Notice2024-12471
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Terminal 4 Expansion and Redevelopment Project at the Port of Grays Harbor, 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 7, 2024
Effective
July 16, 2024
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Ag Processing Inc. (AGP) to incidentally harass marine mammals during construction activities associated with the Terminal 4 (T4) Expansion and Redevelopment Project (Project) at the Port of Grays Harbor (Port) in both the City of Aberdeen and City of Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 111 (Friday, June 7, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48565-48579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12471]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XD999]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Terminal 4 Expansion and
Redevelopment Project at the Port of Grays Harbor, Washington
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Ag
Processing Inc. (AGP) to incidentally harass marine mammals during
construction activities associated with the Terminal 4 (T4) Expansion
and Redevelopment Project (Project) at the Port of Grays Harbor (Port)
in both the City of Aberdeen and City of Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County,
Washington.
DATES: The authorization is effective from July 16, 2024 through July
15, 2025.
ADDRESSES: 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-
[[Page 48566]]
authorization-ag-processing-incs-port-grays-harbor-terminal-4-
expansion-and. In case of problems accessing these documents, please
call the contact listed below.
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 mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On May 12, 2023, NMFS received a request from AGP for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to construction activities in the City
of Aberdeen and City of Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington.
Following NMFS' review of the application, AGP submitted a revised
version on August 4, 2023. The application was deemed adequate and
complete on February 20, 2024. The notice of proposed IHA published for
public comment on April 8, 2024 (89 FR 24436).
AGP's request is for take of harbor seal, California sea lion,
Steller sea lion and harbor porpoise by Level B harassment and, for
harbor seal and harbor porpoise, by Level A harassment. Neither AGP nor
NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. There are no changes from the
proposed IHA to the final IHA.
Description of Activity
AGP plans to work in partnership with the Port to construct a new
export terminal at T4. AGP and the Port will each undertake separate
stages of the construction. The IHA is held by AGP as the responsible
party, and authorizes take associated with the combined specified
activity, with AGP acting on behalf of the Port for that portion. The
activity would include removal of existing piles and the installation
of both temporary and permanent piles of various sizes. The
construction would occur for 105 days, which would occur intermittently
over the in-water work window. Takes of marine mammals by Level A and
Level B harassment would occur due to both impact and vibratory pile
driving and vibratory removal.
The existing timber-piled fender system at the Terminal 4 Berth A
(T4A) will be replaced with a modern pile-supported panel system and a
modern suspended panel system at Berth B (T4B). Terminal 4's Berths A
and B have distinctly different structural systems, necessitating piles
to support the fender system at Berth A but not at Berth B. The new
fender system will consist of a series of steel fender panels, each
supported by one or more steel pipe piles at each fender location along
T4A and supported by the existing deck only along T4B.
The planned Project consists of vibratory pile driving installation
and removal and impact pile installation. Existing piles will be
removed from the substrate using the direct pull method. If direct
pulling is unsuccessful, vibratory extraction will be used. Vibratory
extractors are commonly used to remove steel pile where sediments
allow. Broken or damaged piles that cannot be removed by either the
vibratory hammer or direct pull will be cut off at or below the
mudline. However, for the purposes of estimating take it is assumed
they would all be subject to vibratory removal. The Project will
include the removal of up to:
<bullet> 50, 18-inch timber piles
<bullet> 6, 12-inch steel H-piles
<bullet> 27, 16.5-inch pre-stressed concrete octagonal sections
New and replacement piles will be installed with a vibratory hammer
or combination of a vibratory hammer and impact hammer. Impact pile
driving would be avoided to the extent feasible. Piles will be aligned
with steel templates to ensure the correct position of the piles
relative to each other. The planned Project will also include
installation of up to:
<bullet> 50, 36-inch steel pipe piles
<bullet> 24, 24-inch steel pipe piles
<bullet> 6, 12-inch steel H-sections
<bullet> 15, 18-inch steel pipe piles
<bullet> 24, 24 to 30-inch steel pipe piles
Additionally, a total of up to 24 temporary 24-inch steel piles may
be installed for temporary construction use or to address unforeseen
conditions. The temporary piles will be placed and removed as
necessary.
