Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-12160

Notice2024-12160

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ferndale Pier Maintenance Activities in Ferndale, Washington

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

June 4, 2024

Issuing agencies

Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Abstract

NMFS has received a request from Petrogas Pacific, LLC (Petrogas) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Ferndale Pier Maintenance Activities in Ferndale, Washington. 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 89 Issue 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47903-47921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD943]

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ferndale Pier Maintenance
Activities in Ferndale, Washington

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 Petrogas Pacific, LLC
(Petrogas) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to
Ferndale Pier Maintenance Activities in Ferndale, Washington. 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 July 5,
2024.

[[Page 47904]]

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#d8918c88f688b9adb4b1b6bd98b6b7b9b9f6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1e8f5f18ff1c0d4cdc8cfc4e1cfcec0c08fc6ced7">[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 below.
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/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act</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: Robert Pauline, 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 monitoring and
reporting of the takings. 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 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 January 3, 2024 we received a request from Petrogas for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to Ferndale Pier Maintenance
Activities in Ferndale, Washington. Following NMFS' review of the
application, Petrogas submitted a revised version on March 26, 2024.
The application was deemed adequate and complete on April 25, 2024.
Petrogas has requested authorization of take by Level B harassment for
harbor seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion and harbor porpoise
and, for harbor seal and harbor porpoise only, take by Level A
harassment. Neither Petrogas nor NMFS expect serious injury or
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is
appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

Petrogas is proposing to remove the existing timber Pier that has
served as a loading facility since 1965 and replace it with a new
structure that meets current industry best practices. The activity
includes vibratory removal of existing timber piles and installation of
steel piles by both vibratory and impact driving. In-water construction
would occur for 17 days, which would occur intermittently between
August 1, 2024 and October 31, 2024. Take of marine mammals is
anticipated to occur due to vibratory pile removal as well as impact
and vibratory pile installation.

Dates and Duration

This IHA would be valid for 1 year from August 1, 2024 through July
31, 2025. Due to in-water work timing restrictions to protect
Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmonids, all planned in-water
construction is limited to a work window beginning August 1, 2024 and
ending February 1, 2025. However, since the Strait of Georgia is a very
large water body with a long fetch, calm in-water work conditions are
typically only available from August to the end of October. Therefore,
Petrogas expects that in-water construction work will occur from August
1, 2024 to October 31, 2024. Pile driving is anticipated to take up to
17 days to complete. Work may not occur on consecutive days due to
weather and other project needs. Pile driving would be completed
intermittently throughout daylight hours.

Specific Geographic Region

Petrogas maintains and operates a marine Pier on the southeastern
shoreline of the Strait of Georgia in Ferndale, Washington as shown in
figure 1. The Strait of Georgia encompasses the northern marine waters
of the Salish Sea, with a long fetch that extends to the northwest
between the Canadian mainland and Vancouver Island. The Pier is built
on aquatic lands leased from the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR). The shoreline and aquatic area surrounding the Pier
is part of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve, a WDNR protected marine
environment. The shore area is characterized by wave washed feeder
bluffs where sediment transport creates both sandy and cobbled beaches
and intertidal zones.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 47905]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04JN24.027

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Detailed Description of the Specified Activity

In-water construction activity is divided into three phases. The
first phase consists of the installation of piles, dolphin platform and
mooring system to replace the North Mooring Dolphin (NMD) deck and
catwalk. NMD installation involves driving 7, 30-in, 150-foot (ft)
steel piles via vibratory and impact driving, centered 25 ft (7.6
meters) to 50 ft (15.24 m) to the north of the old North Mooring
Dolphin. Piles will be driven to approximately 100 ft (30.48 m) of
penetration into the sea [fllig]oor. Pile driving time is estimated to
take 65 minutes per pile. The pile will be driven via vibratory driver
for the majority of the distance (approximately 25 minutes), then will
be driven and proofed via impact driver (approximately 40 minutes) to
ensure the pile meets the structural load design criteria. Two more
additional 30-in steel piles will be driven with the same methods for
the catwalk supports but to approximately 80 ft (24.38 m) of
penetration into the sea [fllig]oor. Pile driving will take 5-7 days
and pile driving time will not exceed 3 hours in any 24-hour period.
The next project phase is the removal of the old mooring dolphins.
Note that Petrogas is proposing to install the new NMD before removing
the old one in order to minimize facility downtime. Forty-seven
existing 16-in creosote-treated timber piles will be removed using a
vibratory driver, taking roughly 2 minutes per pile. If any existing
piles cannot be removed in this manner, they will be cut below the
mudline with an underwater chainsaw or cutting torch.
The final phase would be the removal of the alumina unloading
conveyor system dolphins. These are dolphins #7, #11 and #15. Dolphin
#7 is composed of 8 treated timber piles, while dolphins #11 and #15
are composed of 7 treated timber piles each. A total of 22 piles would
be removed. If vibratory removal is not feasible, they would also be
cut below the mudline with an underwater chainsaw or cutting torch.
Note that NMFS has determined that use of an underwater chainsaw or
cutting torch as described in the second and third phase is not
expected to result in take and, therefore, will not be not discussed
further.
A summary of the proposed pile removal and installation methods for
the pier project is presented below in table 1. Note that there will be
no more than a total of 3 hours combined of impact and vibratory
driving per day.

