Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ferndale Refinery Dock Maintenance and Pile Replacement Activities in Ferndale, Washington, 53046-53064 [2024-13818]
Download as PDF
53046
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
temperature angle-resolved
photoemission spectroscopy & electron
energy loss spectroscopy. Manufacturer:
Fermion Instrument, China. Intended
Use: The instrument is intended to be
used to conduct two different types of
experiments: angle-resolved
photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES)
and electron energy-loss spectroscopy
(EELS). ARPES is a technique which
allows us to measure directly the
momentum-resolved single-particle
electronic structure of materials. EELS is
a technique which allows us to measure
the energy-resolved collective
excitations in materials (such as lattice
vibrations, plasmons, etc.). We currently
have an electron detector that is, in
principle, compatible with both
techniques. Justification for Duty-Free
Entry: According to the applicant, there
are no instruments of the same general
category manufactured in the United
States. Application accepted by
Commissioner of Customs: April 2,
2024.
Dated: June 20, 2024.
Gregory W. Campbell,
Director, Subsidies and Economic Analysis,
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024–13919 Filed 6–24–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XE014]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Ferndale
Refinery Dock Maintenance and Pile
Replacement Activities in Ferndale,
Washington
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 Phillips 66 Co. (Phillips 66) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to Ferndale Refinery Dock
Maintenance and Pile Replacement
Activities in Ferndale, Washington.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take
marine mammals during the specified
activities. NMFS is also requesting
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
comments on a possible one-time, 1year renewal that could be issued under
certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end
of this notice. NMFS will consider
public comments prior to making any
final decision on the issuance of the
requested MMPA authorization and
agency responses will be summarized in
the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than July 25, 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.Gatzke@
noaa.gov. 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/national/marine-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-construction-activities.
In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed
below.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Gatzke, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA
is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other ‘‘means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact’’ on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in shorthand as
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of the takings. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms
cited above are included in the relevant
sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
IHA) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NAO 216–
6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the
human environment and for which we
have not identified any extraordinary
circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of the proposed IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Summary of Request
On February 29, 2024 we received a
request from Phillips 66 for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to
Ferndale Refinery Dock Maintenance
and Pile Replacement Activities in
Ferndale, Washington. Following
NMFS’ review of the application,
Phillips 66 submitted revised versions
on May 16 and May 20, 2024. The
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
application was deemed adequate and
complete on May 21, 2024. Phillips 66
has requested authorization of take by
Level B harassment for harbor seal,
California sea lion, Steller sea lion and
harbor porpoise. Neither Phillips 66 nor
NMFS expect serious injury or mortality
to result from this activity and,
therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Phillips 66 is proposing to modernize
the existing timber loading dock and
replace it with a stronger structure that
meets current industry best practices.
The activity includes installation of
steel piles by vibratory driving, and pile
removal using an underwater chainsaw
or cutting torch.
In-water pile installation construction
would occur for 35 days, which would
occur intermittently between
approximately August 1, 2024 and
October 31, 2024. Take of marine
mammals is anticipated to occur due to
vibratory pile installation. Removal of
all piles is expected to take up to 66
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
days for underwater pile cutting with a
chainsaw. Take of marine mammals is
not anticipated to occur due to pile
removal.
Dates and Duration
This IHA would be valid for 1 year
from the date of issuance. Due to inwater work timing restrictions to protect
Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed
salmonids, all planned in-water
construction in this area is limited to a
work window beginning August 1 and
ending February 1. However, since the
Strait of Georgia is a very large water
body with a long fetch, calm in-water
work conditions are typically only
available from August to the end of
October. Pile removal processes are less
dependent on good weather, and this
portion of the project may occur from
approximately August 1 to February 1.
Therefore, Phillips 66 expects that inwater pile installation construction
work will occur from August 1, 2024 to
October 31, 2024. Pile driving is
anticipated to take up to 35 days to
complete. Work may occur on
nonconsecutive days due to weather
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53047
and other project needs. Pile driving
would be completed intermittently
throughout daylight hours.
Specific Geographic Region
Phillips 66 maintains and operates a
marine dock on the southeastern
shoreline of the Strait of Georgia in
Ferndale, Washington as shown in
figure 1. The Strait of Georgia
encompasses the northern marine
waters of the Salish Sea, with a long
fetch that extends to the northwest
between the Canadian mainland and
Vancouver Island. The dock is built on
aquatic lands leased from the
Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR), with the lease
boundary shown in figure 2. The
shoreline and aquatic area surrounding
the dock is part of the Cherry Point
Aquatic Reserve, a WDNR protected
marine environment. The shore area is
characterized by wave washed feeder
bluffs where sediment transport creates
both sandy and cobbled beaches and
intertidal zones.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
53048
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
EN25JN24.004
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Figure 1—Vicinity Map Showing the
Strait of Georgia in the Northeast Puget
Sound, WA
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Detailed Description of the Specified
Activity
The first phase of in-water
construction activity consists of the
vibratory installation of 116 steel piles
of 20 inch diameter. Piles will be driven
to approximately 40 ft (12.19 m) of
penetration into the sea floor. Pile
driving time is estimated to take 15
minutes per pile. Pile driving will take
35 days and pile driving time is not
expected to exceed 4 hours in any 24hour period.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
The next project phase is the removal
of the old timber and steel pilings. Note
that Phillips 66 is proposing to install
the new steel piles before removing the
old timber and steel ones in order to
minimize facility downtime. Phillips 66
has determined that there is limited
access for pile removal via vibratory or
direct pull methods due to the location
of the piles under the causeway. It may
be necessary to utilize a variety of pile
removal methods to safely complete this
work. The existing 12-inch steel and
creosote-treated timber piles (677 in
total) will be cut below the mudline
with an underwater chainsaw or cutting
torch. Underwater chainsaw average
underwater SPL (Sound Pressure Level)
of 140 dB RMS. However, as noted
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
above, this activity is not expected to
cause incidental take of marine
mammals as it produces relatively low
source levels of noise that is similar to
numerous other noise sources at a
heavily used industrial marine
environment. A cutting torch is not
anticipated to generate significant noise.
