFS Popper et al.
Single Strike Peak ( Pa) 208 dB 206 dB 209 dB
Cumulative SEL (re: I pPa2, see) 207 dB 187 dB (large fish) 187 dB (single strike).
>203 (cumulative strikes)
It is important to note that these values are all highly tentative and not based on peer-
reviewed published studies. However, if we assume that there is some applicability to the
Ruggerone et al. (2008) data and that the analysis in Popper et al. (2006) is based on the best
available science to that date, we may use the data from Ruggerone et al. (2008) as some guide
as to sound levels that are not likely to cause any damage to the fish in the Tar River. These
levels are somewhat higher than those produced by striking a 24" pile (see March report).
' It should be noted that there were some technical problems with this study. These include lack of acclimation of
fish to depth, which may have affected whether tissue damage would occur. At the same time, however, the general
findings are of value, and they document that high sound levels may not damage coho salmon.
Cumulative values depend on SEL measurements for each strike. The maximum allowed cumulative value may be
reached after a few very intense strikes, or many hundreds or thousands of less intense strikes. One of the major
issues vis a vis accumulating SEL's, however, is whether there is recovery of any possible tissue damage benreen
strikes. Thus, any actual tissue damage may he greater for strikes that are very close together, and lessen if strikes
are further apart, or if there are gaps in the total pile driving period. For example, in the Tar River, if there are 20
minutes of strikes and this results in a cumulative SE'L of 180 dB over all strikes. and then there is a I hour period
before the next pile is driven, does one start accumulating the effects on fish starting with the 180 dB SEL, or start
over again since any tissue damage might have "healed."
5 Popper, A. N., Carlson, T. J., Hawkins. A. D., Southall, B. L., and Gentry, R. L (2006). buerim Criteria for Injury
of Fish Exposed to Pile Driving Operations: A While Paper hup://www.wsdot.wa"uvMR/r lot I res/84A6313n-
9297-42C9-BFAti-750A691EIDB3/0/BA Pilc(.>rlv_inglntcrimCrimna.ndf
Flatiron Mitigation Proposal 2-24-2009 Page 2
Will Pile Driving on the Tar River Damage Fish?
In determining if the sounds from driving 30" piles will possibly impact Tar River fish, a
number of issues must be considered. These are as follows:
If the fish in the Tar River are migratory or move around, they will only be exposed
to pile driving for a very short period of time, and possibly never accumulate enough
exposure to strikes to have any effect. They would certainly' never receive the
accumulated SEL levels proposed by NMFS, or the more realistic numbers discussed
above.
The Tar River is shallow, and so there will be little propagation of the sound
frequencies in the hearing range of most species of fish (other than American shad,
river herring, and hickory shad - the sound would most certainly be inaudible to
striped bass or to sturgeon 6). Thus, while the higher frequency sounds still could have
a potential for tissue damage, there are likely to be little or no behavioral implications
from these sounds at more than a few meters from the source since the fish will not
hear the sounds, and thus the sounds will not alter fish behavior. At the same time, it
must be recognized that in not hearing the sounds, the fish may get much closer to the
piles being struck than they would if they heard, and swam away from, the sounds.
Thus, by not hearing the sounds, fish may swim close enough to the piles to receive
tissue damage.
3. Because propagation of lower frequency sounds are so limited in shallow water, it is
likely that even if there is a zone around a pile being driven in which the sound levels
are sufficiently high to physically harm fish, this zone is likely to be very small
compared to the width of the Tar River. While it is impossible to indicate this
potential "damage zone" (if there is any region in which damage takes place) without
measures of the sounds during pile driving at different distances from the piles, my
professional opinion based on work done in California on much larger piles and in
much deeper water (with greater sound propagation) is that this distance would just
be no more than a few (perhaps a maximum of 10) meters from the source. Thus, if
the Tar River is 750 m wide, and the potential damage zone has a 20 m diameter, fish
in only 2.6% of the river width would be potentially impacted.
4. While there are no data for sound levels from 30" concrete piles, data from 24"
concrete piles (albeit on a different substrate than in the Tar River) show that sound
levels are substantially below the interim criteria set by NMFS or proposed by Popper
et al. (2006).'' s
6 Sturgeon data are not yet in the literature, but work in my laboratory, and in preparation for publication, indicates
that lake sturgeon do not hear sounds to much above 800 Hz.