[[Page 47906]]

Table 1--Summary of In-Water Pile Removal and Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours pile
Location Pile type and size Activity Removal/ install Number of Total days of Piles per day driver in Impact strikes per
method piles install use pile
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Mooring Dolphin............ 30-inch steel pipe Install.............. Vibratory hammer.... 9 Up to 7............. 1.5................. 0.5 N/A.
pile.
North Mooring Dolphin............ 30-inch steel pipe Install.............. Impact Pile Driver.. 9 Up to 7............. 1.5................. 1.1 Up to 2000.
pile.
North Mooring Dolphin............ 16-inch timber piles Removal.............. Vibratory hammer.... 47 Up to 5............. Up to 10............ 1 N/A.
Conveyor System Dolphin Removal.. 16-inch timber piles Removal.............. Vibratory hammer.... 22 Up to 5............. Up to 10............ 1 N/A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. 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 exposure is expected
for this activity and summarizes information related to the population
or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and 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' Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the
most recent available at the time of publication (including from the
draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at: (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>).

Table 2--Species for Which Take Could Occur in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/ MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock Strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI3 \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Artiodactyla--Cetacea--Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback Whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Central America/ E, D, Y 1,494 (0.171, 1,284, 3.5 14.9
Southern Mexico--CA/OR/ 2021).
WA.
Humpback Whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Mainland Mexico--CA/OR/ T, D, Y 3,477 (0.101, 3,185, 43 22
WA. 2018).
Humpback Whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Hawaii................. -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 127 27.09
2020).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Killer Whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Eastern North Pacific E, D, Y 73 (N/A, 73, 2022).... 0.13 0
Southern Resident.
Killer Whale.................... Orcinus orca........... West Coast Transient... -, -, N 349 (N/A, 349, 2018).. 3.5 0.4
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 36,308 (N/A, 36,308, 2,178 93.2
2022).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):

[[Page 47907]]

Harbor Seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Washington Northern -, -, N 16,451 (0.07, 15,462, 928 40
Inland Waters. 2019).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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>).ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA
status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a
strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed
under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a
strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <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> assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range.

All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project
area are included in table 2 of the IHA application. While the gray
whale, minke whale, Dall's porpoise, and the Eastern North Pacific
Northern Resident stock of killer whale have been reported 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 gray whale is uncommon in the
area, but may pass through the Puget Sound during migration. Per the
population analysis on gray whales from 1996-2015, from June 1 to
November 30, there were only 6 days when sightings were recorded in the
Northern Puget Sound. The Northern Puget Sound refers to a study range
of the Puget Sound marine waters from Edmonds, WA to the Canadian
border (Calambokidis, 2017). Additionally, gray whales would not be
migrating when in-water work would most likely occur for this project
(i.e., August through October). Therefore, since the occurrence of the
gray whale is low at any time of year, and no gray whales are expected
to occur during the expected work period, take of this species is not
expected. While the minke whale may be observed in the San Juan Islands
and southern Puget Sound, reports of minke whales in the Southeastern
Strait of Georgia are rare. The Dall's porpoise has historically been
present in the Puget Sound, but their numbers have declined
significantly and are now also considered to be rare (Evenson 2016,
Jefferson et al., 2016, Jefferson 2024). Finally, while the Eastern
North Pacific Northern Resident stock of killer whale may occur
infrequently in Washington, its primary range is located in British
Columbia, Canada, and Southeast Alaska up through Alaska (Dahlheim et
al., 1997, Ford et al., 2000), and no take of this stock is expected to
occur.