A further detailed description of the planned construction project
is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (89 FR
24436, April 8, 2024). Since that time, no changes have been made to
the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the
description of the specified activity. Mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in detail later in this document
(please see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting).
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to AGP was published in
the Federal Register on April 8, 2024 (89 FR 24436). That notice
described, in detail, AGP's activity, the marine mammal species that
may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine
mammals. During that 30-day public comment period, no comments were
received.
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 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
has been
[[Page 48567]]
authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR),
where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no
serious injury or mortality is anticipated or 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 3 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 1--Species \1\ Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/ MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\2\ abundance survey) \3\ SI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Northern Oregon/, -,-; N 22,074 (0.391, 16,068, 161 3.2
Washington Coast. 2022).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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):
Harbor Seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Oregon/Washington -, -, N 24,731 \5\ (1999)..... UNK 10.6
Coastal Stock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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>;).
\2\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is
automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\3\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <a href="https://www.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.
\4\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range.
\5\ There is no current estimate of abundance available for this stock. Value presented is the most recent available and based on 1999 data.
As indicated above, all four species (with four managed stocks) in
table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While killer whales
(Orcincus orca), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangilae), gray whales
(Eschrichtius robustus), and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrada)
have been sighted in Grays Harbor, the temporal and/or spatial
occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur.
Furthermore, if any of these species are sighted approaching Level B
harassment zones, construction activities would be shut down in order
to avoid harassment. Therefore, take is not expected for these species
and they are not discussed further in this document.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by
AGP's construction project, were provided in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (89 FR 24436, April 8, 2024). Since that
time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species
and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here.
Please refer to the Federal Register notice for these descriptions.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal
hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in table 2.
[[Page 48568]]
Table 2--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth 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
The effects of underwater noise from AGP's pile driving activities
have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals
in the vicinity of the project area. The notice of proposed IHA (89 FR
24436, April 8, 2024) included a discussion of the effects of
anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of
under noise from AGP's pile driving activities on marine mammals and
their habitat. Please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 24436,
April 8, 2024) for that information and analysis, which is not repeated
here.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized 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 permanent threshold shift (PTS) zone
sizes. The required 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 authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the
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 authorized 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 (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
[[Page 48569]]
potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals
(conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in
behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.
AGP's planned 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). AGP's
planned 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 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 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
National Standards Institute standards (ANSI, 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the planned 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.
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. 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
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which
is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface,
resulting in a 6-dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of
distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs
in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water
surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level
for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A
practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions, such as
the project site, where water increases with depth as the receiver
moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation
environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading
loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is assumed here.
The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by
factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical
environment in which the activity takes place. In order to calculate
the distances to the Level A harassment and the Level B harassment
sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in this project,
NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop
proxy source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods. The
project includes vibratory and impact pile installation of steel and
vibratory removal of steel, timber piles, and concrete piles. Pile
sizes range from 12-in to 36-in. Source levels for the various pile
sizes and driving methods are presented in table 4. Bubble curtains
would be employed during all impact driving, with an assumed 5 dB
effective attenuation (Caltrans, 2020).
[[Page 48570]]
Table 4--Proxy Sound Source Levels for Pile Sizes and Driving Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method and pile type Sound level at 10 m (dB rms)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory hammer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation) \1\.......................... 170
30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) \2\..................... 159
24-inch steel piles (installation and removal) \3\.............. 154
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) \4\..................... 158
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) \5\............ 150
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) \6\..................... 162
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) \6\............. 163
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact hammer dBrms dBSEL dBpeak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel piles (single strike) \7\......................... 190 (185) 177 (172) 203 (198)
36-inch steel piles (single strike) \8\......................... 193 (188) 183 (178) 210 (205)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Laughlin 2012 as cited in WSDOT 2020.
\2\ 2023 NMFS Calculations based on data from Denes et al. 2016 (Auke Bay, Ketchikan, Kake), Edmonds Ferry
Terminal (Laughlin 2011, 2017), Colman Dock--Seattle Ferry Terminal (Laughlin 2012), Kodiak Pier 3 (PND
Engineers, 2015).
\3\ 2023 NMFS Calculations based on data from Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Test Pile (Navy (2012)) and EHW-2 (Navy
(2013)), Gustavus (Miner, 2020).
