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, 48565-48579 [2024-12471]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices The meeting is open to the public; however, during the ‘‘Report Writing’’ session on Friday, June 21, 2024, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., the public should not engage in discussion with the Peer Review Panel. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Special requests should be directed to Michele Traver, via email. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: June 4, 2024. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2024–12568 Filed 6–6–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of California Coastal Management Program; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Comments Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and opportunity to comment. AGENCY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management, will hold a virtual public meeting to solicit input on the performance evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program. NOAA also invites the public to submit written comments. DATES: NOAA will hold a virtual public meeting on Wednesday, August 28, 2024, at 12 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT). NOAA may close the meeting 15 minutes after the conclusion of public testimony and after responding to any clarifying questions from hearing participants. NOAA will consider all relevant written comments received by Friday, September 6, 2024. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods: • Virtual Public Meeting: Register at https://forms.gle/fzivtXuP1VLj5Fd16 to participate in the virtual public meeting on Wednesday, August 28, 2024, from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. PDT. We request that all participants register by Tuesday, August 27, 2024 at 6 p.m. PDT. Please indicate on the registration form if you intend to provide oral comments. The speaker lineup is based on the date and ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 time of this registration. Upon registration, NOAA will send a confirmation email. One hour prior to the start of the August 28, 2024 virtual meeting, NOAA will send an email to all registered speakers with a link to the public meeting and information about participating. While advance registration is requested, registration will remain open until the meeting closes, and any participant may provide oral comment after the registered speakers conclude. Meeting registrants may remain anonymous by typing ‘‘Anonymous’’ into the ‘‘First Name’’ and ‘‘Last Name’’ fields on the registration form. • Email: Send written comments to Carrie Hall, evaluator, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, at czma.evaluations@noaa.gov. Include ‘‘Comments on Performance Evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program’’ in the subject line. NOAA will accept anonymous comments; however, the written comments NOAA receives are considered part of the public record, and the entirety of the comment, including the name of the commenter, email address, attachments, and other supporting materials, will be publicly accessible. Sensitive personally identifiable information, such as account numbers and social security numbers, should not be included with the comment. Comments that are not related to the performance evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program, or that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language will not be considered. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Hall, evaluator, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, by email at Carrie.Hall@noaa.gov or by phone at (240) 410–3422. Copies of the previous evaluation findings and assessment and strategies may be viewed and downloaded at coast.noaa.gov/czm/ evaluations. A copy of the evaluation notification letter and most recent progress report may be obtained upon request by contacting Carrie Hall. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1458, requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved coastal management programs. The evaluation process includes holding one or more public meetings, considering public comments, and consulting with interested Federal, State, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, and consistent with CZMA Section 312 and implementing regulations at 15 CFR PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 48565 923, subpart L, NOAA will consider the extent to which the State of California has met the national objectives and addressed the coastal management needs identified in CZMA section 303(2), implemented and enforced the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is complete, NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the final evaluation findings. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1458. Keelin Kuipers, Deputy Director, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. 2024–12512 Filed 6–6–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–08–P 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 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. AGENCY: 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. SUMMARY: 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- ADDRESSES: E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 48566 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices authorization-ag-processing-incs-portgrays-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: 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. Background 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 pilesupported 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: • 50, 18-inch timber piles • 6, 12-inch steel H-piles • 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 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. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 Description of Activity PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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: • 50, 36-inch steel pipe piles • 24, 24-inch steel pipe piles • 6, 12-inch steel H-sections • 15, 18-inch steel pipe piles • 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; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/ marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ website (https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and has been E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 48567 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices 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: (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/ marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). 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 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 TABLE 1—SPECIES 1 LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES Common name Scientific name Stock I ESA/ MMPA status; strategic (Y/N) 2 I Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 3 Annual M/SI 4 PBR I I Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): Harbor porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Northern Oregon/, Washington Coast. -,-; N I 22,074 (0.391, 16,068, 2022) I I 161 I 3.2 Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): California Sea Lion ........... Steller Sea Lion ................ Family Phocidae (earless seals): Harbor Seal ...................... Zalophus californianus ........... Eumetopias jubatus ................ U.S ......................................... Eastern ................................... -,-; N -,-; N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 2014) 36,308 (N/A, 36,308, 2022) ... 14,011 2,178 >321 93.2 Phoca vitulina ......................... Oregon/Washington Coastal Stock. -, -, N 24,731 5 (1999) ....................... UNK 10.6 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 (https://www.marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/;). 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 lowfrequency 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. E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 48568 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS [NMFS, 2018] Hearing group Generalized hearing range * Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ......................................................................................................................... Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) .............................................. High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. australis). Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ....................................................................................................................... Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .................................................................................................. 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 275 Hz to 160 kHz. 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 60 Hz to 39 kHz. * 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 (Hemilä 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. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB (re 1 mPa) 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 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 48569 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices 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 mPa 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 nonimpulsive). 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/ marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level) Hearing group Impulsive Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell 1: 3: 5: 7: 9: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: 219 230 202 218 232 dB; dB; dB; dB; dB; Non-impulsive LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 * 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 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 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: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 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 (freefield) 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 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 12in 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). E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 48570 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices 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 ................................................................................................. 30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) 2 ......................................................................................... 24-inch steel piles (installation and removal) 3 ............................................................................ 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) 4 ......................................................................................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) 5 ........................................................................ 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) 6 .................................................................................... 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) 6 ...................................................................... Impact hammer 170 159 154 158 150 162 163 dBrms 24-inch steel piles (single strike) 7 ............................................................................................... 36-inch steel piles (single strike) 8 ............................................................................................... dBSEL 190 (185) 193 (188) dBpeak 177 (172) 183 (178) 203 (198) 210 (205) 1 Laughlin 2012 as cited in WSDOT 2020. 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. 2 2023 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 Spreadsheet Tab Used ................................................................................................................................ E.1) Impact Pile Driving (STATIONARY SOURCE: Impulsive, Intermittent) Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL) ........................................................................................................ Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ............................................................................................................. Strikes per pile ............................................................................................................................................. Piles Per day ............................................................................................................................................... Propagation (xLogR) .................................................................................................................................... Distance of source level measurement (meters) ........................................................................................ ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 24-inch impact 183 2 600 4 15 10 177 2 500 4 15 10 TABLE 6—CALCULATED LEVEL A HARASSMENT ZONES, IMPACT INSTALLATION (m) Level A threshold Pile type High-frequency cetaceans 155 dB SELcum 36-inch steel piles (installation) ................................................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Phocid pinnipeds 185 dB SELcum 990 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 445 07JNN1 Otariid pinnipeds 203 dB SELcum 33 48571 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices TABLE 6—CALCULATED LEVEL A HARASSMENT ZONES, IMPACT INSTALLATION (m)—Continued Level A threshold Pile type High-frequency cetaceans 155 dB SELcum 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .............................................................. Table 7 shows the User Spreadsheet Inputs for vibratory driving and the Phocid pinnipeds 185 dB SELcum 349 resulting Level A harassment zones are shown in table 8. Calculated Level B Otariid pinnipeds 203 dB SELcum 157 12 harassment isopleths are found in table 9. TABLE 7—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS FOR VIBRATORY DRIVING 36-in steel (install) Inputs Tab Used ....................................................... 24-to-30-in steel (install) 24-in steel perm. (install) 24-in steel temp. (install and removal) 18-in steel (install) 12-inch steel H-piles (install and removal) 18-in timber (removal) 16.5-inch concrete (removal) A.1) Vibratory Pile Driving (STATIONARY: Non-impulsive, Continuous) Source Level (RMS) ...................................... 170 159 154 Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) .............. 154 158 150 162 163 30 6 30 3 30 10 60 8 2.5 Duration (minutes) ......................................... Piles per day ................................................. 120 4 60 6 90 4 30 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 SELcum 36-inch steel piles (installation) ................................................................................. 24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ................................................................ 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .............................................................. 24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and removal) .......................................... 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ......................................................................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) ........................................................ 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) .................................................................... 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) ...................................................... Phocid pinnipeds 201 dB SELcum 161 25 12 9 13 3 35 55 Otariid pinnipeds 219 dB SELcum 67 10 5 4 6 1 15 23 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 TABLE 9—LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES, VIBRATORY AND IMPACT DRIVING (m) Level B threshold all marine mammals 120 dBrms Pile type 120 dB threshold ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................................................................................................................................... 24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) .............................................................................................................................. 24-inch steel piles, (installation and removal) ......................................................................................................................... 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ....................................................................................................................................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) ...................................................................................................................... 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) .................................................................................................................................. 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) .................................................................................................................... 21,545 3,981 1,847 3,415 1,000 6,310 7,365 160 dB threshold 36-inch steel piles (Installation) ............................................................................................................................................... 24-inch steel piles, permanent (Installation) ............................................................................................................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 736 465 48572 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation N = density estimate (animals per km2) used for each species. 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 × Level B harassment zone (square kilometer (km2)) × maximum days of pile driving 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 km2) resulting in where a calculated density of 30.85 animals per km2). 