Humpback Whale

Humpback whales are found in coastal waters of Washington as they
migrate from feeding grounds in Alaska to California to winter breeding
grounds in Mexico. Humpbacks used to be considered only rare visitors
to Puget Sound. In 1976 and 1978, two sightings were reported in Puget
Sound and one sighting was reported in 1986 (Osborne et al., 1988;
Calambokidis and Steiger 1990; Calambokidis and Baird 1994). Humpback
whale occurrence in Puget Sound has been steadily increasing since
2000, with some individuals remaining in the area through the winter
(Calambokidis et al., 2018).
On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the once single species into 14
distinct population segments (DPS) under the ESA, removed the species-
level listing as endangered, and, in its place, listed four DPSs as
endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016).
The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. There are four DPSs in the
North Pacific, including Western North Pacific and Central America,
which are listed as endangered, Mexico, which is listed as threatened,
and Hawaii, which is not listed.
The 2022 Pacific SARs described a revised stock structure for
humpback whales which modifies the previous stocks designated under the
MMPA to align more closely with the ESA-designated DPSs (Caretta et
al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). Specifically, the three previous North
Pacific humpback whale stocks (Central and Western North Pacific stocks
and a CA/OR/WA stock) were replaced by five stocks, largely
corresponding with the ESA-designated DPSs. These include Western North
Pacific and Hawaii stocks and a Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/
WA stock (which corresponds with the Central America DPS). The
remaining two stocks, corresponding with the Mexico DPS, are the
Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mexico-North Pacific stocks (Caretta et
al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). The former stock is expected to occur
along the west coast from California to southern British Columbia,
while the latter stock may occur across the Pacific, from northern
British Columbia through the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands/Bering
Sea region to Russia.
Within U.S. west coast waters, three current DPSs may occur: The
Hawaii DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central America
DPS (endangered). According to Wade et al. (2021), the probability that
whales encountered in Washington waters are from a given DPS are as
follows: Hawaii, 69 percent; Mexico (CA-OR-WA), 25 percent; Central
America, 6 percent.
Humpback whales, while relatively few in number, are regularly seen
in the Puget Sound. They are most frequently found in the South Puget
Sound, the Strait of Juan De Fuca, the Haro Strait and among the
Canadian Gulf Islands. They are found in transit in the southern parts
of the Strait of Georgia on occasion, but are not a common occurrence
per the sightings archive of the Orca Network.

Killer Whale

There are three distinct ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales
recognized in the north Pacific: resident, transient, and offshore. The
three ecotypes differ morphologically, ecologically, behaviorally, and
genetically. Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW) exclusively prey
upon fish, with a clear preference for salmon (Ford and Ellis 2006;
Hanson et al., 2010; Ford et al., 2016), while transient killer whales
exclusively prey upon marine mammals (Caretta et al., 2019). Less is
known about offshore killer whales, but they are believed to consume
primarily fish, including several species of shark (Dahlheim et al.,
2008). The seasonal movements of transients are largely unpredictable,
although there is a tendency to investigate harbor seal

[[Page 47908]]

haulouts off Vancouver Island more frequently during the pupping season
in August and September (Baird 1994; Ford 2014). Transient killer
whales have been observed in central Puget Sound in all months (Orca
Network 2021).
SRKWs are typically found in the Salish Sea spring, summer and
fall, and are found along the west coast of the United States and
British Columbia in the winter (NOAA, 2022). The J pod tends to stay
closer to the Puget Sound even during winter. The orca pods travel
about the Puget Sound swiftly and, though a rare occurrence, the pods
may pass through in the project area. ESA summer core area critical
habitat for SRKW has been designated in Puget Sound, which includes all
U.S. marine waters in Whatcom County, WA, where Ferndale Pier is
located (50 CFR 226; August 2, 2021).

Harbor Porpoise

Harbor porpoise occur along the U.S. west coast from southern
California to the Bering Sea (Carretta et al., 2020). The Washington
Inland Waters stock is found from Cape Flattery throughout Puget Sound
and the Salish Sea region. In southern Puget Sound, harbor porpoise
were common in the 1940s, but marine mammal surveys, stranding records
since the early 1970s, and harbor porpoise surveys in the early 1990's
indicated that harbor porpoise abundance had declined (Carretta et al.,
2020). 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 (Carretta et
al., 2020). Seasonal surveys conducted in spring, summer, and fall
2013-2015 in Puget Sound and Hood Canal documented substantial numbers
of harbor porpoise in Puget Sound. Observed porpoise numbers were twice
as high in spring as in fall or summer, indicating a seasonal shift in
distribution.
Harbor porpoise reside in the Puget Sound year-round. Data from
harbor porpoise sightings indicate that distribution is heterogeneous
with some areas consistently suggesting higher densities of harbor
porpoise. The British Columbia Cetacean Sightings Network (BCCSN)
reports summer concentrations in areas that include the South-Central
Strait of Georgia (Canadian side), Haro Strait, Boundary Pass and sites
further north in British Columbia. Winter concentrations include the
Port of San Juan, Haro Strait, Swanson Channel, and the central Strait
of Georgia (in British Columbia) (Zier, 2015).

