Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-20752

Notice2023-20752

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Maintenance and Rehabilitation of the Bellingham Shipping Terminal

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

September 26, 2023

Issuing agencies

Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Abstract

NMFS has received a request from the Port of Bellingham for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the maintenance and rehabilitation of the Bellingham Shipping Terminal in Bellingham, WA. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65953-65971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20752]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD278]

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Maintenance and Rehabilitation
of the Bellingham Shipping Terminal

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Port of Bellingham for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the maintenance and
rehabilitation of the Bellingham Shipping Terminal in Bellingham, WA.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting
comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the
specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible
one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain
circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request
for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider
public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of
the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be
summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than October
26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b524f4b3578747870697e77775b75747a7a357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a637e7a0449454941584f46466a44454b4b044d455c">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this
document, may be obtained online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities</a>. In case of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted online at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities</a> without change. All
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Cockrell, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.

National Environmental Policy Act

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and

[[Page 65954]]

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed
action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not
individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts
on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not
identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically
excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.

Summary of Request

On May 5, 2023, NMFS received a request from the Port of Bellingham
for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and
removal. Following NMFS' review of the application, the Port of
Bellingham submitted a two revised versions on June 16, 2023 and August
28, 2023. The application was deemed adequate and complete on September
6, 2023. The Port of Bellingham's request is for take of harbor seals
(Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus),
Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena) by Level B harassment and, for harbor seals, Level A
harassment. Neither the Port of Bellingham nor NMFS expect serious
injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA
is appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

The Port of Bellingham would conduct construction activities to
repair the wharf and pier structure of the Bellingham Shipping
Terminal. The activity includes removal of existing piles and the
installation of both temporary and permanent piles of various sizes.
Takes of marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment would occur
due to both impact and vibratory pile driving and removal. The project
would occur in Bellingham Bay in Northwest Washington within the city
of Bellingham. The construction would occur for 87 non-consecutive
days.
The Bellingham Shipping Terminal is located on the western shore of
Bellingham Bay and is a major port that connects the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe railway and Interstate 5 to commercial ships. The
terminal is bordered by Port and heavy industrial properties, berths
and industry, and Bellingham Bay. This project would replace aging
components of the terminal to current maritime safety standards to
handle cargo demands, including up-to-standards for modern electrical
infrastructure.

Dates and Duration

This IHA would be valid from one year of the date of issuance. It
is expected to take up to 87 non-consecutive days of in water work over
a 4-month work window to complete the pile driving and removal
activities. Pile driving would be completed intermittently throughout
the daylight hours. All pile driving is expected to be completed during
one phase of construction.

Specific Geographic Region

Bellingham bay is located in the northeast corner of the Salish Sea
in northwest Washington. The bay is relatively shallow with the deepest
depths around 30 meters (m) (100 feet (ft)). Bellingham bay is
dominated by a sandy gravely bottom. The city of Bellingham adjacent to
the bay is heavily industrialized. Floating log booms are located near
the project site in an adjacent industrial pond (Farrer and Acevedo-
Gutierrez 2010). Although the port is industrialized the mean ambient
sound pressure levels Pile driving at the Bellingham Shipping Terminal
would occur in waters less than 9 m (30 ft).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 65955]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26SE23.008

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Detailed Description of the Specified Activity

The Bellingham Shipping Terminal rehabilitation project includes
the removal of 36 existing 24-inch (in) diameter (61 centimeter (cm))
steel piles, 15 existing 14-in to 16-in (36 cm to 41 cm) timber fender
piles, and 2 existing 18-in to 20-in (46 cm to 51 cm) timber piles.
Fifty-six 24-in steel piles would be installed to support the main deck
of the shipping terminal and in addition 14, 24-in steel piles would be
installed behind the existing bulkhead. The existing fender piles would
be replaced by 13 16-in steel H-piles. Two

[[Page 65956]]

18-in to 20-in timber piles would be installed on the south portion of
the terminal. Vibratory and impact hammers would be used for the
installation and removal of all piles (Table 1). Removal of piles would
be conducted using a straight pull method or vibratory hammers. After
new piles are set with a vibratory hammer, installed piles would be
proofed with an impact hammer to verify the structural capacity of the
pile embedment. The work would be completed at the existing Bellingham
Shipping Terminal in Bellingham, Washington. Work on the terminal would
be completed within 1-year.

Table 1--Number and Types of Piles To Be Installed and Removed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory
Pile diameter/type Number of Strikes per duration per Piles per day Days of
piles pile (impact) pile (mins) Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Steel Piles............... 56 1,725 90 1-2 67
16-in Steel Piles H-Piles....... 13 150 30 6 3
18 to 20-in Timber piles........ 2 800 N/A 2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Steel Piles............... 36 .............. 30 6 10
14 to 16-in Timber Fender Piles. 15 .............. 15 8 3
18 to 20-in Timber piles........ 2 .............. 15 2 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 124 .............. .............. .............. 87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dredging work is expected to take place in berths one and two of
the shipping terminal to ensure sufficient draft for ships to use the
berths in a safe manner. The expected depth at each berth after
dredging is 35 ft (11 m) during mean lower low water. The dredging work
proposed is not expected to produce in water noise that would cause
take by Level A or Level B harassment, and therefore is not considered
further in this document.
Above water construction would include replacement of the decking
on the terminal, upgrading the utility systems to meet current
standards, and addition of fill to the existing bulkhead of the
terminal. This above-water work is not expected to result in any take.
Noise generated above the water would not be transmitted into the water
to the degree that resulting underwater noise would be expected to
cause disturbance and, none of the pinniped haulouts are located close
enough to the project area to cause disturbance, therefore airborne
noise is not considered further in this document.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

Sections 4 and 5 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends and threats may be found in
NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and
more general information about these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for this activity, and summarizes information
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological
removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS'
SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed
to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the
status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' U.S. 2022 SARs. All values presented in Table 2 are the most
recent available at the time of publication (including from the final
2022 SARs) and are available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>.