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 density per km2 Days of pile driving Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ 30.85 30.85 30.8 30.85 30.85 30.85 24 6 18 10 2 12 10.2 1.07 4.95 2.72 0.46 2.72 70 100 10 10 100 10 0.03 0.05 0.009 0.004 0.05 0.004 7,529.87 188.80 2,739.29 804.37 30.36 1,005.46 Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 30.85 30.85 30.85 30.85 6 6 12 9 4.3 1.7 7.4 7.97 10 10 15 25 0.009 0.004 0.014 0.011 794.26 313.93 2,734.30 2,209.82 ....................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 18,350 Pile type Installation/removal method 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ............ 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and removal). 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ..................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) .... 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) ................ 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) Total ................................................................ Level B area (km2) Shutdown zone distance Shutdown area (km2) Level B take estimate ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 TABLE 11—CALCULATED TAKE ESTIMATE OF HARBOR SEALS BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT Harbor seal density per km2 Days of pile driving Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ 30.85 30.85 30.8 30.85 30.85 30.85 24 6 18 10 2 12 0.03 0.43 0.009 0.002 0.084 0.0018 70 100 10 10 100 10 0.03 0.05 0.009 0.004 0.05 0.004 0.00 70.34 0.00 0.00 2.52 0.00 Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 30.85 30.85 30.85 30.85 6 6 12 9 0.005 0.0009 0.014 0.01 10 10 15 25 0.009 0.004 0.014 0.011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ....................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 73 Pile type Installation/removal method 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ............ 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and removal). 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ..................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) .... 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) ................ 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) Total ................................................................ California Sea Lion The NMSDD estimates the density of California sea lions in the waters VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 offshore of Grays Harbor as 0.0288, 0.5573 and 0.66493 animals per km2 in summer, fall and winter, respectively (Navy, 2019). AGP conservatively PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Level A area (km2) Shutdown zone distance Shutdown area (km2) Level A take estimate 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 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 48573 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices 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 density per km2 Level B area (km2) Shutdown area (km2) Installation/removal method 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ............ 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and removal). 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ..................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) .... 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) ................ 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ 0.6493 0.6493 0.6493 0.6493 0.6493 0.6493 24 6 18 10 2 12 10.2 1.07 4.95 2.72 0.46 2.72 10 35 10 10 15 10 0.03 0.016 0.009 0.004 0.006 0.004 158.48 4.11 57.75 16.93 0.71 21.16 Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.6493 0.6493 0.6493 0.6493 6 6 12 9 4.3 1.7 7.4 7.97 10 10 10 10 0.009 0.004 0.009 0.004 16.72 6.61 57.59 46.55 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 km2 in the summer, 0.1678 animals per km2 in the winter/spring, and 0.1390 animals per km2 in the fall (Navy, 2020). The summer density estimate of 0.1993 per km2 has been used as a conservative surrogate for Steller sea lion density within Grays Harbor. Days of pile driving Shutdown zone distance Pile type 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 Level B take estimate 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. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 TABLE 13—LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE ESTIMATES FOR STELLER SEA LIONS Stellar sea lion density per km2 Days of pile driving Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ 0.1993 0.1993 0.1993 0.1993 0.1993 0.1993 24 6 18 10 2 12 10.2 1.07 4.95 2.72 0.46 2.72 10 35 10 10 15 10 0.03 0.016 0.009 0.004 0.006 0.004 48.65 1.26 17.73 5.20 0.22 6.50 Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.1993 0.1993 0.1993 0.1993 6 6 12 9 4.3 1.7 7.4 7.97 10 10 10 10 0.009 0.004 0.009 0.004 5.13 2.03 17.68 14.29 ....................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 119 Pile type Installation/removal method 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ............ 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and removal). 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ..................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) .... 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) ................ 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) Total ................................................................ Harbor Porpoise The Navy has estimated that density of harbor porpoises in the waters offshore of Grays Harbor is 0.467 animals per km2 (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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Level B area (km2) Shutdown zone distance Shutdown area (km2) Level B take estimate 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) E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 48574 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices 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 density per km2 Shutdown zone distance Level B area (km2) Days of pile driving Shutdown area (km2) Level B take estimate Pile type Installation/removal method 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ............ 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and removal). 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ..................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) .... 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) ................ 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 24 6 18 10 2 12 10.2 1.07 4.95 2.72 0.46 2.72 100 100 25 10 100 10 0.05 0.05 0.023 0.004 0.05 0.004 113.76 2.86 41.42 12.18 0.46 15.22 Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 6 6 12 9 4.3 1.7 7.4 7.97 15 10 35 55 0.014 0.004 0.034 0.025 12.01 4.75 41.28 33.39 Total ................................................................ ....................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 277 TABLE 15—CALCULATED TAKE ESTIMATE OF HARBOR PORPOISE BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT Harbor porpoise density per km2 Level A area (km2) Days of pile driving Shutdown zone distance Shutdown area (km2) Level A take estimate Pile type Installation/removal method 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 36-inch steel piles (installation) ............................. 24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ............ 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .......... 24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and removal). 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ..................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) .... 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) ................ 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ Vibratory ........................ Impact to proof .............. Vibratory ........................ 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 24 6 18 10 2 12 0.086 1.64 0.023 0.005 0.28 0.004 100 100 25 10 100 10 0.05 0.05 0.023 0.004 0.05 0.004 0.40 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 6 6 12 9 0.012 0.001 0.034 0.025 15 10 35 55 0.014 0.004 0.034 0.025 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total ................................................................ ....................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 5 TABLE 16—ESTIMATED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK Stock Harbor porpoise .......................... Steller sea lion ........................... California sea lion ....................... Harbor seal ................................. Northern Oregon/Washington Coast ...... Eastern U.S ............................................. U.S .......................................................... OR/WA coast stock ................................. a There 22,074 36,308 257,606 a 24,731 Level A 5 ................ ................ 