California Sea Lion

California sea lions occur from Vancouver Island, British Columbia,
to the southern tip of Baja California. They breed on the offshore
islands of southern and central California from May through July (Heath
and Perrin, 2008). During the non-breeding season, adult and subadult
males and juveniles migrate northward along the coast to central and
northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island
(Jefferson et al., 1993). They return south the following spring (Heath
and Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney, 2005). Females and some juveniles
tend to remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et al., 1990; Melin et
al., 2008).
California sea lions regularly occur on rocks, buoys and other
structures and is the most frequently sighted otariid found in
Washington waters. Some 3,000 to 5,000 animals are estimated to move
into Pacific Northwest waters of Washington and British Columbia during
the fall (September) and remain until the late spring (May) when most
return to breeding rookeries in California and Mexico (Jeffries et al.,
2000). Peak counts of over 1,000 animals have been made in Puget Sound
(Jeffries et al., 2000).
There are no known haulouts in close proximity to the proposed
project area but California sea lions may be in the vicinity foraging
as they move through the wider area. While California sea lions can be
found throughout the Puget Sound, estimates place the number of
California sea lions in the springtime at an average of 450 in the
Puget Sound proper (Jefferson, et al., 2023). There are two documented
haulouts in the southern Strait of Georgia, both along the western
coast of the Strait of Georgia in British Columbia, Canada. The closest
haulout is near Tumbo Island on the eastern edge of the Gulf Islands,
over 15 miles from the project site (LeValley, E., 2021).

Steller Sea Lion

Steller sea lions in the project area are expected to be from the
Eastern U.S. stock. The Eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lions is
found along the coasts of southeast Alaska to northern California where
they occur at rookeries and numerous haulout locations along the
coastline (Jeffries et al., 2000; Scordino, 2006; NMFS, 2013).
The eastern DPS and MMPA stock is the only population of Steller's
sea lions thought to occur in the project area. In Washington waters,
numbers decline during the summer months, which correspond to the
breeding season at Oregon and British Columbia rookeries (approximately
late May to early June) and peak during the fall and winter month.
The majority of Steller sea lion population in Washington is found
on the west coast but there are consistently used haulouts and breeding
sites throughout the Puget Sound. These sites are typically rocky,
gravel or sand beaches, ledges and reefs. There are two documented
haulouts in the southern Strait of Georgia. The first is near Tumbo
Island on the eastern edge of the Gulf Islands in British Columbia,
Canada, (west coast of the Strait of Georgia), approximately 15 miles
from the project area. The second is on Sucia Island (LeValley, E.
2021), approximately 10 miles distant from the project area, at the
southern end of the Strait of Georgia.

Harbor Seal

Harbor seals are the most common, widely distributed marine mammal
found in Washington marine waters and are frequently observed in the
nearshore marine environment. They occur year-round and breed in
Washington. They are frequently found in saltwater bays, estuaries and
inlets. Their preferred haulouts include intertidal and subtidal rocks,
beaches, sandbars, rocky reefs, log booms and floats.
There are 3 delineated stocks in the Puget Sound. These stocks
include the Hood Canal stock, the Northern Inland Waters stock and the
Southern Puget Sound stock.
This project is only likely to affect the Northern Inland Waters
Stock, which is the most wide-spread stock throughout the Puget Sound,
from Cape Flattery, to the Strait of Georgia, to the Tacoma Narrows
Bridge (NOAA, 2022). Haulouts may be just a few individuals but may
range beyond 500 individuals. Harbor seals generally live and feed in a
limited range but may travel up to 400 miles for seasonal prey. The
Strait of Georgia is a very large body of water with no haulouts in the
immediate vicinity of the project. The closest documented haulouts are
two different low population (>100 individuals) locations approximately
5 miles from the project site, one to the north and one to the south
(Jeffries et al., 2000). To the southwest and west of the project
location are 14 other haulouts dotted throughout a few of the small
northern San Juan Islands (North of Orcas Island) within 10 miles of
the project (Jeffries et al., 2000).

Marine Mammal Hearing

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to

[[Page 47909]]

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 (dolphins, 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
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).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
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 et al.,
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 Sound 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., 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

[[Page 47910]]

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 activity proposed by Petrogas 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 Petrogas 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, 2021). Exposure to pile driving
noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts (TS) and
behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging
and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic
noise can also lead to 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 (TSs)
followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced 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 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

[[Page 47911]]

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 harassment--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 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 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.
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.
Ferndale Pier receives 150 tanker ships per year plus additional
tugboats. Approximately 3,000 ships travel through the Strait of
Georgia to visit Vancouver. Therefore, background sound levels in the
project area are likely already elevated.