[[Page 65957]]

Table 2--Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\2\ abundance survey) \3\ SI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Washington Inland -,-; N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 66 >=7.2
Waters. 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California Sea Lion............. Zalophus californianus. U.S.................... -,-; N 257,606 (N/A,233,515, 14,011 >321
2014).
Steller Sea Lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern................ -,-; N 43,201 (N/A, 43,201, 2,592 112
2017).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor Seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Washington Northern -, -; N UNK (UNK, UNK, 1999).. UNK 9.8
Inland Waters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy's Committee on Taxonomy
(<a href="https://www.marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/">https://www.marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/</a>; Committee on Taxonomy (2022)).
\2\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is
automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\3\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <a href="https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/">https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/</a>. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum
estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\4\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A
CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

As indicated above, all four species (with four managed stocks) in
Table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could
potentially occur in the proposed project area are included in Table 1
of the IHA application. While killer whales (Orcincus orca), humpback
whales (Megaptera novaeangilae), gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus),
and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrada) have been sighted in the
area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such
that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further
beyond the explanation provided here. The applicant and NMFS expect the
occurrence of these species is infrequent for Bellingham Bay based on
sightings data from Orca Network (2021). Furthermore, if these species
are sighted approaching the Level B harassment zone construction
activities would be shut down in order to avoid harassment. Therefore,
take is not expected for killer whales, humpback whales, gray whales,
or minke whales and are not discussed further in this document.

Harbor Porpoise

In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, harbor porpoise are found in
coastal and inland waters from Point Barrow, along the Alaskan coast,
and down the west coast of North America to Point Conception,
California (Gaskin 1984). Harbor porpoise are known to occur year-round
in the inland trans-boundary waters of Washington and British Columbia,
Canada (Osborne et al.,1988), and along the Oregon/Washington coast
(Barlow 1988; Barlow et al.; 1988, Green et al. 1992). There was a
significant decline in harbor porpoise sightings within southern Puget
Sound between the 1940s and 1990s but sightings have increased
seasonally in the last 10 years (Carretta et al., 2019).
Annual winter aerial surveys conducted by the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife from 1995 to 2015 revealed an increasing trend in
harbor porpoise in Washington inland waters, including the return of
harbor porpoise to Puget Sound. The data suggest that harbor porpoise
were already present in Juan de Fuca, Georgia Straits, and the San Juan
Islands from the mid-1990s to mid-2000s, and then expanded into Puget
Sound and Hood Canal from the mid-2000s to 2015, areas they had used
historically but abandoned. Changes in fishery-related entanglement was
suspected as the cause of their previous decline and more recent
recovery, including a return to Puget Sound (Evenson et al., 2016).
Seasonal surveys conducted in spring, summer, and fall 2013-2015 in
Puget Sound and Hood Canal documented substantial numbers of harbor
porpoise. Observed porpoise numbers were twice as high in spring as in
fall or summer, indicating a seasonal shift in distribution of harbor
porpoise (Smultea, 2015). The reasons for the seasonal shift and for
the increase in sightings is unknown.
Monitors during a 2017 U.S. Navy construction project at the Coast
Guard Air Station in Port Angeles, Washington (roughly 60 mi (97 km))
observed a total of six individual harbor porpoises within the Level B
harassment zone during the project. No take observations of harbor
porpoises within the Level A harassment zone occurred during the
project.

California Sea Lions

The California sea lion is the most frequently sighted pinniped
found in Washington waters and uses haul-out sites along the outer
coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in Puget Sound. Haul-out sites are
located on jetties, offshore rocks and islands, log booms, marina
docks, and navigation buoys. Only male California sea lions migrate
into Pacific Northwest waters, with females remaining in waters near
their breeding rookeries off the coast of California and Mexico. The
California sea lion was considered rare in Washington waters prior to
the 1950s. More recently, peak numbers of 3,000 to 5,000 animals move
into the Salish Sea during the fall and remain until late spring, when
most return to breeding rookeries in California and Mexico. There are
no known haulouts in Bellingham Bay (Jeffries et al., 2000). Infrequent

[[Page 65958]]

sightings of California sea lions by port staff have occurred in the
fall and winter when prey is available in Bellingham Bay.
California sea lions feed primarily in coastal waters. They are
opportunistic predators and eat a variety of prey including squid,
anchovies, mackerel, rockfish and sardines (NMFS, 2019). California sea
lion breeding areas are mostly in southern California and are not
expected to spatially overlap with the project area. One California sea
lion per day was seen in the vicinity of this project site by port
staff.