73 Level B 277 119 387 18,350 Total authorized take Authorized take as percentage of stock 282 119 387 18,423 1.3 0.3 0.2 74.5 is no current estimate of abundance available for this stock. Value presented is the most recent available and based on 1999 data. Mitigation ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Stock abundance Common name 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) VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 Monitoring§—Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 48575 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices 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. Prestart 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 Pile type Highfrequency cetaceans Phocid pinnipeds Level B harassment zone Otariid pinnipeds Impact 36-inch steel piles (installation) ....................................................................... 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .................................................... 100 100 100 100 35 15 740 465 100 25 15 10 15 10 35 55 70 10 10 10 10 10 15 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 21,550 3,985 1,850 1,850 3,415 1,000 6,310 7,365 Vibratory ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 36-inch steel piles (installation) ....................................................................... 24-to-30-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ...................................................... 24-inch steel piles, permanent (installation) .................................................... 24-inch steel piles, temporary (installation and removal) ................................ 18-inch steel pipe piles (installation) ............................................................... 12-inch steel H-piles (installation and removal) .............................................. 18-inch creosote timber piles (removal) .......................................................... 16.5-inch concrete octagonal sections (removal) ............................................ 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 48576 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 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: • Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density); • 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); • Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors; • How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks; • Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and • 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 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, PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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: • Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols; • Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors; • Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations; • 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 • 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: E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices • Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring. • 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). • PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring. • 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. • 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). • Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species. • 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 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: • Description of the incident; • Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state, visibility); • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident; • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved; • Fate of the animal(s); and • 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 (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 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 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 48577 recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel 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 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 48578 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices 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 lessdisturbed 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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: • No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized; • 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; • 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; • The ensonifed areas from the project is very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks; • 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 • 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 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Notices 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 262001 48579 Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination authorization-ag-processing-incs-portgrays-harbor-terminal-4-expansion-and. 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. Dated: June 3, 2024. Catherine Marzin, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Endangered Species Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa. gov/action/incidental-take- PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 [FR Doc. 2024–12471 Filed 6–6–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [RTID 0648–XD940] Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Log Export Dock Project on the Columbia River Near Longview, WA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal. AGENCY: NMFS has received a request from Weyerhaeuser Company (Weyerhaeuser) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Log Export Dock Project on the Columbia River near Longview, Washington. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in the Request for Public Comments section at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 8, 2024. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, and should be submitted via email to ITP.wachtendonk@noaa.gov. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48565-48579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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:

 50, 18-inch timber piles
 6, 12-inch steel H-piles
 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:

 50, 36-inch steel pipe piles
 24, 24-inch steel pipe piles
 6, 12-inch steel H-sections
 15, 18-inch steel pipe piles
 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; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and 
more general information about these species (e.g., physical and 
behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    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: (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).

                                            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
  (https://www.marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/;).
\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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments 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: 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

                     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 * Log10 (R1/R2),

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:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     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);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     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:
     Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols;
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     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
     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]]

     Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal 
monitoring.
     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).
     PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.
     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.
     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).
     Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment 
zones, by species.
     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:
     Description of the incident;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state, 
visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     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 ([email protected]), 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:
     No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or 
authorized;
     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;
     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;
     The ensonifed areas from the project is very small 
relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks;
     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
     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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ag-processing-incs-port-grays-harbor-terminal-4-expansion-and.

    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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.