\4\ Caltrans 2020.
\5\ From generic value recommended in the Caltrans 2015 summary table, as it was representative of the data and
provided a citable data point and included projects from San Rafael, CA; Norfolk Naval Station, VA; Chevron
Long Wharf, CA; JEB Little Creek, Norfolk, VA.
\6\ Data not available, anticipated noise levels are based on available noise levels for the vibratory removal
of 20-inch diameter concrete piles (Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Southwest 2022). Noise levels
were back-calculated to a 10 meter measurement distance assuming a 15 log transmission loss. Based on prior
coordination with NMFS for the Johnson Pier Expansion and Dock Replacement Project IHA Request (M&N 2022) this
data source is an acceptable surrogate for timber piles (Pers. comm. Cara Hotchkin 2023).
\7\ From Caltrans 2015, pooled and averaged from 20 to 24'' piles from Stockton WWTP, CA; Bradshaw Bridge, CA;
Rodeo Dock, CA; Tongue Point Pier,OR; Cleer Creek WWTP, CA; SR 520 Test Pile, WA; Portland Light Rail, OR;
Port of Coeyman, NY; Pritchard Lake, CA; Amorco Wharf, CA; 5th Street Bridge, CA; Schuyler Heim Bridge, CA;
Tanana River, AK, NBK EHW2, WA; Crescent City, CA; Avon Wharf, CA; Orwood Bridge Replacement, CA; Tesoro
Amorco Wharf, CA; USCG Floating Dock, CA; Norfolk, VA; Plains Terminal, CA. A 5dB attenuation applied in
parenthesis for the use of a bubble curtain.
\8\ Caltrans 2020, unattenuated data used as reference. A 5dB attenuation applied in parenthesis for the use of
a bubble curtain.
Note: It is assumed that noise levels during vibratory pile installation and vibratory pile removal are similar.
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 5 and table 6 below.
Table 5--User Spreadsheet Inputs for Impact Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs 36-inch impact 24-inch impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used.............. E.1) Impact Pile Driving (STATIONARY
SOURCE: Impulsive, Intermittent)
-------------------------------------
Source Level (Single Strike/shot 183 177
SEL).............................
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz). 2 2
Strikes per pile.................. 600 500
Piles Per day..................... 4 4
Propagation (xLogR)............... 15 15
Distance of source level 10 10
measurement (meters).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Calculated Level A Harassment Zones, Impact Installation (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A threshold
--------------------------------------------------------
Pile type High-frequency
cetaceans 155 dB Phocid pinnipeds Otariid pinnipeds
SELcum 185 dB SELcum 203 dB SELcum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation)..................... 990 445 33
[[Page 48571]]
24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation).......... 349 157 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 shows the User Spreadsheet Inputs for vibratory driving and
the resulting Level A harassment zones are shown in table 8. Calculated
Level B harassment isopleths are found in table 9.
Table 7--User Spreadsheet Inputs for Vibratory Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-inch
24-to-30-in 24-in steel 24-in steel steel H- 18-in 16.5-inch
Inputs 36-in steel steel perm. temp. 18-in steel piles timber concrete
(install) (install) (install) (install and (install) (install and (removal) (removal)
removal) removal)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tab Used...................................... A.1) Vibratory Pile Driving (STATIONARY: Non-impulsive, Continuous)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level (RMS)............................ 170 159 154 154 158 150 162 163
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)............. 2.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration (minutes)............................ 120 60 90 30 30 30 30 60
Piles per day................................. 4 6 4 8 6 3 10 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propagation (xLogR)........................... 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance of source level (m).................. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Calculated Level A Harassment Zones, Vibratory Installation and Removal (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A threshold
--------------------------------------------------------
Pile type High-frequency
cetaceans 173 dB Phocid pinnipeds Otariid pinnipeds
SELcum 201 dB SELcum 219 dB SELcum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation)..................... 161 67 5
24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation).......... 25 10 1
24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation).......... 12 5 1
24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and 9 4 1
removal)..............................................