Steller Sea Lions

Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific Rim from northern
Japan to California (Loughlin et al.,1984). There are two separate
stocks of Steller sea lions, the eastern U.S. stock, which occurs east
of Cape Suckling, Alaska (long. 144[deg] W), and the western U.S.
stock, which occurs west of that point. Only the western stock of
Steller sea lions, which is designated as the western distinct
population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lions, is listed as endangered
under the ESA (78 FR 66139; November 4, 2013). Unlike the western U.S.
stock of Steller sea lions, there has been a sustained and robust
increase in abundance of the eastern U.S. stock throughout its breeding
range. The eastern stock of Steller sea lions has historically bred on
rookeries located in Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, and
California. However, within the last several years a new rookery has
become established on the outer Washington coast (at the Carroll Island
and Sea Lion Rock complex), with more than 100 pups born there in 2015
(Muto et al., 2020).
Steller sea lions use haul-out locations in Puget Sound, and may
occur at the same haul-outs as California sea lions. Similar to
California sea lions, there are no known Steller sea lion haulouts in
Bellingham Bay. Sighting of Steller sea lions are infrequent by port
staff in the fall and winter when prey is available in Bellingham Bay.
One Steller sea lion per day was seen in the vicinity of this project
site by port staff.
Steller sea lions are opportunistic predators, feeding primarily on
a wide variety of fishes and cephalopods, including Pacific herring
(Clupea pallasi), walleye pollock (Gadus chalogramma), capelin
(Mallotus villosus), Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes exapterus), Pacific
cod (Gadus machrocephalus), salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), and squid
(Teuthida spp.) (Jefferson et al., 2008; Wynne et al., 2011).

Harbor Seal

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters off Baja
California, north along the western coasts of the continental U.S.,
British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska, west through the Gulf of Alaska
and Aleutian Islands, and in the Bering Sea north to Cape Newenham and
the Pribilof Islands (Carretta et al., 2014). They haul out on rocks,
reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice and feed in marine, estuarine,
and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals generally are non-
migratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides,
weather, season, food availability, and reproduction (Scheffer and
Slipp 1944; Fisher, 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981). Within U.S. west coast
waters, five stocks of harbor seals are recognized: (1) Southern Puget
Sound (south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge); (2) Washington Northern
Inland Waters (including Puget Sound north of the Tacoma Narrows
Bridge, the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca); (3) Hood
Canal; (4) Oregon/Washington Coast; and (5) California. Harbor seals in
the project areas would be from the Washington Northern Inland Waters
stock.
Harbor seals are the only pinniped species that occurs year-round
and breeds in Washington waters. Pupping seasons vary by geographic
region, with pups born in coastal estuaries (Columbia River, Willapa
Bay, and Grays Harbor) from mid-April through June; Olympic Peninsula
coast from May through July; San Juan Islands and eastern bays of Puget
Sound from June through August; southern Puget Sound from mid-July
through September; and Hood Canal from August through January (Jeffries
et al., 2000). Recent line transect surveys have estimated the harbor
seal stock size at 7,513 individuals for Washington Northern Inland
Waters stock (Jefferson et al., 2021). Pupping by harbor seals on
haulouts located in Bellingham Bay has not been observed.
There are three document haulouts in Bellingham Bay that range from
0.10 mile (mi) (0.16 kilometer (km)) to 1.75 mi (2.82 km) from the
project area. Counts of harbor seals at the closest haulout (log pond
and pier) to this project area were completed by Western Washington
University students from 2017 to 2021. During that period an average of
7.7 seals per day were on the haulout during the month of August.
August was the month with the highest average daily count of harbor
seals compared to the rest of the year.

Marine Mammal Hearing

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal
hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65-
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 3.

Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).

[[Page 65959]]

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat

This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components
of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat.
The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals
and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Description of Sounds Sources

The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many
sources both near and far. The sound level of an area is defined by the
total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources.
These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind, precipitation,
earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds produced
by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound
(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10 to 20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile
removal. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two
general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds
(e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are
typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist
of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI,
1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g.,
aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or
tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically
do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that
impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018). The
distinction between these two sound types is important because they
have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 and Southall, et al. 2007).
Two types of pile hammers would be used on this project: impact and
vibratory. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston
onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by
impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak
levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper,
2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing
the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory
hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak
sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are
generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile
driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman, et al., 2009). Rise time is
slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound
energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and
Edwards, 2002; Carlson, et al., 2005).
The likely or possible impacts of the Port of Bellingham's proposed
activity on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic
stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors include the physical
presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine
mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.

Auditory Effects

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic
environment from pile driving and removal is the primary means by which
marine mammals may be harassed from the Port of Bellingham's specified
activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound
may experience physical and behavioral effects, ranging in magnitude
from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007 and Southall et al. 2021).
Exposure to pile driving noise has the potential to result in auditory
threshold shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary
cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior).
Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to

[[Page 65960]]

non-observable physiological responses such an increase in stress
hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask
acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such
as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile
driving noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors,
including, but not limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. non-
impulsive), the species, age and sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mom
with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the
animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous
history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007).
Here we discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts) followed
by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change,
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent
or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors
to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-
impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough
duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the
TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and
spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold
shift approximates PTS onset (Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960;
Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et
al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the
exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor
seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS
in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical
reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels
inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--A temporary, reversible increase
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements
(Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum
threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-
session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et
al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran
(2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases
with cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating
fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is
typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures
with higher higher SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and
approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena
asiaeorientalis)) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained
spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to
impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset
(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises
have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species
(Finneran, 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data
come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data
are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For
summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of
TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018).
Installing piles requires a combination of impact pile driving and
vibratory pile driving. For the project, these activities would not
occur at the same time and there would likely be pauses in activities
producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and that many
marine mammals are likely moving through the action area and not
remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

Behavioral Effects

Exposure to noise from pile driving and removal also has the
potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Available studies
show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is
difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular
instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine
mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its
behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are
unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or
population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an
important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on
individuals and populations could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005, Southall et al., 2021).
Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw
clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out