The removed piles will be lifted to a
barge for proper disposal. Note that
NMFS has determined that use of an
underwater chainsaw or cutting torch is
not expected to result in take and,
therefore, these activities will not be
discussed further.
A summary of the proposed pile
installation and removal methods for
the dock project is presented below in
table 1.
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
EN25JN24.005
Figure 2—Project Location Showing the
WDNR Lease Boundary in Ferndale,
WA
53049
53050
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION AT PHILLIPS 66 DOCK
Pile type and size
Activity
Removal/install method
20-inch steel pipe pile ..............
12-inch timber and steel pipes
Install ......
Removal
Vibratory hammer ....................
Underwater chainsaw and cutting torch.
Number of
piles
116
677
Total days of
in-water work
Up to 35 .........
Up to 66 .........
these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found
on NMFS’ website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting).
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
Hours pile
driver in use
per day
16
NA
4
NA
as gross indicators of the status of the
species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’ stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’ Alaska and Pacific SARs. All
values presented in table 2 are the most
recent available at the time of
publication (including from the draft
2023 SARs) and are available online at:
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports).
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for
which exposure is expected for this
activity and summarizes information
related to the population or stock,
including regulatory status under the
MMPA and ESA and potential
biological removal (PBR), where known.
PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS’
SARs). While no serious injury or
mortality is anticipated or proposed to
be authorized here, PBR and annual
serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Approximate
piles per day
TABLE 2—SPECIES FOR WHICH TAKE COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
I
ESA/
MMPA
status;
Strategic
(Y/N) 1
I
Stock abundance (CV, Nmin,
most recent abundance
survey) 2
Annual
M/SI3 3
PBR
I
I
Order Artiodactyla—Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Humpback Whale .............
Megaptera novaeangliae ........
Humpback Whale .............
Humpback Whale .............
Megaptera novaeangliae ........
Megaptera novaeangliae ........
Central America/Southern
Mexico—CA/OR/WA.
Mainland Mexico—CA/OR/WA
Hawaii .....................................
E, D, Y
1,494 (0.171, 1,284, 2021) ....
3.5
14.9
T, D, Y
-, -, N
3,477 (0.101, 3,185, 2018) ....
11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 2020) ....
43
127
22
27.09
I
I
I
I
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
Killer Whale ......................
Killer Whale ......................
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise ...............
Orcinus orca ...........................
E, D, Y
73 (N/A, 73, 2022) .................
0.13
0
Orcinus orca ...........................
Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident.
West Coast Transient ............
-, -, N
349 (N/A, 349, 2018) .............
3.5
0.4
Phocoena phocoena ..............
Washington Inland Waters .....
-, -, N
11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 2015) ....
66
≥7.2
-,-; N
-,-; N
257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 2014)
36,308 (N/A, 36,308, 2022) ...
14,011
2,178
>321
93.2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
California Sea Lion ...........
Steller Sea Lion ................
Family Phocidae (earless
seals):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Zalophus californianus ...........
Eumetopias jubatus ................
18:30 Jun 24, 2024
U.S. ........................................
Eastern ...................................
I
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
I
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
I
25JNN1
I
53051
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
TABLE 2—SPECIES FOR WHICH TAKE COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued
Common name
Harbor Seal ......................
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
Strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Phoca vitulina .........................
Washington Northern Inland
Waters.
-, -, N
Stock abundance (CV, Nmin,
most recent abundance survey) 2
16,451 (0.07, 15,462, 2019) ..
PBR
928
Annual
M/SI3 3
40
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
1 Information on the classification of marine mammal species follows The Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy (https://www.marinemammal
science.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/).ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-)
indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or
stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: 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.
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range.
All species that could potentially
occur in the proposed project area are
included in table 2 of the IHA
application. While the gray whale,
minke whale, Dall’s porpoise, and the
Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident
stock of killer whale have been reported
in the area, the temporal and/or spatial
occurrence of these species is such that
take is not expected to occur, and they
are not discussed further beyond the
explanation provided here. The gray
whale is uncommon in the area, but
may pass through the Puget Sound
during migration. Per the population
analysis on gray whales from 1996–
2015, from June 1 to November 30, there
were only 6 days when sightings were
recorded in the Northern Puget Sound.
The Northern Puget Sound refers to a
study range of the Puget Sound marine
waters from Edmonds, WA to the
Canadian border (Calambokidis, 2017).
Additionally, gray whales would not be
migrating when in-water work would
most likely occur for this project (i.e.,
August through October). Therefore,
since the occurrence of the gray whale
is low at any time of year, and no gray
whales are expected to occur during the
expected work period, take of this
species is not expected. While the
minke whale may be observed in the
San Juan Islands and southern Puget
Sound, reports of minke whales in the
Southeastern Strait of Georgia are rare.
The Dall’s porpoise has historically
been present in the Puget Sound, but
their numbers have declined
significantly and are now also
considered to be rare (Evenson 2016,
Jefferson et al., 2016, Jefferson 2024).