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation)................ 13 6 1
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal)....... 3 1 1
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal)................ 35 15 1
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal)........ 55 23 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9--Level B Harassment Zones, Vibratory and Impact Driving (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B threshold
Pile type all marine mammals
120 dBrms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
120 dB threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation)................ 21,545
24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation)..... 3,981
24-inch steel piles, (installation and removal)... 1,847
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation)........... 3,415
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal).. 1,000
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal)........... 6,310
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal)... 7,365
------------------------------------------------------------------------
160 dB threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (Installation)................ 736
24-inch steel piles, permanent (Installation)..... 465
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48572]]
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) although density calculated from other aerial surveys was used
for harbor seal. These density estimates 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 (square kilometer
(km\2\)) x maximum days of pile driving
where
N = density estimate (animals per km\2\) used for each species.
Harbor Seal
There are no harbor seal density estimates for Grays Harbor, but
the NMSDD (NMSDD, 2020) estimates the density of harbor seals in the
waters offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.3424 animals per square kilometer.
However, harbor seals are anticipated to be more common within Grays
Harbor than within offshore areas. Therefore, this density estimate may
underestimate actual densities for the project site.
Two aerial surveys of Grays Harbor were conducted in June of 2014.
The average count was multiplied by a regional correction factor of
1.43 (Huber et al., 2001) to yield the estimated harbor seal abundance.
A correction factor was used because aerial surveys of harbor seals on
land only produce a minimum assessment of the population and animals in
the water must be accounted for to estimate total abundance. The
average survey count (7,495 seals/survey) was used to calculate density
by dividing by the area of Grays Harbor (243 km\2\) resulting in a
calculated density of 30.85 animals per km\2\). This value was used to
calculate estimated take by both Level A harassment and Level B
harassment during the driving of the various types of piles for the
Project. Estimated takes by Level B harassment are shown in table 10
and takes by Level A harassment are shown in table 11.
The largest Level A harassment zone for phocid pinnipeds extends
from 157 to 445 meters (m) from the source during impact driving. AGP
and NMFS agreed on the implementation of a 100 m shutdown zone in order
to shut down for those animals closest to the pile driving activity but
allow for pile driving to continue for animals that are beyond 100 m
(see Mitigation section). AGP is confident they can complete work in an
efficient manner with the occurrence of harbor seals in the project
area. AGP has requested authorization of 18,830 takes of harbor seals
by Level B harassment as well as 73 harbor seal takes by Level A
harassment. NMFS concurs with the requests and has authorized take of
harbor seals at these levels.
Table 10--Calculated Take Estimate of Harbor Seals by Level B Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal Days of Level B Shutdown Shutdown Level B
Pile type Installation/removal method density per pile area zone area take
km\2\ driving (km\2\) distance (km\2\) estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Vibratory.................... 30.85 24 10.2 70 0.03 7,529.87
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Impact to proof.............. 30.85 6 1.07 100 0.05 188.80
24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles Vibratory.................... 30.8 18 4.95 10 0.009 2,739.29
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Vibratory.................... 30.85 10 2.72 10 0.004 804.37
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Impact to proof.............. 30.85 2 0.46 100 0.05 30.36
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, temporary Vibratory.................... 30.85 12 2.72 10 0.004 1,005.46
(installation and removal).
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation).... Vibratory.................... 30.85 6 4.3 10 0.009 794.26
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and Vibratory.................... 30.85 6 1.7 10 0.004 313.93
removal).
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal).... Vibratory.................... 30.85 12 7.4 15 0.014 2,734.30
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections Vibratory.................... 30.85 9 7.97 25 0.011 2,209.82
(removal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 18,350
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11--Calculated Take Estimate of Harbor Seals by Level A Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal Days of Level A Shutdown Shutdown Level A
Pile type Installation/removal method density per pile area zone area take
km\2\ driving (km\2\) distance (km\2\) estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Vibratory.................... 30.85 24 0.03 70 0.03 0.00
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Impact to proof.............. 30.85 6 0.43 100 0.05 70.34
24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles Vibratory.................... 30.8 18 0.009 10 0.009 0.00
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Vibratory.................... 30.85 10 0.002 10 0.004 0.00
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Impact to proof.............. 30.85 2 0.084 100 0.05 2.52
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, temporary Vibratory.................... 30.85 12 0.0018 10 0.004 0.00
(installation and removal).