[[Page 65961]]

time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006).
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific
and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors
(e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity,
reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the
interplay between factors (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et
al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al.,
2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but
also within exposures of an individual, depending on previous
experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors
(Ellison et al., 2012, Southall et al., 2021), and can vary depending
on characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source).
In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans,
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial
sound than most cetaceans. For a review of studies involving marine
mammal behavioral responses to sound, see Southall et al., 2007; Gomez
et al., 2016; and Southall et al., 2021 reviews.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.,
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al.,
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small
compared to the available habitat in the surrounding waters of the
Salish Sea.
In 2017, the U.S. Navy documented observations of marine mammals
during construction activities (i.e., pile driving) at the U.S. Coast
Guard Air Station Sector Field Office, Port Angeles, Washington (81 FR
67985, October 3, 2016). This project was roughly 60 mi from the
proposed project cite and features that are very similar (i.e. a
shallow bay of the Salish Sea). In the marine mammal monitoring report
for that project (Northwest Environmental Consulting, 2018), 261 harbor
seals were observed within the behavioral disturbance zone during pile
driving or drilling (i.e., documented as Level B harassment take).
Twelve California sea lions and 2 Steller sea lions were observed
within the disturbance zone during pile driving activities. Six harbor
porpoise were sighted in the Level B harassment zone during
construction. No visible signs of disturbance were noted for any of
these species that were present in the harassment zones. Given the
similarities in activities and habitat and the fact the same species
are involved, we expect similar behavioral responses of marine mammals
to the specified activity. That is, disturbance, if any, is likely to
be temporary and localized (e.g., small area movements). Monitoring
reports from other recent pile driving projects have observed similar
behaviors.
Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked.
Bellingham Bay is home to a busy industrial ports as well as large
numbers small private vessels that transit the area on a regular basis;
therefore, background sound levels in the bay are already elevated.
Airborne Acoustic Effects--Pinnipeds that occur near the project
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving
and removal that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment,
depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are
not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in
harassment as defined under the MMPA.
Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise
levels exceeding the acoustic thresholds. We recognize that pinnipeds
in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in
behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most
likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to
those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance,
anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes
in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause
them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source.
However, these animals would previously have been ``taken'' because of
exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment
thresholds, which are in all cases larger than those associated with
airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is
already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore,
we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from
airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not
discussed further here.

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects

The Port of Bellingham's construction activities could have
localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat by increasing in-
water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality.
Construction activities are of short duration and would likely have
temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in
underwater sound. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat
(see masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey
in the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During pile
driving, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonifi

[[Page 65962]]

Bellingham Bay where both fish and mammals may occur and could affect
foraging success.
In-water pile driving and pile removal would also cause short-term
effects on water quality due to increased turbidity. Local currents are
anticipated to disburse suspended sediments produced by project
activities at moderate to rapid rates depending on tidal stage. The
Port of Bellingham would employ standard construction best management
practices (except for reduced Level A shutdown zones), thereby reducing
any impacts. Considering the nature and duration of the effects,
combined with the measures to reduce turbidity, the impact from
increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable.
Pile installation and removal may temporarily increase turbidity
resulting from suspended sediments. Any increases would be temporary,
localized, and minimal. The Port of Bellingham must comply with state
water quality standards during these operations by limiting the extent
of turbidity to the immediate project area. In general, turbidity
associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-ft radius
around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). Cetaceans are not expected to
enter the harbor and be close enough to the project pile driving areas
to experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds would likely be
transiting the area and could avoid localized areas of turbidity.
Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be
discountable to marine mammals. Furthermore, pile driving and removal
at the project site would not obstruct movements or migration of marine
mammals.

Effects on Prey

Construction activities would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory
pile driving) and impulsive (i.e. impact driving) sounds. Fish react to
sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency
sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes
in fish behavior and local distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005)
identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid
certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented
effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based on studies
in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects (e.g.,
Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Sound pulses
at received levels may cause noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson et
al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been
known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality.
Impacts on marine mammal prey (i.e., fish or invertebrates) of the
immediate area due to the acoustic disturbance are possible. The
duration of fish or invertebrate avoidance or other disruption of
behavioral patterns in this area after pile driving stops is unknown,
but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is
anticipated. Further, significantly large areas of fish and marine
mammal foraging habitat are available in the nearby vicinity in the
Salish Sea.
The duration of the construction activities is relatively short,
with pile driving and removal activities expected to take only 87 days.
Each day, construction would occur for no more than 12 hours during the
day and pile driving activities would be restricted to daylight hours.
The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the
project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. In
general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor
and temporary due to the short timeframe for the project.
Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have
the potential to adversely affect fish in the project area. Increased
turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate vicinity (on the order
of 10 ft (3 m) or less) of construction activities. However, suspended
sediments and particulates are expected to dissipate quickly within a
single tidal cycle. Given the limited area affected and high tidal
dilution rates any effects on fish are expected to be minor or
negligible. In addition, best management practices would be in effect,
which would limit the extent of turbidity to the immediate project
area.
In summary, given the relatively short daily duration of sound
associated with individual pile driving and events and the relatively
small areas being affected, pile driving activities associated with the
proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on
any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, we conclude
that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than
short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey
species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected
to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual
marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their
populations.

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers,'' and the negligible impact
determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the construction (i.e., pile driving) has the potential to result in
disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There
is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to
result, primarily for phocids. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for
other authorized species. The proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the
extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by
considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally
harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the
area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a
day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these
ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note
that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional
information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also
sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring results or average group
size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail
and present the proposed take estimates.