7 Popper, A. N., Carlson, T. J., Hawkins, A. D., Southall, B. L., and Gentry, R. L (2006). tnterirn Criteria for Injury
of Fish Exposed to Pile Driving Operations: A White Paper hg7rl/www-wsdot.wagoy/Nlt/rclonlvres/x4A6313A-9297-
42C9-BI'-A0-750A691F.1U133/O/BA Piluln vine] nleri niCriteria.ndf
s See March 19. 2008 report for this discussion
Flatiron Mitigation Proposal2-24-2009 Page 3
Response to February 19 Terms from Corps of Engineers
The Corps requests that Flatiron "...develop and conduct a study to monitor the effects of
in-water pile driving work on anadromous fishes." There are several ways this can be done, as
discussed below, but the most reasonable and effective approach at this time is to look for dead
and dying fish resulting from pile driving activities (section 1, below). Such a survey would
provide a strong indication if there is any significant effect of pile driving on the species in
question. Other more elaborate studies could be done (Sections 2 and 3 below), but 1 question
whether they would provide any data of use beyond damage and mortality. Moreover, based on
the short and eminent construction period required for driving piles, preparation for elaborate
studies would neither be practical nor timely, and costs would go up substantially with no
relative benefit.
1. Fish damage and mortality
The simplest and most direct approach to determining if there is any substantial effect on
fish is to survey for dead or damaged fish that could be correlated with the pile driving activities.
This approach would involve employing a third-party qualified environmental firm with
expertise in assessment of fisheries to measure fish mortality, as per the suggestion from the
Corps. Since dead and dying fish would likely come to the surface, the survey should start at
some point prior to the start of pile driving and continue through the full pile driving time, and
then for at least I hour post pile driving.9 This approach would focus on the downstream side of
the pile driving operation and use a boat to move back and forth at some proscribed distance to
look for, and capture, all dead fish.10 The survey might be best if a specific area is designated.
Thus, the survey team would look for all dead/damaged fish within a radius of 100 - 200 m
downstream from the pile. (Greater distances may result in collecting fish that had died from
other causes.)' 1
The fish would be identified, and a determination made (perhaps by level of tissue decay)
as to whether any damage could be correlated with pile driving activities or whether the fish may
have been damaged earlier. It would also be invaluable if each dead/damaged fish were
photographed and measured in order to document any external damage. It would also be
potentially useful for the survey group to preserve each dead/dying fish for later analysis by
doing a mid-ventral incision into the body cavity and then placing the fish in jars of fixative
9 Another approach would be to add gill netting to retrieve dying or damaged fish that do not come to the surface.
However, there are several problems with this approach. Most notably, it is likely that netting Will, itself, result in
mortality and/or damage (possibly more than the pile driving) and it will be difficult t discriminate between fish that
were harmed by the pile driving vs. fish harmed by the gill net.
to Specific methods would have to be worked out with the group doing this survey.
Note, a critically important issue here is protection of the surveyors from the pile driving sounds. The survey
distance should be at a sufficient great from the pile driving to protect the hearing of the surveyors. fndeed. I would
also recommend that the surveyors be required to use very high quality hearing protection at all times during pile
driving.
Flatiron Mitigation Proposal 2-242009 Page 4
(preferably 10% formalin). While this is far from the ideal way of fixing fish for
histopathological analysis, if there is considerable mortality it might be useful to have these fixed
fish for future analysis by someone with expertise in fish pathology. 12
It would also be useful to have at least several "control" periods to determine if there is
any general mortality of fish in the Tar River in the vicinity of the construction site. The control
might be a survey taken at the same time as the pile driving operation but at some substantial
distance from pile driving. Or, since the movement of fish might differ at different places in the
river, a better control might take place 24 to 48 hours before the pile driving operation, but in the
same place where the piles will be driven. Of course, there will need to be consideration of tidal
movements and other factors so that the conditions of survey in the control would be similar to
those during pile driving.
2. Monitoring Fish Behavior
Damage and mortality are the extremes of potential effects of pile driving sound on fish.
Other, effects are on behavior and physiology, and may include fish moving from preferred
feeding or breeding areas, or never getting to such sites due to displacement by the sounds.