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects

The proposed Petrogas construction activities could have localized,
temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat by increasing in-water SPLs
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 ensonify waters around the Pier 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.
Petrogas would employ standard construction best management practices,
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. Petrogas 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-feet (ft) radius around
the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). Cetaceans are not expected to 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

[[Page 47912]]

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 waters.
The duration of the construction activities is relatively short,
with pile driving and removal activities expected to take only 17 days.
There will be no more than a total of 3 hours combined impact and
vibratory driving per 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 meters (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 the IHA, which will inform NMFS'
consideration of ``small numbers,'' the negligible impact
determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
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 acoustic stressors (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 high frequency species (harbor
porpoise) and phocids (harbor seal). Auditory injury is unlikely to
occur for other species due to PTS zone sizes. 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 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 [mu]Pa)) for continuous

[[Page 47913]]

(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB (re 1
[mu]Pa) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) 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 Petrogas proposed activity includes the use of continuous
(vibratory driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile driving)
sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa are applicable.
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
Petrogas proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile
driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and removal)
sources.
These thresholds are provided in the table 4 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 TL 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). 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.
TL is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure
wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency,
temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water
depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The
general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * 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

[[Page 47914]]

installation of 30-in steel piles and vibratory removal of 16-in timber
piles. Source levels for the various pile sizes and driving methods are
presented in table 5. Bubble curtains would be employed during all
impact driving, with an assumed 5 dB effective attenuation (Caltrans
2020).

Table 5--Proxy Sound Source Levels for Pile Sizes and Driving Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise level \1\ Distance from
Equipment used ------------------------------------------------ measurement
dB Peak dB rms dB SEL (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact pile driving 30-inch steel piles \2\..... 210 190 177 10 m
Vibratory pile driving 30-inch steel piles \3\.. 196 159 .............. 10 m
Vibratory pile driver pulling 16-inch timber .............. 162 .............. 10 m
piles \3\......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SL values shown do not include -5 dB attenuation for bubble curtain usage. The -5 dB correction for
attenuation was applied to determine harassment isopleths (Table 7).
\2\ Caltrans 2015.
\3\ Caltrans 2020.

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 for impact
driving in the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting
estimated isopleths, are reported below in table 6 and table 7 below.

Table 6--User Spreadsheet Inputs for Level A Harassment Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-in steel impact 30-in steel vibratory 16-in timber vibratory
Inputs installation installation removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used E.1) Impact Pile
Driving (STATIONARY
SOURCE: Impulsive,
Intermittent A.1) Vibratory Pile Driving (STATIONARY: Non-
impulsive, Continuous)
-------------------------------------------------
Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL) 177 ....................... .......................
Peak................................. 210 ....................... .......................
RMS.................................. 190 159 162
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz).... 2 2.5 2.5
Strikes per pile..................... 2000 ....................... .......................
Piles Per day........................ 1.5 1.5 20
Propagation (xLogR).................. 15 15 15
Duration............................. ....................... 20 2
Distance of source level measurement 10 10 10
(meters)+...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7--Calculated Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths (m) and Ensonified Areas
(km\2\ in parentheses)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A pinnipeds Level A cetaceans
Pile size/type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level B
Harbor seal Sea lions LF MF HF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Installation
----------------------------------------------160 dB----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
threshold
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-in steel........................ 205.4 (0.139) 15 (0.001) 383.2 (0.463) 13.7 (0.001) 457.2 (0.665) 464.2 (0.679)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Installation/Removal \*\
----------------------------------------------120 dB----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
threshold
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber Piles................. 3.7 0.3 6.1 0.5 9.0 6,309.6 (62.5)
30-in steel........................ 1.9 0.1 3.2 0.3 4.7 3,981 (24.9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Level A harassment isopleths associated with vibratory installation/removal are all below the minimum shutdown zone and result in very small
ensonified areas. Therefore they are not provided in this table but will be included in the following calculated take tables.

[[Page 47915]]

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation

In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which
will inform the take calculations. The primary source for density
estimates is from the Navy Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD)
Phase III for the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area (Navy,
2019). Therefore, a lower value was used for harbor porpoise density.
These density estimates are shown in table 8 and will be used to
calculate take due to the lack of site-specific data that is available.
To quantitatively assess potential exposure of marine mammals to
noise levels from pile driving over the NMFS threshold guidance, the
following equation was first used to provide an estimate of potential
exposures within estimated harassment zones:

Exposure estimate = N x Level B harassment zone (km\2\) x maximum days
of pile driving

where

N = density estimate (animals per km\2\) used for each species.

Table 8--Marine Mammal Species Densities Used for Exposure Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (animals/
Species Region characterized km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale................ North Puget Sound/San 0.0027
Juan Islands (Fall
and Winter).
Killer Whale (Southern North Puget Sound/San 0.0078
Resident). Juan.
Islands (Fall and
Winter).
Killer Whale (Transient)...... North Puget Sound/San 0.0031
Juan Islands (Fall
and Winter).
Harbor Porpoise............... North Puget Sound..... 2.16
Steller Sea Lion.............. North Puget Sound/San 0.0027
Juan Islands (Fall).
California Sea Lion........... North Puget Sound/San 0.0179
Juan Islands (Fall).
Harbor Seal................... North Puget Sound/San 0.76
Juan Islands (Fall).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Navy 2019.