Acoustic Thresholds

NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be

[[Page 65963]]

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment--Though significantly driven by received level,
the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure
is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the
source or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-
mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced
to 1 micropascal (re 1 microPascal [mu]Pa)) for continuous (e.g.,
vibratory pile driving) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-
explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) or intermittent (e.g.,
scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take
estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected
to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood of
TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which
behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can
manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and
the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals
(conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in
behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.
The Port of Bellingham's proposed activity includes the use of
continuous (vibratory driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile
driving), and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa are applicable. Originally the applicant had recommended a RMS
SPL thresholds of 130 1 [mu]Pa to predict take by Level B harassment,
based on ambient sound measurements in Bassett et al. (2010). After
further review of measurements in the area, the mean underwater noise
levels was 117 re 1 [mu]Pa and, therefore, NMFS determined the 120 RMS
SPL threshold was more appropriate for calculating the level B
harassment zone.
Level A harassment--NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory
injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from
two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The Port
of Bellingham's proposed activity includes the use of (impact pile
driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and removal)
sources.
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance</a>.

Table 4--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.

Ensonified Area

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory
pile driving and removal). The maximum (underwater) area ensonified
above the thresholds for behavioral harassment referenced above is
11.66 km\2\ (7.25 mi\2\), and would consist of the majority of
Bellingham Bay (see Figure 10 in the IHA application). Additionally,
vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial activities in the
project area may contribute to elevated background noise levels which
may mask sounds produced by the project.
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography.

[[Page 65964]]

The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * Log<INF>10</INF> (R<INF>1</INF>/R<INF>2</INF>),

Where:

TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient
R<INF>1</INF> = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R<INF>2</INF> = the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement

This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which
is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface,
resulting in a 6-dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of
distance from the source (20 * log[range]). Cylindrical spreading
occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the
water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound
level for each doubling of distance from the source (10 * log[range]).
A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions, such
as the project site, where water increases with depth as the receiver
moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation
environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading
loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is assumed here.
The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by
factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical
environment in which the activity takes place. In order to calculate
the distances to the Level A harassment and the Level B harassment
sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in this project,
NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop
proxy source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods. The
project includes vibratory and impact pile installation of steel and
timber piles and vibratory removal of steel and timber piles. Pile
sizes range from 14-in to 24-in, and the applicant has decided to
implement mitigation and monitoring measures and take estimates
associated with 24-in. piles for all pile types and sizes. Source
levels for the 24-in. pile size and driving methods are presented in
Table 5. The source levels for vibratory and impact installation of 24-
in. steel piles are based on the averaged source level of the same type
of pile reported by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
in pile driving source level compendium documents (Caltrans, 2015,
2020).

Table 5--Proxy Sound Source Levels for Pile Sizes and Driving Methods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proxy source level
------------------------------------------------
Pile size Method dB SEL re Literature source
dB RMS re 1[micro]Pa dB peak re
1[micro]Pa \2\sec 1[micro]Pa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 in.................................... Vibratory.................. 166 N/A N/A Caltrans 2020.
24 in.................................... Impact..................... 190 174 203 Caltrans 2015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more
technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a
duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User
Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used
to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in
conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict
potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate
that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of
potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool
offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For
stationary sources such as impact or vibratory pile driving and
removal, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at
which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of
the activity, it would be expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in the
optional User Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting estimated isopleths,
are reported below.
Although many different pile types and sizes are proposed to be
used during the construction project, the Port of Bellingham is
implementing mitigation and reporting measures and take estimates for
the 24-in. steel pipe piles. Use of this pile size results in the
largest Level A and Level B harassment zones and most conservative
mitigation measures. Therefore the only calculations the applicant ran
were using the 24-in. piles. The applicant also plans to limit the
number of impact strikes per day for all piles to 1,725 and the
vibratory install of all piles to 90 minutes per day and the vibratory
removal of all piles to 30 minutes per day.

Table 6--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating Level A Harassment Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting
Pile size and installation Spreadsheet tab factor Number of Number of Activity
method used adjustment strikes per piles per day duration
(kHz) pile (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in vibratory installation.. A.1 Vibratory 2.5 N/A 1 90
pile driving.
24-in vibratory removal....... A.1 Vibratory 2.5 N/A 1 30
pile driving.
24-in impact installation..... E.1 Impact pile 2 1,725 1 N/A
driving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65965]]

Table 7--Calculated Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment zone (m) Level B
Activity --------------------------------------------------------- harassment zone
HF-cetaceans Phocids Otariids (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in vibratory installation........ 29 12 1 11,659
24-in vibratory removal (temporary). 14 6 1
24-in impact installation (1 pile 430 193 14 25
per day; 1,725 strikes per pile)...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Mammal Occurrence

In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which
will inform the take calculations.
When available, peer-reviewed scientific publications were used to
estimate marine mammal abundance in the project area. Some data from
monitoring reports from previous projects near Bellingham Bay were
used. However, scientific surveys and resulting data, such as
population estimates, densities, and other quantitative information,
are lacking for some marine mammal populations. Therefore, the
applicant gathered qualitative information from discussions with
knowledgeable local people in the Bellingham Bay area.
Here we describe how the information provided is synthesized to
produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely
to occur and proposed for authorization. Since reliable densities are
not available, the applicant requests take based on the maximum number
of animals that may occur in the harbor in a specified measure of time
multiplied by the total duration of the activity.