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation).... Vibratory.................... 30.85 6 0.005 10 0.009 0.00
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and Vibratory.................... 30.85 6 0.0009 10 0.004 0.00
removal).
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal).... Vibratory.................... 30.85 12 0.014 15 0.014 0.00
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections Vibratory.................... 30.85 9 0.01 25 0.011 0.00
(removal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Sea Lion
The NMSDD estimates the density of California sea lions in the
waters offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.0288, 0.5573 and 0.66493 animals
per km\2\ in summer, fall and winter, respectively (Navy, 2019). AGP
conservatively utilized the higher winter density value to calculate
estimated take. Based on this density estimate, the number of
California sea lions that may be taken by
[[Page 48573]]
Level B harassment is presented in table 14. Take by Level A harassment
is not anticipated since the nearest documented California sea lion
haulout sites are at the Westport Docks, approximately 13 miles west of
the Project site near the entrance to Grays Harbor (Jeffries et al.,
2015), and another haulout observed in 1997 referred to as the mid-
harbor flats located approximately 5.65 miles west of the Project site
(WDFW, 2022). Additionally, the largest Level A harassment zone is 33
m, with all the other zones for both impact and vibratory driving no
more than 12 m.
AGP requested and NMFS has authorized 387 California sea lion takes
by Level B harassment as shown in table 12.
Table 12--Level B Harassment Take Estimates for California Sea Lions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California
sea lion Days of Level B Shutdown Shutdown Level B
Pile type Installation/removal method density per pile area zone area take
km\2\ driving (km\2\) distance (km\2\) estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Vibratory.................... 0.6493 24 10.2 10 0.03 158.48
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Impact to proof.............. 0.6493 6 1.07 35 0.016 4.11
24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles Vibratory.................... 0.6493 18 4.95 10 0.009 57.75
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Vibratory.................... 0.6493 10 2.72 10 0.004 16.93
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Impact to proof.............. 0.6493 2 0.46 15 0.006 0.71
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, temporary Vibratory.................... 0.6493 12 2.72 10 0.004 21.16
(installation and removal).
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation).... Vibratory.................... 0.6493 6 4.3 10 0.009 16.72
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and Vibratory.................... 0.6493 6 1.7 10 0.004 6.61
removal).
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal).... Vibratory.................... 0.6493 12 7.4 10 0.009 57.59
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections Vibratory.................... 0.6493 9 7.97 10 0.004 46.55
(removal).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 387
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller Sea Lion
The NMSDD estimates the density of Steller sea lions in the waters
offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.1993 animals per km\2\ in the summer,
0.1678 animals per km\2\ in the winter/spring, and 0.1390 animals per
km\2\ in the fall (Navy, 2020). The summer density estimate of 0.1993
per km\2\ has been used as a conservative surrogate for Steller sea
lion density within Grays Harbor.
WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Data does not indicate any
observances of Steller sea lions in Grays Harbor (WDFW, 2022). The
nearest documented Steller sea lion haul-out sites to the Project site
are at Split Rock, 35 miles north of the entrance to Grays Harbor, and
at the mouth of the Columbia River, 46 miles south of the entrance to
Grays Harbor (Jeffries et al., 2000). A few Steller sea lions may haul
out on buoys near the Westport marina, located 13 miles west of the
Project site, or at Westport docks, similar to California sea lions.
Given that the Level A harassment zone varies from 1 to 5 meters during
vibratory pile installation and 12 to 33 meters during impact
installation, in addition to their uncommon appearances in Grays
Harbor, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized by
NMFS.
AGP requested and NMFS has authorized 119 Steller sea lion takes by
Level B harassment as shown in table 13.
Table 13--Level B Harassment Take Estimates for Steller Sea Lions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stellar sea
lion Days of Level B Shutdown Shutdown Level B
Pile type Installation/removal method density per pile area zone area take
km\2\ driving (km\2\) distance (km\2\) estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Vibratory.................... 0.1993 24 10.2 10 0.03 48.65
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Impact to proof.............. 0.1993 6 1.07 35 0.016 1.26
24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles Vibratory.................... 0.1993 18 4.95 10 0.009 17.73
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Vibratory.................... 0.1993 10 2.72 10 0.004 5.20
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Impact to proof.............. 0.1993 2 0.46 15 0.006 0.22
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, temporary Vibratory.................... 0.1993 12 2.72 10 0.004 6.50
(installation and removal).