While the ideal approach in evaluating pile driving effects would be to study fish behavior,
reliable measures of fish behavior in the wild are exceedingly difficult to do. Indeed, in the
whole literature on effects of human-generated sound on fish there are perhaps two or three
"behavioral" studies (see Hastings and Popper, 2005;), and all of these have been very limited
in the information they could provide and are on'scales far smaller than in the Tar River. 14
Despite these caveats, there are three potential approaches for behavior monitoring.
First, fish could be monitored upstream and downstream from the pile driving activity
using very high resolution sonar to try and ascertain behavior of individual animals, or number of
fish before, during, and after pile driving. The problem is that commercial sonars, while
sometimes being able to "see" individual fish, generally cannot discriminate between species or
observe behavior of individual animals for any length of time. Thus, there would be no way to
know, from a sonar study, whether the fish being "seen" are anadromous species of interest, or
other species. Alternatively, it might be possible to use a very high resolution Didson15 sonar to
survey fish since this device is able to monitor individual animals and is of sufficient resolution
to show species. However, the range of Didson sonar is very limited (maximum of 25m) and so
several units would need to be deployed. And, even if several units were available, it is unlikely
that sufficient data would be obtained to produce any clear analysis of fish behavioral responses
to the pile driving operation.
12 Note, for full disclosure, my laboratory has such expertise, and there are other individuals who are even more
expert fish pathologists.
13 Hastings, M. C. and Popper, A. N. (2005). Effects of sound on fish. California Department of Transportation
Contract 43A0139 Task Order, 1. ht //www.do _ qxa 4a/hu/euv//hio/files/Ei Lects of Sound on Pish2_3Au,•OS.pdf
1d It should be noted that studies of caged fish do not constitute valid studies of behavior. Fish in a cage do not
exhibit "normal" behavior, and cannot respond normally to fright or other stimuli.
" http://www.soundmetries.coin/ -
Flatiron Mitigation Proposal 2-24-2009 Page 5
The second approach is to use something like a Didson sonar to actually "acquire" one or
two fish of interest upstream from the pile driving activity and "following" the fish from a boat
as they move downstream. While this kind of study, when used with sufficient controls, would
yield invaluable data, nothing like it has ever been attempted, presumably because it is fraught
with difficulty and danger. For example, it is possible that the fish behavior would be impacted
by the presence of a trailing boat (this is well known in the commercial fisheries industry).
Second, the fish might require that the boat, and its operators, get too close to the pile driving
activity for their own safety as they follow the fish.
A third approach would be to survey fish by netting, and determining the number of fish '
that went past the pile driving activity before, during, and afterwards. 16 This is a crude, and
indirect, indication that the pile driving has had a potential impact on fish. However,
interpretation of any such data is highly problematic since even if there was a lower catch of fish
during pile driving, it is impossible to know whether this was due to mortality of fish, fish no
longer moving downstream, or fish diverting a bit to take a different "path" to avoid the sound,
and yet still continue down steam. 17 Moreover, since, as discussed in several places in this report,
the likelihood of harm to fish_ from pile driving is very low, any netting is likely to kill far more
fish than pile driving
3. Other approaches to measure impacts on fish
There are a number of other approaches that have been used to determine effects of pile
driving on fish. These are reviewed in detail by Hastings and Popper (2005). These include
using caged animals at different distances from piles to look at damage (as per the Ruggerone et
al. study mentioned above), observations of behavior in cages, and/or assessment of hearing
changes post exposure of caged fish. All of these approaches are very difficult to carry out in my
view. Experimental design is difficult and very extensive (see Popper et al. 200718 for the best
design for such experiments). And, as Hastings and Popper (2005) pointed out, all such studies
have to be done with considerable expertise, including the involvement of expert fish
pathologists and individuals expert in measuring sound fields from pile driving activities
(something very different than general measures of sound field and which require special
equipment and software). While it would be of immense value to the pile driving community,
regulators, and the pubic if such studies could be done, my experience with such studies (Popper
et al., 20051, 2007) show that they take many months to plan and longer periods to carry out, if
they are to be done right. Thus, they are inappropriate for the Tar River work.
16 This assumes that fish caught downstream went by the pile driving, but there would be no way to know if the fish
came to the downstream net from another direction.
" An analogy is how humans behave as they come across a loud sound in their way as they walk down a street (e.g.,
jack hammering). The person may veer away from the sound, perhaps crossing the street to avoid the noise, but then
the person continues in the same direction and winds up at the same destination despite the noise.