Harbor Porpoise

The applicant did not initially request take of harbor porpoise for
this project. Harbor porpoises are known to be an inconspicuous species
and are challenging for protected species observers (PSOs) to sight,
making any approach to a specific area potentially difficult to detect.
Because harbor porpoises move quickly and elusively, it is possible
that they may enter the Level B harassment zone during vibratory pile
driving and removal. NMFS reviewed monitoring data from the 2017 U.S.
Navy construction project at the Coast Guard Air Station in Port
Angeles, Washington in order to determine a take estimate for harbor
porpoise.
During that project the Level B harassment zone was 13.6 km (8.6
mi) which could only partially be observed by monitors during the
project. Therefore, take estimates were extrapolated from the
observations to account for unobserved area where take may have
occurred. It was assumed that 87 takes by Level B harassment may have
occurred in the unobserved area, for a total of 93 takes during the
project. Given 93 total takes it was expected that 3 harbor porpoise
were taken per day during the construction project (Northwest
Environmental Consulting, 2018). Thus, NMFS recommended 3 animals per
day for a total of 261 takes by Level B harassment.
The largest Level A harassment zone results from impact driving of
24-in piles, and extends 430 m from the source for high frequency
cetaceans (Table 7). The Port of Bellingham would implement a shutdown
zone for harbor porpoises that encompasses the largest Level A
harassment zone (see Proposed Mitigation section). Although harbor
porpoises can be challenging to observe, given the relatively confined
and observable ensonified area combined with the fact that harbor
porpoises are generally considered more likely than some other species
to avoid louder areas of higher activity, takes by Level A harassment
has not been proposed to be authorized.

California Sea Lion

California sea lions are infrequent visitors to Bellingham Bay. It
is expected that the occasional presence of California sea lions would
occur during the fall and winter following forage (fish runs) into the
bay. Based on anecdotal evidence from port staff sightings, the
applicants estimated that one California sea lion per day may enter the
Level B harassment zone during vibratory pile driving and removal. The
total number of takes by Level B harassment would be 87 California sea
lions.
The largest Level A harassment zone for otariid pinnipeds extends
14 m from the source (Table 7). The Port of Bellingham is planning to
implement larger shutdown zones than the Level A harassment zones
during all pile installation and removal activities (see Proposed
Mitigation section), which is expected to eliminate the potential for
take by Level A harassment of California sea lions. Therefore, no takes
of California sea lions by Level A harassment were requested or are
proposed to be authorized.

Steller Sea Lions

Steller sea lions from the eastern DPS, are also rare visitors to
Bellingham Bay that typically occur during the fall and winter
following prey into the bay. Based on anecdotal evidence from port
staff sightings, the applicants estimated that one Steller sea lion per
day may enter the Level B harassment zone during vibratory pile driving
and removal. The total number of takes by Level B harassment would be
87 Steller sea lions.
Similar to California sea lions, the largest Level A harassment
zone for otariid pinnipeds extends 14 m from the source (Table 7). The
Port of Bellingham is planning to implement larger shutdown zones than
the Level A harassment zones during all pile installation and removal
activities (see Proposed Mitigation section), which is expected to
eliminate the potential for take by Level A harassment of Steller sea
lions. Therefore, no takes of Steller sea lions by Level A harassment
were requested or are proposed to be authorized.

Harbor Seal

The applicant originally estimated that up to 15 harbor seals per
day could be taken by Level A harassment during impact driving and 20
harbor seals per day could be taken by Level B harassment during
vibratory pile driving and removal. The applicant expected to take 275
harbor seals by Level A harassment and 2,000 seals by Level B
harassment.
After further analysis of the survey data provided by the applicant
the NMFS recommended a daily rate of 7.7 harbor seals per day in the
project area per haulout. The Level B harassment zone encompasses three
haulouts and it is expected that roughly the same amount of seals
haulout at each location per day. It is expected that up to 23 harbor
seals per day could be present in the Level B harassment zone during
vibratory pile driving and removal.

[[Page 65966]]

Therefore, NMFS expects that 2,029 harbor seal takes by Level B
harassment over the course of constructions.
The largest Level A harassment zone for phocid pinnipeds extends
193 m from the source (Table 7). The Port of Bellingham expressed
concern with the ability to complete work in an efficient manner with
the common occurence of harbor seals in the project area. The applicant
and NMFS agreed on the implementation of a 50 m shutdown zone in order
to shutdown for those animals closest to the pile driving activity but
allow for pile driving to continue for animals that may beyond 50 m
(see Proposed Mitigation section). It is expected that 7.7 harbor seals
per day may be subject to Level A harassment during 17 days of impact
pile driving for a total of 264 takes by Level A harassment.

Table 8--Estimated Take by Level A and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed take
Common name Stock Stock Level A Level B Total proposed as percentage
abundance \a\ take of stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise........................... Washington Inland Waters.... 11,233 0 261 261 2.3
Steller sea lion.......................... Eastern U.S................. 43,201 0 87 87 .2
California sea lion....................... U.S......................... 257,606 0 87 87 <0.1
Harbor seal............................... Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage. \b\ 7,513 264 2,029 3,050 30.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Stock or DPS size is Nbest according to NMFS 2022 Final Stock Assessment Reports.
\b\ Stock abundance estimate derived from Jefferson et al. 2021.

Proposed Mitigation

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species. NMFS regulations require applicants
for incidental take authorizations to include information about the
availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment,
methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected
species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations.
The following measures would apply to the Port of Bellingham's
mitigation requirements:
Implementation of Shutdown Zones for Level A Harassment--For all
pile driving/removal activities, the Port of Bellingham would implement
shutdowns within designated zones. The purpose of a shutdown zone is
generally to define an area within which shutdown of activity would
occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area). Implementation of shutdowns would be used
to avoid or minimize incidental Level A harassment exposures from
vibratory and impact pile driving for all four species for which take
may occur (see Table 8). Shutdown zones for impact and vibratory pile
driving activities are based on the Level A harassment zones for the
24-in steel piles, strikes (impact) or duration (vibratory) per day,
and marine mammal hearing group (Table 9). The shutdown zone for harbor
seals during impact pile driving is less that the Level A harassment
zone in order to facilitate efficient work operations during the
project. The placement of PSOs during all pile driving activities
(described in detail in the Monitoring and Reporting Section) would
ensure the full extent of shutdown zones are visible to PSOs.