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation).... Vibratory.................... 0.1993 6 4.3 10 0.009 5.13
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and Vibratory.................... 0.1993 6 1.7 10 0.004 2.03
removal).
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal).... Vibratory.................... 0.1993 12 7.4 10 0.009 17.68
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections Vibratory.................... 0.1993 9 7.97 10 0.004 14.29
(removal).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 119
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Porpoise
The Navy has estimated that density of harbor porpoises in the
waters offshore of Grays Harbor is 0.467 animals per km\2\ (Navy,
2019). AGP acknowledges that this value may be an overestimate since it
is based on offshore observations. However, lacking additional survey
or anecdotal evidence, this NMSDD value is used as a conservative
estimate for the number of harbor porpoises that are expected to be
within Grays Harbor. Estimated take by Level B harassment is shown in
table 14.
During impact pile driving, the Level A harassment isopleths range
from 349 to 990 m for high-frequency cetaceans and up to 161 m during
vibratory driving. AGP will implement a maximum of 100-m shutdown zone.
This leaves large areas where take of harbor porpoises by Level A
harassment could occur. It would be challenging for protected species
observers to effectively monitor out to the full extent of these zones
given the cryptic nature of harbor porpoises. Therefore, take was
estimated using porpoise density multiplied by the area of the Level A
harassment zone beyond 100 m (in cases where the Level A harassment
zone exceeded the shutdown zone)
[[Page 48574]]
multiplied by the number of driving days as shown in table 15.
AGP requested and NMFS has authorized 277 harbor porpoise takes by
Level B harassment and 5 harbor porpoises by Level A harassment.
Table 14--Calculated Take Estimate of Harbor Porpoise by Level B Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor
porpoise Days of Level B Shutdown Shutdown Level B
Pile type Installation/removal method density per pile area zone area take
km\2\ driving (km\2\) distance (km\2\) estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Vibratory.................... 0.467 24 10.2 100 0.05 113.76
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Impact to proof.............. 0.467 6 1.07 100 0.05 2.86
24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles Vibratory.................... 0.467 18 4.95 25 0.023 41.42
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Vibratory.................... 0.467 10 2.72 10 0.004 12.18
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Impact to proof.............. 0.467 2 0.46 100 0.05 0.46
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, temporary Vibratory.................... 0.467 12 2.72 10 0.004 15.22
(installation and removal).
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation).... Vibratory.................... 0.467 6 4.3 15 0.014 12.01
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and Vibratory.................... 0.467 6 1.7 10 0.004 4.75
removal).
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal).... Vibratory.................... 0.467 12 7.4 35 0.034 41.28
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections Vibratory.................... 0.467 9 7.97 55 0.025 33.39
(removal).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 277
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 15--Calculated Take Estimate of Harbor Porpoise by Level A Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor
porpoise Days of Level A Shutdown Shutdown Level A
Pile type Installation/removal method density per pile area zone area take
km\2\ driving (km\2\) distance (km\2\) estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Vibratory.................... 0.467 24 0.086 100 0.05 0.40
36-inch steel piles (installation)......... Impact to proof.............. 0.467 6 1.64 100 0.05 4.46
24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles Vibratory.................... 0.467 18 0.023 25 0.023 0.00
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Vibratory.................... 0.467 10 0.005 10 0.004 0.00
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, permanent Impact to proof.............. 0.467 2 0.28 100 0.05 0.26
(installation).
24-inch steel piles, temporary Vibratory.................... 0.467 12 0.004 10 0.004 0.00
(installation and removal).
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation).... Vibratory.................... 0.467 6 0.012 15 0.014 0.00
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and Vibratory.................... 0.467 6 0.001 10 0.004 0.00
removal).
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal).... Vibratory.................... 0.467 12 0.034 35 0.034 0.00
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections Vibratory.................... 0.467 9 0.025 55 0.025 0.00
(removal).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 16--Estimated Take by Level A and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized
Stock Total take as
Common name Stock abundance Level A Level B authorized percentage
take of stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise................ Northern Oregon/ 22,074 5 277 282 1.3
Washington Coast.