18 Popper, A. N., Halvorsen, M. B., Kane, E., Miller, D. D., Smith, M. E., Song, J. Stein, P., and Wysocki, L. E.
(2007). The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout. J. Acoust. Soc. Ant., 122:623-
635.
19 Popper, A. N., Smith, M. E., Cott, P. A., Hanna, B. W., MacGillivray, A. O, Austin, M. E, Mann, D. A. (2005).
Effects of exposure to seismic aiomn use on hearing of three fish species. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 117:3958-3971.
Flatiron Mitigation Proposal 2-24-2009 Page 6
Most importantly, it is not clear that any such studies would yield useful data since, as
discussed at the beginning of this document, there is no reason to believe, in my expert opinion,
that there is any likelihood of harm to fish by the pile driving in the Tar River. I say this since (a)
the pile driving occurs only over 2% of the week, meaning that fish have 98% of the time
without any activity; and (b) the sound field from the pile driving probably covers less than 3%n
of the width of the Tar River, leaving fish moving in 97% of the river not even knowing the pile
driving is present. Thus, considering the overall impact of pile driving on fish in the Tar River,
the studies themselves are likely to have more of an impact on the species of interest than the pile
driving.
Optional Approaches for Mitigation
I would propose that if there is any significant harm to fish (as per the letter from the
Corps), that Flatiron could adopt several strategies designed to allow continued pile driving, with
additional protection to fish. These would take a multi-stage approach to mitigation.
1. First level mitigation - ramp up
a. Observe mortality at site
b. If no mortality, then continue
c. Maybe do some days with ramp up and others without to see if ramp-up works
d. If decline in mortality, just keep observing
2. Second level mitigation -coffer dam or air curtain
a. Continue with observation of mortality
There are no data other than for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project as to whether ramp-
up works. That project did not do controlled studies, and so while the project suggested that
ramp-up lowered fish mortality, without control data the results must be seriously questioned. At
the same time, ramping-up does make sense, especially for fish near the piles (fish further away
may not hear the sounds due to poor propagation in the Tar River of sounds in the hearing range
of most species in that ecosystem) as a first attempt. Several different types of ramp-up actions
could be attempted including a few taps on the pile every few minutes for 5-10 minutes before
the actual driving operation starts.
If necessary, it is likely that the use of coffer dams (no water around the pile) or air
bubble curtains would cut sound levels by 10-20 dB. While it would still be necessary to monitor
fish, it is highly likely that one or the other device would bring sound levels to well below any
that could result in damage to fish.
Additional Studies
Few data are available on sound levels associated with pile driving activities and, to my
knowledge, none from the east coast of the U.S. or from rivers as shallow as the Tar River. Thus,
Flatiron Mitigation Proposal 2-242009 Page 7
data on sounds from the piles, and propagation studies, would be invaluable to the pile driving
industry and regulators. At the same time, in determining sound propagation of sound produced
during pile driving, it might then be possible to determine if the sound levels are (a) potentially
audible to the fish in the Tar River and (b) if the sound levels approach those currently being
used as interim criteria. If such an approach is desired, specific recommendations could be made
as to how these measures would be done, and firms with the expertise to do the measures.
An additional study of considerable value would be a gross and histopathological study
of damage to any fish that died or were damaged by pile driving. 20 This would be done with the
preserved specimens and involve a trained fish pathologist. The information gathered would
provide insight into the types of tissue damage associated with pile driving of the type in the Tar
River, and give important general insights that have rarely been obtained in earlier studies since
most have not involved an investigator with appropriate pathology expertise (see Hastings and
Popper, 2005).
Summary
The most useful approach to respond to the request by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
is to monitor fish mortality and damage associated with pile driving activities. If significant
effects are found, several possible mitigation measures are suggested. Other approaches to
respond to the Corps request are possible, but as discussed herein, all are complex, would require
considerable time to startup, require substantial planning and development of procedures and
controls, and would yield results that would be of questionable value to the Tar River project, or
even for other pile driving projects later on. The only feasible additional study, which could be
accomplished in the time over which pile driving will take place, is to measure the sound and
comprehensively analyze the sound fields associated with the pile driving.
20 Note that while 1 suggest that any fish netted in the survey of floating fish be preserved, if there is an intent to do it
full-scale pathological study, a more detailed plan for tissue fixation and preservation would have to he developed,
and this can only be done in collaboration with a trained fish pathologist.
Flatiron Mitigation Proposal 2-24-2009 Page 8