Table 9 below shows the total calculated take by Level A and Level
B harassment over the 17 in-water work days proposed for the Petrogas
activity resulting in total calculated take.

Table 9--Calculated Take by Level A and Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 days 7 days 10 days
------------------------------------------------
Total days 30-in steel 16-in timber Requested
30-in steel vibratory vibratory Level A take
impact driving driving removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level A Level A Totals Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale.................. 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0
Southern Resident Killer Whales. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Transient Killer whales......... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Harbor Porpoise................. 10.1 0.005 0.007 10.063 10
Steller Sea Lion................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Cali Sea Lion................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Harbor Seal..................... 0.737 0.002 0.002 0.741 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Calculated Take Total level B Requested
calculated level B take
take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Level B Level B Totals Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale.................. 0.013 0.471 1.689 2.172 0
Southern Resident Killer Whale.. 0.037 1.359 4.878 6.275 0
Transient Killer Whale.......... 0.015 0.533 1.914 2.462 0
Harbor Porpoise................. 10.271 376.405 1,350.927 1,738 1,738
Steller Sea Lion................ 0.013 0.471 1.689 2.172 17
California Sea Lion............. 0.085 3.119 11.195 14.400 51
Harbor Seal..................... 3.614 132.439 475.326 611.379 611
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Humpback Whale

Humpback whales are an uncommon occurrence near the project area
but they do have the potential to be in the area as they migrate to
feeding grounds to the north and mating grounds far south. Based on
best available density estimates Petrogas has calculated the potential
take of two humpback whales by Level B harassment. However, they will
shut down whenever humpback whales approach the Level B harassment
zone. Given the low density of humpback whales in the project area, the
ability to detect the whales visually from a considerable distance, the
capacity to track whales through the Orca Network, and the anticipated
efficacy of proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, Petrogas
elected not to request take. NMFS concurs with this request and,
therefore, is not proposing to authorize take of humpback whales.

Killer Whales

Both SRKW and transient killer whales could occur near the project

[[Page 47916]]

area. Take calculations indicate that up to six SRKWs and two transient
whales could be taken by Level B harassment. Even though the project
site is located in summer core area critical habitat, the southeastern
corner of the Strait of Georgia is not a location where SRKW are
commonly located. After reviewing the monthly reports of September
through October from 2016-2023, the occurrence of killer whales from
any stock was uncommon in the southeastern corner of the Strait of
Georgia. Furthermore SRKWs were far less prevalent when compared to
transients (ORCA 2024). Given the expansive range of SRKWs; the
relatively small area of their habitat that may be affected by the
proposed project; the ready availability of habitat of similar or
higher value, and short-term nature of construction (17 days), NMFS
concluded that take of SRKWs would be unlikely. Additionally, Petrogas
will shut down whenever a killer whale from any stock is observed
approaching a harassment zone so take of transients is also not likely.
Given the ability to visually detect killer whales from proposed PSO
locations (including boats), the capacity to track SRKWs through
contact with the ORCA Network, and the expected efficacy of proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures, Petrogas elected not to request
take. NMFS concurs with this request and, therefore, is not proposing
to authorize take of killer whales.

Harbor Porpoise

Harbor porpoises are commonly found in the Strait of Georgia as
indicated by regular sightings from the British Columbia Cetacean
Sightings Network and the Orca Network (Zier, 2015). Use of NMSDD data
yielded an estimated 10 takes by Level A harassment and 1,738 by Level
B harassment. NMFS concurs. Note that Petrogas has proposed to extend
the shutdown zone beyond the Level A harassment zone in order to
minimize potential PTS but has requested limited take by Level A
harassment in case some animals enter into the injury zone unseen by
PSOs and remain for sufficient time to incur PTS.

Steller Sea Lion

Calculated take based upon the species density in the Strait of
Georgia yielded two potential takes by Level B harassment during the 17
days of in-water pile driving work. While there are no known nearby
haulouts, there are haulouts in the greater Strait of Georgia. Petrogas
felt that the calculated value was too low since this species is known
to travel signi[filig]cant distances in search for prey, possibly into
the marine waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve.
NMFS reviewed other IHA monitoring reports from Puget Sound and
found that the Seattle Pier 63 construction project (87 FR 31985, May
26, 2022) reported a maximum of one animal taken per day over 17 in-
water work days between October 12 and November 30, 2022. Therefore,
NMFS is proposing to authorize 17 (one/day) takes of Steller sea lion
by Level B harassment. Petrogas was in agreement with this proposal.