Finally, while the Eastern North Pacific
Northern Resident stock of killer whale
may occur infrequently in Washington,
its primary range is located in British
Columbia, Canada, and Southeast
Alaska (Dahlheim et al., 1997, Ford et
al., 2000), and no take of this stock is
expected to occur.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found in
coastal waters of Washington as they
migrate from feeding grounds in Alaska
to California to winter breeding grounds
in Central America and Mexico or
Hawaii. Humpbacks used to be
considered only rare visitors to Puget
Sound. In 1976 and 1978, two sightings
were reported in Puget Sound and one
sighting was reported in 1986 (Osborne
et al., 1988; Calambokidis and Steiger
1990; Calambokidis and Baird 1994).
Humpback whale occurrence in Puget
Sound has been steadily increasing
since 2000, with some individuals
remaining in the area through the winter
(Calambokidis et al., 2018).
On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided
the once single species into 14 distinct
population segments (DPS) under the
ESA, removed the species-level listing
as endangered, and, in its place, listed
four DPSs as endangered and one DPS
as threatened (81 FR 62259, September
8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were
not listed. There are four DPSs in the
North Pacific, including Western North
Pacific and Central America, which are
listed as endangered, Mexico, which is
listed as threatened, and Hawaii, which
is not listed.
The 2022 Pacific SARs described a
revised stock structure for humpback
whales which modifies the previous
stocks designated under the MMPA to
align more closely with the ESAdesignated DPSs (Caretta et al., 2023;
Young et al., 2023). Specifically, the
three previous North Pacific humpback
whale stocks (Central and Western
North Pacific stocks and a CA/OR/WA
stock) were replaced by five stocks,
largely corresponding with the ESAdesignated DPSs. These include
Western North Pacific and Hawaii
stocks and a Central America/Southern
Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock (which
corresponds with the Central America
DPS). The remaining two stocks,
corresponding with the Mexico DPS, are
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA and
Mexico-North Pacific stocks (Caretta et
al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). The
former stock is expected to occur along
the west coast from California to
southern British Columbia, while the
latter stock may occur across the Pacific,
from northern British Columbia through
the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands/
Bering Sea region to Russia.
Within U.S. west coast waters, three
current DPSs may occur: The Hawaii
DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS
(threatened), and Central America DPS
(endangered). According to Wade et al.
(2021), the probability that whales
encountered in Washington waters are
from a given DPS are as follows: Hawaii,
69 percent; Mexico (CA–OR–WA), 25
percent; Central America, 6 percent.
Humpback whales, while relatively
few in number, are regularly seen in the
Puget Sound. They are most frequently
found in the South Puget Sound, the
Strait of Juan De Fuca, the Haro Strait
and among the Canadian Gulf Islands.
They are found in transit in the
southern parts of the Strait of Georgia on
occasion, but are not a common
occurrence per the sightings archive of
the Orca Network (https://
www.orcanetwork.org/recent-sightings,
accessed June 2024).
Killer Whale
There are three distinct ecotypes, or
forms, of killer whales recognized in the
north Pacific: resident, transient, and
offshore. The three ecotypes differ
morphologically, ecologically,
behaviorally, and genetically. Resident
killer whales exclusively prey upon
fish, with a clear preference for salmon
(Ford and Ellis 2006; Hanson et al.,
2010; Ford et al., 2016), while transient
killer whales exclusively prey upon
marine mammals (Caretta et al., 2019).
Less is known about offshore killer
whales, but they are believed to
consume primarily fish, including
several species of shark (Dahlheim et
al., 2008). The seasonal movements of
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
53052
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
transients are largely unpredictable,
although there is a tendency to
investigate harbor seal haulouts off
Vancouver Island more frequently
during the pupping season in August
and September (Baird 1994; Ford 2014).
Transient killer whales have been
observed in central Puget Sound in all
months (Orca Network 2021).
Southern Resident killer whales
(SRKW) are typically found in the
Salish Sea in spring, summer and fall,
and are found along the west coast of
the United States and British Columbia
in the winter (NOAA, 2022). The J pod
tends to stay closer to the Puget Sound
even during winter. The orca pods
travel about the Puget Sound swiftly
and, though a rare occurrence, the pods
may pass through in the project area. On
March 28, 2024, the J pod was sighted
in the Strait of Georgia, about 23 miles
west of the project area near Mayne
Island (Orca Network, June 2024). ESA
summer core area critical habitat for
SRKW has been designated in Puget
Sound, which includes all U.S. marine
waters in Whatcom County, WA, where
Ferndale Dock is located (50 CFR 226;
August 2, 2021).
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoise occur along the U.S.
west coast from southern California to
the Bering Sea (Carretta et al., 2020).
The Washington Inland Waters stock is
found from Cape Flattery throughout
Puget Sound and the Salish Sea region.
In southern Puget Sound, harbor
porpoise were common in the 1940s,
but marine mammal surveys, stranding
records since the early 1970s, and
harbor porpoise surveys in the early
1990’s indicated that harbor porpoise
abundance had declined (Carretta et al.,
2020). Annual winter aerial surveys
conducted by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife from
1995 to 2015 revealed an increasing
trend in harbor porpoise in Washington
inland waters, including the return of
harbor porpoise to Puget Sound
(Carretta et al., 2020). Seasonal surveys
conducted in spring, summer, and fall
2013–2015 in Puget Sound and Hood
Canal documented substantial numbers
of harbor porpoise in Puget Sound.
Observed porpoise numbers were twice
as high in spring as in fall or summer,
indicating a seasonal shift in
distribution.
Harbor porpoise reside in the Puget
Sound year-round. Data from harbor
porpoise sightings indicate that
distribution is heterogeneous with some
areas consistently suggesting higher
densities of harbor porpoise. The British
Columbia Cetacean Sightings Network
(BCCSN) reports summer concentrations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
in areas that include the South-Central
Strait of Georgia (Canadian side), Haro
Strait, Boundary Pass and sites further
north in British Columbia. Winter
concentrations include the Port of San
Juan, Haro Strait, Swanson Channel,
and the central Strait of Georgia (in
British Columbia) (Zier, 2015).