Steller sea lion............... Eastern U.S....... 36,308 ......... 119 119 0.3
California sea lion............ U.S............... 257,606 ......... 387 387 0.2
Harbor seal.................... OR/WA coast stock. \a\ 24,731 73 18,350 18,423 74.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ There is no current estimate of abundance available for this stock. Value presented is the most recent
available and based on 1999 data.
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 (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on
operations.
Pre-Activity MonitoringSec. --Prior to the start of daily in-water
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile
[[Page 48575]]
driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer occurs, protected species
observers (PSOs) would observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a
period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone would be considered cleared
when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-
minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone,
a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal has left the zone or has
not been observed for 15 minutes. If the monitoring zone has been
observed for 30 minutes and marine mammals are not present within the
zone, soft-start procedures can commence and work can continue. 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 17 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 Level A Harassment--For all
pile driving/removal activities, AGP 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 vibratory and 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. However, a maximum shutdown zone of
100 m was requested by AGP and has been accepted by NMFS. 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. Shutdown zones for each activity type are shown in table 17.
Table 17--Shutdown Zones During Pile Installation and Removal (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zone
------------------------------------------------ Level B
Pile type High- harassment
frequency Phocid Otariid zone
cetaceans pinnipeds pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation).............. 100 100 35 740
24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation)... 100 100 15 465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles (installation).............. 100 70 10 21,550
24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation)... 25 10 10 3,985
24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation)... 15 10 10 1,850
24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and 10 10 10 1,850
removal).......................................
18-inch steel pipe piles (installation)......... 15 10 10 3,415
12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) 10 10 10 1,000
18-inch creosote timber piles (removal)......... 35 15 10 6,310
16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal). 55 25 10 7,365
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 measures, NMFS has
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
[[Page 48576]]
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 must be conducted by NMFS-approved observers in
accordance with sections 13.1 and 13.2 of the application. Trained
observers must 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
would 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 must be on duty during all in-water pile
driving activities. One observer will be stationed on the existing dock
or similar location to monitor the Level A harassment zones, and two
other observers will be stationed throughout the Level B harassment
zones where best line of sight views would provide most complete
coverage of the zone. PSOs would monitor for marine mammals entering
the harassment zones; the position(s) may vary based on construction
activity and location of piles or equipment.
PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars and would use a
handheld range-finder device to verify the distance to each sighting
from the project site. All PSOs would be trained in marine mammal
identification and behaviors and are required to have no other project-
related tasks while conducting monitoring. In addition, monitoring
would be conducted by qualified observers, who would be placed at the
best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and
implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the
shutdown to the hammer operator via a radio. AGP 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
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 will be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal
activities. It will include an overall description of work completed, a
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
[[Page 48577]]
<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
report will 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, AGP must
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 must 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 must not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with AGP to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. AGP will not be able to
resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that the AGP 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),
AGP must immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected
Resources (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0555572b4c51552b486a6b6c716a776c6b625760756a777176456b6a64642b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ffafadd1b6abafd1b29091968b908d969198ad9a8f908d8b8cbf91909e9ed1989089">[email 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 AGP 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 18, given that many of the anticipated
effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected
to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in
anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take
on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts
on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Pile driving and removal activities associated with the project as
outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine
mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in
the form of Level A harassment and Level B harassment from underwater
sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could
occur if individuals of these species are present in zones ensonified
above the thresholds for Level A or Level B harassment identified above
when these activities are underway.
Take by Level A and Level B harassment would be due to potential
behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized 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
[[Page 48578]]
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 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. Level B harassment would be
reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of
mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by project
activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply
avoid the area while the activity is occurring. While vibratory driving
associated with the planned project may produce sound at distances of
many kilometers from the project site, thus overlapping with some
likely less-disturbed habitat, the project site itself is located in a
busy harbor and the majority of sound fields produced by the specified
activities are close to the harbor. Animals disturbed by project sound
would be expected to avoid the area and use nearby higher-quality
habitats.
In addition to the expected effects resulting from authorized Level
B harassment, we anticipate that harbor porpoises and harbor seals may
sustain some limited Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury.