California Sea Lion

Calculated take based upon the species density in the Strait of
Georgia found 14 potential takes by Level B harassment during the 17
days of pile driving work at the Petrogas pier. While there are no
known nearby haulouts, there are haulouts in the greater Strait of
Georgia, and because this species may travel signi[filig]cantly in
search for prey, possibly into the marine waters of the Cherry Point
Aquatic Reserve. Petrogas felt this estimate was also low. Results from
the Seattle Pier 63 project showed a maximum of three California sea
lions taken per day over 17 in-water work days between Oct 12 and Nov
30, 2022. Assuming the same maximum number of takes over proposed 17
days of in-water work, NMFS proposes to authorize 51 takes by Level B
harassment. Petrogas concurred with this assessment.

Harbor Seal

Harbor seals are common in the Strait of Georgia. Use of NMSDD
(Navy 2019) found that there would be a single take by Level A
harassment. Note that Petrogas is proposing to extend the shutdown zone
beyond the Level A harassment zone in order to minimize potential PTS
to harbor seals, but they have also requested a single take by Level A
harassment in case some animals enter into the injury zone unseen by
PSOs and remain for sufficient duration to incur PTS. The density data
utilized also resulted in 611 calculated takes by Level B harassment.
Therefore, Petrogas is requesting a single take of harbor seal by Level
A harassment and 611 takes by Level B harassment. NMFS concurs with
these proposed take numbers.
Proposed takes by Level A and Level B harassment are shown in table
10.

Table 10--Proposed Take of Marine Mammals by Level A and Level B Harassment by Species and Stock and Percent of
Take by Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Stock Total take as
Common name Stock abundance Level A Level B proposed percentage
take of stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise.............. Washington 11,233 10 1,738 1,748 15.56.4
Inland Waters.
Steller sea lion............. Eastern U.S..... 36,308 ........... 17 17 0.05
California sea lion.......... U.S............. 257,606 ........... 51 51 0.02
Harbor seal.................. Washington 16,451 1 611 612 3.7
Northern Inland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses. 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

[[Page 47917]]

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.
Pre-Start Clearance 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 (discussed below)
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. Pre-start
clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility
sufficient for the lead PSO to determine that the shutdown zones
indicated in table 11 are clear of marine mammals. Pile driving may
commence following 30 minutes of observation when the determination is
made that the shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals. If work
ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both
the monitoring zone and shutdown zone would commence.
Implementation of Shutdown Zones--For all pile driving/removal
activities, Petrogas 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 takes by
Level A harassment from impact pile driving for all four species for
which take may occur. Shutdown zones would be based upon the Level A
harassment isopleth for each pile size/type and driving method where
applicable. This is anticipated to reduce Level A harassment exposures
without resulting in a substantial risk to the project schedule that
could occur if marine mammals repeatedly enter into larger shutdown
zones.
A minimum shutdown zone of 10 m would be required for all in-water
construction activities to avoid physical interaction with marine
mammals. Proposed shutdown and monitoring zones for each activity type
are shown in table 11.

Table 11--Shutdown Zones During Pile Installation and Removal (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zone Level B
Pile size/type ------------------------------------------------ harassment
HF Phocid Otariid monitoring zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in timber Vibratory........................ 10 10 10 6,310
30-in steel Vibratory......................... 10 10 10 3,990
30-in steel Impact............................ 460 210 20 465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All marine mammals would be monitored in the Level B harassment
zones and throughout the area as far as visual monitoring can take
place. If a marine mammal enters the Level B harassment zone, in-water
activities would continue and PSOs would document the animal's presence
within the estimated harassment zone.
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a
species which has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is
observed approaching or within the Level B harassment zone, pile
driving activities will be shut down immediately. Activities will not
resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or 15
minutes has elapsed with no sighting of the animal.
Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network--Prior to
the start of pile driving for the day the PSOs would contact the Orca
Network to find out the location of the nearest sightings of SRKW and
humpback whale. Petrogas must delay or halt pile driving activities if
a SRKW, unidentified killer whale (i.e. transient) or humpback whales
are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching
the Level B harassment zones (table 11) during in-water activities.
Finally, if a SRKW, unidentified killer whale, or humpback whale enters
the Level B harassment zone undetected, in-water pile driving must be
suspended immediately upon detection and must not resume until the
animal exits the Level B harassment zone or 15 minutes have passed
without re-detection of the animal.
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.
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. Air flow to
the bubblers must be balanced around the circumference of the pile.
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

[[Page 47918]]