California Sea Lion
California sea lions occur from
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to
the southern tip of Baja California. They
breed on the offshore islands of
southern and central California from
May through July (Heath and Perrin,
2008). During the non-breeding season,
adult and subadult males and juveniles
migrate northward along the coast to
central and northern California, Oregon,
Washington, and Vancouver Island
(Jefferson et al., 1993). They return
south the following spring (Heath and
Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney, 2005).
Females and some juveniles tend to
remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et
al., 1990; Melin et al., 2008).
California sea lions regularly occur on
rocks, buoys and other structures, and
are the most frequently sighted otariid
found in Washington waters. Some
3,000 to 5,000 animals are estimated to
move into Pacific Northwest waters of
Washington and British Columbia
during the fall (September) and remain
until the late spring (May) when most
return to breeding rookeries in
California and Mexico (Jeffries et al.,
2000). Peak counts of over 1,000
animals have been made in Puget Sound
(Jeffries et al., 2000).
There are no known haulouts in close
proximity to the proposed project area
but California sea lions may be in the
vicinity foraging as they move through
the wider area. While California sea
lions can be found throughout the Puget
Sound, estimates place the number of
California sea lions in the springtime at
an average of 450 in the Puget Sound
proper (Jefferson, et al., 2023). There are
two documented haulouts in the
southern Strait of Georgia, both along
the western coast of the Strait of Georgia
in British Columbia, Canada. The
closest haulout is near Tumbo Island on
the eastern edge of the Gulf Islands, over
15 miles from the project site (LeValley,
E., 2021).
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions in the project area are
expected to be from the Eastern U.S.
stock. The Eastern U.S. stock of Steller
sea lions is found along the coasts of
southeast Alaska to northern California
where they occur at rookeries and
numerous haulout locations along the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
coastline (Jeffries et al., 2000; Scordino,
2006; NMFS, 2013).
In Washington waters, numbers
decline during the summer months,
which correspond to the breeding
season at Oregon and British Columbia
rookeries (approximately late May to
early June) and peak during the fall and
winter month.
The majority of Steller sea lion
population in Washington is found on
the west coast but there are consistently
used haulouts and breeding sites
throughout the Puget Sound. These sites
are typically rocky, gravel or sand
beaches, ledges and reefs. There are two
documented haulouts in the southern
Strait of Georgia. The first is near
Tumbo Island on the eastern edge of the
Gulf Islands in British Columbia,
Canada, (west coast of the Strait of
Georgia), approximately 15 miles from
the project area. The second is on Sucia
Island (LeValley, E. 2021),
approximately 10 miles distant from the
project area, at the southern end of the
Strait of Georgia.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are the most common,
widely distributed marine mammal
found in Washington marine waters and
are frequently observed in the nearshore
marine environment. They occur yearround and breed in Washington. They
are frequently found in saltwater bays,
estuaries and inlets. Their preferred
haulouts include intertidal and subtidal
rocks, beaches, sandbars, rocky reefs,
log booms and floats.
There are 3 delineated stocks in the
Puget Sound. These stocks include the
Hood Canal stock, the Northern Inland
Waters stock and the Southern Puget
Sound stock.
This project is only likely to affect the
Northern Inland Waters Stock, which is
the most wide-spread stock throughout
the Puget Sound, from Cape Flattery, to
the Strait of Georgia, to the Tacoma
Narrows Bridge (NOAA, 2022).
Haulouts may be just a few individuals
but may range beyond 500 individuals.
Harbor seals generally live and feed in
a limited range but may travel up to 400
miles for seasonal prey. The Strait of
Georgia is a very large body of water
with no haulouts in the immediate
vicinity of the project. The closest
documented haulouts are two different
low population (>100 individuals)
locations approximately 5 miles from
the project site, one to the north and one
to the south (Jeffries et al., 2000). To the
southwest and west of the project
location are 14 other haulouts dotted
throughout a few of the small northern
San Juan Islands (North of Orcas Island)
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
within 10 miles of the project (Jeffries et
al., 2000).
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
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)
53053
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 3.
TABLE 3—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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section provides a discussion of
the ways in which components of the
specified activity may impact marine
mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section later in this document includes
a quantitative analysis of the number of
individuals that are expected to be taken
by this activity. The Negligible Impact
Analysis and Determination section
considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section, and the Proposed Mitigation
section, to draw conclusions regarding
the likely impacts of these activities on
the reproductive success or survivorship
of individuals and whether those
impacts are reasonably expected to, or
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised
of both ambient and anthropogenic
sounds. Ambient sound is defined as
the all-encompassing sound in a given
place and is usually a composite of
sound from many sources both near and
far. The sound level of an area is
defined by the total acoustical energy
being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may
include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice,
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals,
fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels,
dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and shipping activity) but
also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
given frequency and location can vary
by 10 to 20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from the specified
activity may be a negligible addition to
the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
In-water construction activities
associated with the project would
include vibratory pile driving, and
vibratory pile removal. The sounds
produced by these activities are
considered non-impulsive. Impulsive
sounds (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic
booms, impact pile driving) are
typically transient, brief (less than 1
second), broadband, and consist of high
peak sound pressure with rapid rise
time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986;
NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; NMFS,
2018). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g.,
aircraft, machinery operations such as
drilling or dredging, vibratory pile
driving, and active sonar systems) can
be broadband, narrowband or tonal,
brief or prolonged (continuous or
intermittent), and typically do not have
the high peak sound pressure with raid
rise/decay time that impulsive sounds
do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS,
2018). The distinction between these
two sound types is important because
they have differing potential to cause
physical effects, particularly with regard
to hearing (e.g., Southall et al., 2007).