However, animals in these locations that experience PTS would likely
only receive slight PTS, i.e. minor degradation of hearing capabilities
within regions of hearing that align most completely with the energy
produced by pile driving, i.e. the low-frequency region below 2 kHz,
not severe hearing impairment or impairment in the regions of greatest
hearing sensitivity. If hearing impairment occurs, it is most likely
that the affected animal would lose a few decibels in its hearing
sensitivity, which in most cases is not likely to meaningfully affect
its ability to forage and communicate with conspecifics. As described
above, we expect that marine mammals would be likely to move away from
a sound source that represents an aversive stimulus, especially at
levels that would be expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice
through use of soft start.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities
would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant
amount of time. The activities may cause some fish or invertebrates to
leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine
mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging
range; but, because of the short duration of the activities, the
relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, and the
availability of nearby habitat of similar or higher value, the impacts
to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-
term negative consequences. While there are haulouts for pinnipeds in
the area, these locations are some distance from the actual project
site. According to WDFW's atlas of seal and sea lion haulout sites
(Jeffries et al., 2000), all haul-outs in Grays Harbor are associated
with tidal flats and at high tide it is assumed that these animals are
foraging elsewhere in the estuary. The nearest documented harbor seal
haul-out site to the Project site is a low-tide haul-out located 6
miles to the west of the project site. The nearest documented
California sea lion haulout sites to the Project site are at the
Westport Docks, approximately 13 miles west of the Project site near
the entrance to Grays Harbor (Jeffries et al., 2015), and another
haulout observed in 1997 referred to as the mid-harbor flats located
approximately 5.65 miles west of the Project site (WDFW, 2022). The
nearest documented Steller sea lion haul-out sites to the Project site
are at Split Rock, 35 miles north of the entrance to Grays Harbor, and
at the mouth of the Columbia River, 46 miles south of the entrance to
Grays Harbor (Jeffries et al., 2000). A few Steller sea lions may haul
out on buoys near the Westport marina, located 13 miles west of the
Project site, or at Westport docks, similar to California sea lions.
While repeated exposures of individuals to this pile driving activity
could cause limited Level A harassment in harbor seals and Level B
harassment in seals and 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 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 Level B
harassment in seals 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 required mitigation measures are expected to reduce
the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable
adverse impact.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
the planned 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
[[Page 48579]]
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 16 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 2
percent of all but one stock could be taken by harassment. While the
percentage of stock taken from the Oregon/Washington coastal stock of
harbor seal appears to be high (74.5 percent), in reality the number of
individuals taken by harassment would be far less. Instead, it is more
likely that there will be multiple takes of a smaller number of
individuals over multiple days, lowering the number of individuals
taken. The range of the Oregon/Washington coastal stock includes harbor
seals from the California/Oregon border to Cape Flattery on the Olympic
Peninsula of Washington, which is a distance of approximately 150 miles
(240 km) (Carretta et al., 2002). Additionally, there are over 150
Oregon/Washington coastal harbor seal stock haulouts along the outer
Washington coast spanning from the Columbia River north to Tatoosh
Island on the northwestern tip of the Olympic Peninsula (Scordino,
2010). This figure does not include many additional haulout sites found
along the Oregon coast. Given the expansive range of the Oregon/
Washington coastal stock along with the numerous haulouts that have
been documented on the Washington coast, it is unlikely that the number
of individuals taken, limited largely to the pool of seals present in
Grays Harbor, would exceed \1/3\ of the stock. In consideration of
various factors described above, we have determined that numbers of
individuals taken would comprise less than one-third of the best
available population abundance estimate of the Oregon/Washington
coastal stock of harbor seal.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity
(including the required mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS 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 ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes,
funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To
ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults
internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or
threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species has been authorized 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.
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 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 determined that the
issuance of this IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to AGP for conducting pile driving
activities at the Port of Grays Harbor from July 16, 2024 through July
15, 2025, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated. The issued IHAs can be found
at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ag-processing-incs-port-grays-harbor-terminal-4-expansion-and">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ag-processing-incs-port-grays-harbor-terminal-4-expansion-and</a>.
Dated: June 3, 2024.
Catherine Marzin,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-12471 Filed 6-6-24; 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>Indexed from Federal Register on June 7, 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.