Table 9--Shutdown Zones During Pile Installation and Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zones (m)
Activity --------------------------------------------------------
HF cetaceans Phocids Otariids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory installation (90 minutes).................... 30 20 10
Vibratory removal (30 minutes)......................... 20 10 10
Impact installation (1,725 strikes).................... 430 50 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishment of Monitoring Zones--The Port of Bellingham has
identified monitoring zones that would be in effect for all pile
driving activities. Vibratory installation and removal is expected to
occur on all day of construction and the zone for 24-in steel piles
would be implemented at all times (Table 10) Monitoring zones provide
utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for areas
adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers to be
aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project
area outside the

[[Page 65967]]

shutdown zone and thus prepare for a potential cease of activity should
the animal enter the shutdown zone. PSOs would monitor the entire
visible area to maintain the best sense of where animals are moving
relative to the zone boundaries defined in Tables 9 and 10. Placement
of PSOs on the Port of Bellingham facility or in a small boat in the
Bellingham Bay would allow PSOs to observe marine mammals within and
near the bay.

Table 10--Marine Mammal Monitoring Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring zone
Activity (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in vibratory installation and removal............... 11,660
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soft Start--The use of soft-start procedures are believed to
provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning
and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors
would be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer
at reduced energy, with each strike followed by a 30-second waiting
period. This procedure would be conducted a total of three times before
impact pile driving begins. Soft start would be implemented at the
start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following
cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
Soft start is not required during vibratory pile driving and removal
activities.
Pre-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/removal of
30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs would observe the shutdown and
monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone would be
considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within
the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal
has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes. If the
monitoring zone has been observed for 30 minutes and marine mammals are
not present within the zone, soft-start procedures can commence and
work can continue. When a marine mammal permitted for take by Level B
harassment is present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may
begin. No work may begin unless the entire shutdown zone is visible to
the PSOs. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity
monitoring of both the monitoring zone and shutdown zone would
commence.
Bubble Curtain--A bubble curtain would be employed during impact
installation or proofing of steel piles. A noise attenuation device
would not be required during vibratory pile driving. If a bubble
curtain or similar measure is used, it would distribute air bubbles
around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the
water column. Any other attenuation measure would be required to
provide 100 percent coverage in the water column for the full depth of
the pile. The lowest bubble ring would be in contact with the mudline
for the full circumference of the ring. The weights attached to the
bottom ring would ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the
ring or other objects would prevent full mudline contact.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while
conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
<bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
<bullet> Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the activity; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
<bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
<bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
<bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and,
<bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring

Monitoring shall be conducted by NMFS-approved observers in
accordance with section 13.2 of the application. Trained observers
shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor
for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when
applicable through communication with the equipment operator. Observer
training must be provided prior to project start, and shall include
instruction on species identification (sufficient to distinguish the
species in the project area), description and categorization of
observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors that may be
construed as being reactions to the specified activity, proper
completion of data forms, and other basic components of biological
monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups of animals
such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to individuals (to
the extent possible).
Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after pile driving/removal activities. In addition, observers
shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of
distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving/
removal activities include the time to install or remove a single pile
or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the
pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.

[[Page 65968]]

A minimum of one PSO would be on duty during impact pile driving
activities and a minimum of two PSOs during vibratory installation/
removal. Locations from which PSOs would be able to monitor for marine
mammals are readily available from the Port of Bellingham property and,
if necessary, on small boats in Bellingham Bay. PSOs would monitor for
marine mammals entering the Level B harassment zones; the position(s)
may vary based on construction activity and location of piles or
equipment.
PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars and would use a
handheld range-finder device to verify the distance to each sighting
from the project site. All PSOs would be trained in marine mammal
identification and behaviors and are required to have no other project-
related tasks while conducting monitoring. In addition, monitoring
would be conducted by qualified observers, who would be placed at the
best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and
implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the
shutdown to the hammer operator via a radio. The Port of Bellingham
would adhere to the following observer qualifications:
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required;
(ii) One PSO would be designated as the lead PSO or monitoring
coordinator and that observer must have prior experience working as an
observer;
(iii) Other observers may substitute education (degree in
biological science or related field) or training for experience; and
(iv) The applicant must submit observer Curriculum Vitaes for
approval by NMFS.
Additional standard observer qualifications include:
<bullet> Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
<bullet> Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
<bullet> Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
<bullet> Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
<bullet> Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.

Reporting

A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal
activities. It would include an overall description of work completed,
a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
<bullet> Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring.
<bullet> Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including the number and type of piles driven or
removed and by what method (i.e., impact driving) and the total
equipment duration for cutting for each pile or total number of strikes
for each pile (impact driving).
<bullet> PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.
<bullet> Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant
weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall
visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
<bullet> Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following
information: Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and
activity at time of sighting; Time of sighting; Identification of the
animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or
unidentified), PSO confidence in identification, and the composition of
the group if there is a mix of species; Distance and bearing of each
marine mammal observed relative to the pile being driven for each
sighting (if pile driving was occurring at time of sighting); Estimated
number of animals (min/max/best estimate); Estimated number of animals
by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.);
Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the
harassment zone; Description of any marine mammal behavioral
observations (e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling),
including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have
resulted from the activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral
state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or
breaching);
<bullet> Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment
zones, by species.
<bullet> Detailed information about any implementation of any
mitigation triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of
specific actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report would constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments.