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
53054
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Only one type of pile hammer would
be used on this project: vibratory.
Vibratory hammers install piles by
vibrating them and allowing the weight
of the hammer to push them into the
sediment. Vibratory hammers produce
significantly less sound than impact
hammers. Peak sound pressure levels
(SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are
generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs
generated during impact pile driving of
the same-sized pile (Oestman et al.,
2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the
probability and severity of injury, and
sound energy is distributed over a
greater amount of time (Nedwell and
Edwards, 2002; Carlson, et al., 2005).
The likely or possible impacts of
activity proposed by Phillips 66 on
marine mammals could involve both
non-acoustic and acoustic stressors.
Potential non-acoustic stressors include
the physical presence of the equipment
and personnel; however, any impacts to
marine mammals are expected to
primarily be acoustic in nature.
Auditory Effects
The introduction of anthropogenic
noise into the aquatic environment from
pile driving is the primary means by
which marine mammals may be
harassed from the Phillips 66 specified
activity. In general, animals exposed to
natural or anthropogenic sound may
experience physical and behavioral
effects, ranging in magnitude from none
to severe (Southall et al., 2007, 2021).
Exposure to pile driving noise has the
potential to result in auditory threshold
shifts (TS) and behavioral reactions
(e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of
foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive
behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic
noise can also lead to non-observable
physiological responses such an
increase in stress hormones. Additional
noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can
mask acoustic cues used by marine
mammals to carry out daily functions
such as communication and predator
and prey detection. The effects of pile
driving noise on marine mammals are
dependent on several factors, including,
but not limited to, sound type (e.g.,
impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the
species, age and sex class (e.g., adult
male vs. mom with calf), duration of
exposure, the distance between the pile
and the animal, received levels,
behavior at time of exposure, and
previous history with exposure
(Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al.,
2007). Here we discuss physical
auditory effects (TSs) followed by
behavioral effects and potential impacts
on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as
a change, usually an increase, in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual’s
hearing range above a previously
established reference level (NMFS,
2018). The amount of threshold shift is
customarily expressed in dB. A TS can
be permanent or temporary. As
described in NMFS (2018), there are
numerous factors to consider when
examining the consequence of TS,
including, but not limited to, the signal
temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or nonimpulsive), likelihood an individual
would be exposed for a long enough
duration or to a high enough level to
induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS,
time to recovery (seconds to minutes or
hours to days), the frequency range of
the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the
hearing and vocalization frequency
range of the exposed species relative to
the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e.,
how animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g.,
Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap
between the animal and the source (e.g.,
spatial, temporal, and spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)—
NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
above a previously established reference
level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals
indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift
approximates PTS onset (Ward et al.,
1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al.,
1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996;
Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for
marine mammals are estimates, as with
the exception of a single study
unintentionally inducing PTS in a
harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there
are no empirical data measuring PTS in
marine mammals largely due to the fact
that, for various ethical reasons,
experiments involving anthropogenic
noise exposure at levels inducing PTS
are not typically pursued or authorized
(NMFS, 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A
temporary, reversible increase in the
threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual’s
hearing range above a previously
established reference level (NMFS,
2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS
measurements (Southall et al., 2007), a
TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum
threshold shift clearly larger than any
day-to-day or session-to-session
variation in a subject’s normal hearing
ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran
et al., 2000, 2002). As described in
Finneran (2015), marine mammal
studies have shown the amount of TTS
increases with cumulative sound
exposure level (SELcum) in an
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accelerating fashion: At low exposures
with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS
is typically small and the growth curves
have shallow slopes. At exposures with
higher SELcum, the growth curves
become steeper and approach linear
relationships with the noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
serious (similar to those discussed in
auditory masking, below). For example,
a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small
amount of TTS in a non-critical
frequency range that takes place during
a time when the animal is traveling
through the open ocean, where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
time when communication is critical for
successful mother/calf interactions
could have more serious impacts. We
note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as
humans and other taxa (Southall et al.,
2007), so we can infer that strategies
exist for coping with this condition to
some degree, though likely not without
cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four
species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise
(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and five
species of pinnipeds exposed to a
limited number of sound sources (i.e.,
mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015).
TTS was not observed in trained spotted
(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa
hispida) seals exposed to impulsive
noise at levels matching previous
predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et
al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and
harbor porpoises have a lower TTS
onset than other measured pinniped or
cetacean species (Finneran, 2015).
Additionally, the existing marine
mammal TTS data come from a limited
number of individuals within these
species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For
summaries of data on TTS in marine
mammals or for further discussion of
TTS onset thresholds, please see
Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and
table 5 in NMFS (2018).
Installing piles for this project
requires vibratory pile driving. For the
project, there would likely be pauses in
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
activities producing the sound during
each day. Given these pauses and that
many marine mammals are likely
moving through the action area and not
remaining for extended periods of time,
the potential for TS declines, and is
considered unlikely for this project.
Behavioral harassment—Exposure to
noise from pile driving and removal also
has the potential to behaviorally disturb
marine mammals. Available studies
show wide variation in response to
underwater sound; therefore, it is
difficult to predict specifically how any
given sound in a particular instance
might affect marine mammals
perceiving the signal. If a marine
mammal does react briefly to an
underwater sound by changing its
behavior or moving a small distance, the
impacts of the change are unlikely to be
significant to the individual, let alone
the stock or population. However, if a
sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or
breeding area for a prolonged period,
impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005,
Southall et al., 2021).