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 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.
A minimum of three PSOs would be on duty during all in-water pile
driving activities. Two shore-based observers will be stationed at
locations offering best line of sight views to monitor the entirety of
the shutdown zones and provide the most complete coverage of the
monitoring zones. The first observer may be on the alumina silos to the
east, roughly 100 ft above the water to scan the wider area. The second
observer may be on the alumina unloader at the north end of the Pier.
This would place the observer roughly 50 ft above water, approximately
300 ft south of the pile driving activities.
Additionally, Petrogas proposes to deploy one boat-based PSO that
will be positioned at a location or moving in a pattern that offers the
most complete visual coverage of the monitoring zone. Note, however,
PSO position(s) may vary based on construction activity and location of
piles or equipment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (USFWS) under Endangered
Species Act Section 7, is requiring Petrogas to utilize observers to
monitor for the endangered marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus).
As long as an observer meets the NMFS PSO qualifications as described
below and has been approved by NMFS, they may also serve as a USFWS-
certified observer for marbled murrelets. NMFS must be notified if any
NMFS-approved PSO is serving in this dual-purpose role.
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. Petrogas would adhere to
the following observer qualifications:
(i) PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for
example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks
during monitoring periods.
(ii) At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the
duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued
incidental take authorization.
(iii) Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience,
education (degree in biological science or related field), or training
for prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction
activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization.
(iv) Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead
observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead
observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO
during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take
authorization.
(v) PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity
subject to this IHA.
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

[[Page 47919]]

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; and 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, Petrogas
would immediately cease the specified activities and report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast
Region 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 Petrogas to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Petrogas would not be able
to resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that Petrogas 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),
Petrogas would immediately report the incident to the Office of
Protected Resources (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d0d0f7314090d731032333429322f34333a0f382d322f292e1d33323c3c733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c0c0e7215080c721133323528332e35323b0e392c332e282f1c32333d3d723b332a">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>), NMFS and to
the West Coast Region regional stranding coordinator as soon 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
Petrogas 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 40338,
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 11, 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,

[[Page 47920]]

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 porpoise and 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). 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. The impact of Level B
harassment takes on the affected individuals would be minimized 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. Vibratory
driving associated with the proposed project may produce sound at
distances of up to six kilometers from the project site, thus
overlapping with some likely less-disturbed habitat (such as the Cherry
Point Aquatic Reserve). The project site itself is frequented by large
tankers every few days but the majority of sound fields produced by the
specified activities are relatively close to the Pier. 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 porpoises and harbor seals may
sustain some limited Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury
of low severity. 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. Harbor
porpoises are high-frequency cetaceans while the hearing ability of
harbor seal below 2 kHz is also poor (NMFS, 2018)
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 intermittent driving schedule (17 in-water
work days between August 1 and October 31, 2024); short duration of the
activities (no more than 3 hours per day combined impact and vibratory
driving); 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.
While there are haulouts for pinnipeds in the area, these locations
are some distance from the actual project site. There are two
documented California sea lion haulouts in the southern Strait of
Georgia, both on the western coast of the Strait in British Columbia.
The closest haulout in near Tumbo Island on the eastern edge of the
Gulf Island, over 15 miles from the project site. The closest
documented Steller sea lion haulout location is over 10 miles from the
project site, on Sucia Island (Jeffries et al., 2000). The closest
documented harbor seal haulouts are two different low population (>100
individuals) locations approximately 5 miles from the project site, one
to the north and one to the south (Jeffries et al., 2000). To the
southwest and west of the project location are 14 other haulouts dotted
throughout a few of the small northern San Juan Islands (North of Orcas
Island) within 10 miles of the project (Jeffries et al., 2000).
While repeated exposures of individuals to this pile driving
activity could cause limited Level A harassment in harbor seals and
harbor porpoises and Level B harassment in these two species in
addition to sea lions, they are unlikely to considerably disrupt
foraging behavior or result in significant decrease in fitness,
reproduction, or survival for the affected individuals.
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 porpoise
and 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 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> Repeated exposures of pinnipeds to this pile driving
activity could cause slight Level A harassment in seals and harbor
porpoise and Level B harassment in seals, harbor porpoise and sea lion
species, 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 stocks as a whole; and
<bullet> The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce
the effects of the

[[Page 47921]]

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 10 demonstrates the number of instances in which individuals
of a given species could be exposed to received noise levels that could
cause take of marine mammals. Our analysis shows that less than 6
percent of all species could be taken by harassment which is below one
third of the population for all.
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 (ESA; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally 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 Petrogas for conducting in-water pile driving
activities at Ferndale Pier in Ferndale Washington from August 1, 2024
through July 31, 2025, 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
construction activities. 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.
<bullet> Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
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: May 29, 2024.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-12160 Filed 6-3-24; 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 June 4, 2024.

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.