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA
(if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, the Port
of Bellingham would immediately cease the specified activities and
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the following
information:
<bullet> Description of the incident;
<bullet> Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state,
visibility);
<bullet> Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
<bullet> Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
<bullet> Fate of the animal(s); and
<bullet> Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the Port of
Bellingham to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The Port of
Bellingham would not be able to resume their activities until notified
by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the Port of Bellingham discovers an injured or
dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the
injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in
less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next
paragraph), the Port of Bellingham would immediately report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2575770b6c71750b684a4b4c514a574c4b427740554a575156654b4a44440b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="277775096e7377096a48494e5348554e494075425748555354674948464609404851">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>), NMFS and to the West Coast Region
regional stranding coordinator as soon

[[Page 65969]]

as feasible. The report would include the same information identified
in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with the
Port of Bellingham to determine whether modifications in the activities
are appropriate.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We
also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 4033;
September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of
the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in Table 8, given that many of the anticipated
effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected
to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in
anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take
on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts
on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Pile driving and removal activities associated with the project as
outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine
mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in
the form of Level A harassment and Level B harassment from underwater
sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could
occur if individuals of these species are present in zones ensonified
above the thresholds for Level A or Level B harassment identified above
when these activities are underway.
Take by Level A and Level B harassment would be due to potential
behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed for authorization given the nature of the
activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to
marine mammals. Take by Level A harassment is only anticipated for
harbor seal. The potential for harassment is minimized through the
construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation
measures (see Proposed Mitigation section).
Based on reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other
similar activities, behavioral disturbance (i.e., Level B harassment)
would likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds,
increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were
occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; HDR, Inc., 2012; Lerma,
2014; ABR, 2016). Most likely for pile driving, individuals would
simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced
from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been
observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving. The
pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful
than, numerous other construction activities conducted in Washington,
which have taken place with no observed severe responses of any
individuals or known long-term adverse consequences. Level B harassment
would be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact
through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound
produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are
likely to simply avoid the area while the activity is occurring. While
vibratory driving associated with the proposed project may produce
sound at distances of many kilometers from the project site, thus
overlapping with some likely less-disturbed habitat, the project site
itself is located in a busy harbor and the majority of sound fields
produced by the specified activities are close to the harbor. Animals
disturbed by project sound would be expected to avoid the area and use
nearby higher-quality habitats.
In addition to the expected effects resulting from authorized Level
B harassment, we anticipate that harbor seals may sustain some limited
Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury. However, animals in
these locations that experience PTS would likely only receive slight
PTS, i.e., minor degradation of hearing capabilities within regions of
hearing that align most completely with the energy produced by pile
driving, i.e., the low-frequency region below 2 kHz, not severe hearing
impairment or impairment in the regions of greatest hearing
sensitivity. If hearing impairment occurs, it is most likely that the
affected animal would lose a few decibels in its hearing sensitivity,
which in most cases is not likely to meaningfully affect its ability to
forage and communicate with conspecifics. As described above, we expect
that marine mammals would be likely to move away from a sound source
that represents an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would
be expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice through use of
soft start.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities
would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant
amount of time. The activities may cause some fish or invertebrates to
leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine
mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging
range; but, because of the short duration of the activities, the
relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, and the
availability of nearby habitat of similar or higher value, the impacts
to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-
term negative consequences.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species
or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
<bullet> No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
<bullet> Any Level A harassment exposures (i.e., to harbor seals,
only) are anticipated to result in slight PTS (i.e., of a few
decibels), within the lower frequencies associated with pile driving;
<bullet> The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment would
consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior

[[Page 65970]]

that would not result in fitness impacts to individuals;
<bullet> The ensonifed areas from the project is very small
relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks
<bullet> or any other areas of known biological importance; with
the exception of three haulout locations in Bellingham Bay that would
be affected by the project. Currently those haulout locations are not
known to be pupping locations for harbor seals but are important areas
throughout the year. Harbor seals at these haulouts would likely result
in repeated exposure of the same animals. Repeated exposures of
individuals to this pile driving activity could cause Level A and Level
B harassment but are unlikely to considerably disrupt foraging behavior
or result in significant decrease in fitness, reproduction, or survival
for the affected individuals. In all, there would be no adverse impacts
to the stock as a whole.
<bullet> The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce
the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable
adverse impact.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals
may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Table 8 demonstrates the number of instances in which individuals
of a given species could be exposed to receive noise levels that could
cause Level A and Level B harassment for the proposed work in
Bellingham Bay. Our analysis shows that less than 3 percent of all but
one stock could be taken by harassment, and less than 30 percent of
harbor seals, noting that the percentage of individual harbor seals is
likely notably lower because some portion of the estimated instances of
take are expected to represent repeated takes of the same individuals
on multiple days. The numbers of animals proposed to be taken for these
stocks would be considered small relative to the relevant stock's
abundances, even if each estimated taking occurred to a new
individual--an extremely unlikely scenario.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population
size of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action
it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical
habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS
consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is
not required for this action.

Proposed Authorization

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to The Port of Bellingham for conducting pile driving at
the Port of Bellingham from one year of the date of issuance, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found
at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities</a>.

Request for Public Comments

We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed pile
driving by the Port of Bellingham. We also request comment on the
potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph
below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this
IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal
IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly
identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activity section of this notice is planned, or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
<bullet> A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration
of the initial IHA).
<bullet> The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS

[[Page 65971]]

determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

Dated: September 20, 2023.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-20752 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 26, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.