Disturbance may result in changing
durations of surfacing and dives,
number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or
feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke
slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out
time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006).
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific and
any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g.,
species, state of maturity, experience,
current activity, reproductive state,
auditory sensitivity, time of day), as
well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et
al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007, 2021;
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010).
Behavioral reactions can vary not only
among individuals but also within
exposures of an individual, depending
on previous experience with a sound
source, context, and numerous other
factors (Ellison et al., 2012, Southall et
al., 2021), and can vary depending on
characteristics associated with the
sound source (e.g., whether it is moving
or stationary, number of sources,
distance from the source). In general,
pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at
least habituate more quickly to,
potentially disturbing underwater sound
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
than do cetaceans, and generally seem
to be less responsive to exposure to
industrial sound than most cetaceans.
For a review of studies involving marine
mammal behavioral responses to sound,
see Southall et al., 2007; Gomez et al.,
2016; and Southall et al., 2021 reviews.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be
difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
sound exposure, so it is usually inferred
by observed displacement from known
foraging areas, the appearance of
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets
or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of
behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
presentation, as well as differences in
species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in
response in any given circumstance
(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.,
2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et
al., 2007). A determination of whether
foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require
information on estimates of the
energetic requirements of the affected
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal.
Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior
through masking, or interfering with, an
animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of
interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions,
prey detection, predator avoidance,
navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995).
Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies
and at similar or higher intensity, and
may occur whether the sound is natural
(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic
exploration) in origin. The ability of a
noise source to mask biologically
important sounds depends on the
characteristics of both the noise source
and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise ratio, temporal variability,
direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g.,
sensitivity, frequency range, critical
ratios, frequency discrimination,
directional discrimination, age or TTS
hearing loss), and existing ambient
noise and propagation conditions.
Masking of natural sounds can result
when human activities produce high
levels of background sound at
frequencies important to marine
mammals. Conversely, if the
background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind
and high waves), an anthropogenic
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53055
sound source would not be detectable as
far away as would be possible under
quieter conditions and would itself be
masked. Ferndale Dock services barges,
tanker ships, and other vessels.
Approximately 3,000 ships travel
through the Strait of Georgia to visit
Vancouver. Therefore, background
sound levels in the project area are
likely already elevated.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
The proposed Phillips 66 construction
activities could have localized,
temporary impacts on marine mammal
habitat by increasing in-water SPLs and
slightly decreasing water quality.
Construction activities are of short
duration and would likely have
temporary impacts on marine mammal
habitat through increases in underwater
sound. Increased noise levels may affect
acoustic habitat (see masking discussion
above) and adversely affect marine
mammal prey in the vicinity of the
project area (see discussion below).
During pile driving, elevated levels of
underwater noise would ensonify
waters around the dock, where both fish
and mammals may occur, and could
affect foraging success.
In-water pile driving and pile removal
would also cause short-term effects on
water quality due to increased turbidity.
Local currents are anticipated to
disburse suspended sediments
produced by project activities at
moderate to rapid rates, depending on
tidal stage. Phillips 66 would employ
standard construction best management
practices, thereby reducing any impacts.
Considering the nature and duration of
the effects, combined with the measures
to reduce turbidity, the impact from
increased turbidity levels is expected to
be discountable.
Pile installation may temporarily
increase turbidity resulting from
suspended sediments. Any increases
would be temporary, localized, and
minimal. Phillips 66 must comply with
state water quality standards during
these operations by limiting the extent
of turbidity to the immediate project
area. In general, turbidity associated
with pile installation is localized to
about a 25-feet (ft) radius around the
pile (Everitt et al., 1980). Cetaceans are
not expected to be close enough to the
project pile driving areas to experience
effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds
would likely be transiting the area and
could avoid localized areas of turbidity.
Therefore, the impact from increased
turbidity levels is expected to be
discountable to marine mammals.
Furthermore, pile driving at the project
site would not obstruct movements or
migration of marine mammals.
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
53056
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
Effects on Prey
Construction activities would produce
continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving)
sounds. Fish react to sounds that are
especially strong and/or intermittent
low-frequency sounds. Short duration,
sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle
changes in fish behavior and local
distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005)
identified several studies that suggest
fish may relocate to avoid certain areas
of sound energy. Additional studies
have documented effects of pile driving
on fish, although several are based on
studies in support of large, multiyear
bridge construction projects (e.g.,
Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper
and Hastings, 2009). Sound pulses at
received levels may cause noticeable
changes in behavior (Pearson et al.,
1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of
sufficient strength have been known to
cause injury to fish and fish mortality.
Since only continuous vibratory piling
will be used in this project, impacts are
expected to be less.
Impacts on marine mammal prey (i.e.,
fish or invertebrates) of the immediate
area due to the acoustic disturbance are
possible. The duration of fish or
invertebrate avoidance or other
disruption of behavioral patterns in this
area after pile driving stops is unknown,
but a rapid return to normal
recruitment, distribution and behavior
is anticipated. Further, significantly
large areas of fish and marine mammal
foraging habitat are available in the
nearby waters.
The duration of the construction
activities is relatively short, with pile
driving activities expected to take only
35 days. There will be no more than a
total of 4 hours vibratory driving per
day and pile driving activities would be
restricted to daylight hours. The most
likely impact to fish from pile driving
activities at the project area would be
temporary behavioral avoidance of the
area. In general, impacts to marine
mammal prey species are expected to be
minor and temporary due to the short
timeframe for the project.
Construction activities, in the form of
increased turbidity, have the potential
to adversely affect fish in the project
area. Increased turbidity is expected to
occur in the immediate vicinity of
construction activities. However,
suspended sediments and particulates
are expected to dissipate quickly within
a single tidal cycle. Given the limited
area affected and high tidal dilution
rates, any effects on fish are expected to
be minor or negligible. In addition, best
management practices would be in
effect, which would limit the extent of
turbidity to the immediate project area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
In summary, given the relatively short
daily duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving and events and
the relatively small areas being affected,
pile driving activities associated with
the proposed action are not likely to
have a permanent, adverse effect on any
fish habitat, or populations of fish
species. Thus, we conclude that impacts
of the specified activity are not likely to
have more than short-term adverse
effects on any prey habitat or
populations of prey species. Further,
any impacts to marine mammal habitat
are not expected to result in significant
or long-term consequences for
individual marine mammals, or to
contribute to adverse impacts on their
populations.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through the IHA,
which will inform NMFS’ consideration
of ‘‘small numbers,’’ the negligible
impact determinations, and impacts on
subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance,
which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B
harassment only, as use of the acoustic
stressors (i.e., pile driving) has the
potential to result in disruption of
behavioral patterns for individual
marine mammals. The proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to minimize the severity of the
taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed to be authorized for this
activity. Below we describe how the
proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally
speaking, we estimate take by
considering: (1) acoustic thresholds
above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine
mammals will be behaviorally harassed
or incur some degree of permanent
hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified
above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and (4) the number of days of activities.
We note that while these factors can
contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential
takes, additional information that can
qualitatively inform take estimates is
also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group
size). Below, we describe the factors
considered here in more detail and
present the proposed take estimates.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of
acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound
above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level
B harassment).
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\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
53057
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
sources (vibratory driving), and
therefore the RMS SPL threshold of 120
dB re 1 mPa is applicable.
These thresholds are provided in the
table 4 below. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the
development of the thresholds are
potential reduced opportunities to
detect important signals (conspecific
communication, predators, prey) may
result in changes in behavior patterns
that would not otherwise occur.
The Phillips 66 proposed activity
includes the use of continuous sound
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 4—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.
* 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
TL coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is
the existing background noise plus
additional construction noise from the
proposed project. Marine mammals are
expected to be affected via sound
generated by the primary components of
the project (i.e., vibratory pile driving).
Additionally, vessel traffic and other
commercial and industrial activities in
the project area may contribute to
elevated background noise levels which
may mask sounds produced by the
project.
TL is the decrease in acoustic
intensity as an acoustic pressure wave
propagates out from a source. TL
parameters vary with frequency,
temperature, sea conditions, current,
source and receiver depth, water depth,
water chemistry, and bottom
composition and topography. The
general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * 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
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 B harassment sound
thresholds for the method 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
pile installation of 20-in steel piles.
Source levels for the pile size and
driving method are presented in table 5.
The closest representative pile size for
reference sound levels was 24-inch piles
(WSDOT 2020).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 5—PROXY SOUND SOURCE LEVELS FOR PILE SIZES AND DRIVING METHODS
Noise level
dB Peak
dB rms
dB SEL
Distance from
measurement
181
153
........................
10 m
Equipment used
Vibratory pile driving 24-inch steel piles 1 ........................................................
1 Caltrans
2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
53058
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
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 NMFS User Spreadsheet
tool, and the resulting estimated
isopleths, are reported below in tables 6
and table 7 below.
TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS FOR LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS
Inputs
20-in steel
vibratory
installation
Vibratory
Pile Driving
(Stationary:
non-impulsive,
Continuous)
Spreadsheet Tab Used
Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL) ..........................................................................................................................................
Peak ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
RMS ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ...............................................................................................................................................
Strikes per pile ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Piles per day ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Propagation (xLogR) ......................................................................................................................................................................
Duration .........................................................................................................................................................................................
Distance of source level measurement (meters)∂ ........................................................................................................................
..............................
..............................
153
2.5
..............................
16
15
15
10
TABLE 7—CALCULATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS (m) AND ENSONIFIED AREAS
[km2 in Parentheses]
Level A pinnipeds
Level A cetaceans
Pile size/type
Level B
Harbor seal
I
Sea lions
LF
I
MF
I
HF
Vibratory Installation
20-in steel ..............................
3.1 (.003)
<1 (.000)
I
120 dB threshold.
5 (.005)
I
<1 (.000)
I
7.5 (.007)
1585 (1.5)
* The Level A harassment isopleths associated with vibratory installation are all below the minimum shutdown zone and result in very small
ensonified areas. Therefore they are not provided in this table but will be included in the following calculated take tables.
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). These density estimates are
shown in table 8 and will be used to
calculate take due to the lack of sitespecific 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 × harassment
zone (km2) × maximum days of pile
driving where
N = density estimate (animals per
km2) used for each species.
TABLE 8—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES DENSITIES USED FOR EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Species
Density
(animals/km2)
Region characterized
Humpback Whale ....................................
Killer Whale (Southern Resident) ............
Killer Whale (Transient) ...........................
Harbor Porpoise ......................................
Steller Sea Lion .......................................
California Sea Lion ..................................
Harbor Seal .............................................
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
Puget
Puget
Puget
Puget
Puget
Puget
Puget
Sound/San Juan Islands (Fall and Winter) ...........................................
Sound/San Juan Islands (Fall and Winter) ...........................................
Sound/San Juan Islands (Fall and Winter) ...........................................
Sound ....................................................................................................
Sound/San Juan Islands (Fall) .............................................................
Sound/San Juan Islands (Fall) .............................................................
Sound/San Juan Islands (Fall) .............................................................
Source: Navy 2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
0.0027
0.0078
0.0031
2.16
0.0027
0.0179
0.76
53059
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
Potential Level A harassment zones
were all calculated to less than 10
meters. As seen from table 7, marine
mammals will have to be very close to
the vibratory driving activity to be
within the estimated Level A
harassment zone. Marine mammal
monitors will be in place, closely
monitoring this zone and stopping work
before any marine mammal gets near the
largest Level A harassment zone of 6.2m
from the project source. Based on the
estimated Level A harassment zones,
and density-based calculations for all
species, no take by Level A Harassment
was estimated (all less than 1.0). Harbor
porpoise is the species with the highest
density at 2.16 per km, multiplied by
the Level A harassment zone of .007 km
(table 7), and 35 days of work yields
0.53 individuals exposed to Level A
harassment. Therefore, when considered
in context of planned mitigation, no
take by Level A harassment is expected.
Table 9 below shows the total calculated
take by Level B harassment over the 35
in-water work days proposed for the
Phillips 66 activity resulting in total
calculated take.
TABLE 9—CALCULATED AND REQUESTED TAKE BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT FROM VIBRATORY PILE INSTALLATION
35 Days of 20-inch pile installation by vibratory hammer
Total level B
harassment
calculated
Species
Harbor Porpoise ...........................................................................................................................................
Steller Sea Lion ...........................................................................................................................................
California Sea Lion ......................................................................................................................................
Harbor Seal ..................................................................................................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are an uncommon
occurrence near the project area but
they do have the potential to be in the
area as they migrate to feeding grounds
to the north and mating grounds far
south. Based on best available density
estimates, Phillips 66 has calculated the
potential take of one humpback whale,
by Level B harassment only. However,
Phillips 66 proposes to shut down
whenever humpback whales approach
the Level B harassment zone. Given the
low density of humpback whales in the
project area, the ability to detect the
whales visually from a considerable
distance, the capacity to track whales
through the Orca Network, and the
anticipated efficacy of proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures,
Phillips 66 determined that no take of
humpback whales is likely to occur and
did not request that any such take be
authorized. NMFS concurs with this
request and, therefore, is not proposing
to authorize take of humpback whales.
Killer Whales
Both SRKW and transient killer
whales could potentially occur near the
project area. Based on best available
density estimates, Phillips 66 has
calculated that up to two SRKWs and
one transient whale could be taken, by
Level B harassment only. Even though
the project site is located in summer
core area critical habitat, and the project
may begin August 1, the southeastern
corner of the Strait of Georgia (where
the project is located) is not a location
where SRKW are commonly sighted.
According to the monthly ORCA
network reports of September through
October, from 2016–2023, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
occurrence of killer whales from any
stock was uncommon in the
southeastern corner of the Strait of
Georgia. When compared to transient
killer whales, sightings of SRKWs were
far less prevalent (ORCA 2024).
Mitigation requires that pile driving
activity shut down whenever a killer
whale from any stock is observed
approaching a harassment zone. Given
the ability to visually detect killer
whales from proposed PSO locations
(including boats), the capacity to track
this species through contact with the
ORCA Network, and the expected
efficacy of proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures, Phillips 66
elected to not request take. Due to the
expansive range of SRKWs; the
relatively small area of their habitat that
may be affected by the proposed project;
the ready availability of habitat of
similar or higher value, and the shortterm nature of installation construction
(35 days), Phillips 66 determined that
no take of killer whales is likely to occur
and did not request that any such take
be authorized. NMFS concurs with this
request and, therefore, is not proposing
to authorize take of killer whales.
Steller Sea Lion
Calculated take based upon the
species density in the Strait of Georgia
yielded one potential take by Level B
harassment during the 35 days of inwater pile driving work. While there are
no known nearby haulouts, there are
haulouts in the greater Strait of Georgia.
Phillips 66 determined, based on
anecdotal sightings at the facility, that
the calculated value was too low. In
addition, this species is known to travel
significant distances in search for prey,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
447
1
4
157
Level B
harassment
proposed for authorization
447
35
105
157
possibly into the surrounding marine
waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic
Reserve.
NMFS reviewed other IHA monitoring
reports from Puget Sound and found
that the Seattle Pier 63 construction
project (87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022)
reported a maximum of one animal
present per day over 17 in-water work
days between October 12 and November
30, 2022. Therefore, NMFS assumes a
similar rate of occurrence and is
proposing to authorize 35 (one/day)
takes of Steller sea lion by Level B
harassment.
California Sea Lion
Calculated take based upon the
species density in the Strait of Georgia
found 4 potential takes by Level B
harassment during the 35 days of pile
driving work at the Phillips 66 dock.
While there are no known nearby
haulouts, there are haulouts in the
greater Strait of Georgia. Phillips 66
determined, based on anecdotal
sightings at the facility, that the
calculated value was too low. In
addition, this species is known to travel
significant distances in search for prey,
possibly into the surrounding marine
waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic
Reserve.
NMFS reviewed other IHA monitoring
reports from Puget Sound and found
that the Seattle Pier 63 construction
project (87 FR 31985, May 26, 2022)
reported a maximum of three California
sea lions present per day over 17 inwater work days between October 12
and November 30, 2022. Therefore,
NMFS assumes a similar rate of
occurrence and is proposing to
authorize 105 (three/day) takes of
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
53060
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
California sea lions by Level B
Harassment.
Details of proposed takes by Level B
harassment as a percentage of stocks are
shown in table 10.
TABLE 10—PROPOSED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY SPECIES, STOCK, AND PERCENT OF
TAKE BY STOCK
Common name
Stock
Harbor porpoise .....................................
Steller sea lion .......................................
California sea lion ..................................
Harbor seal ............................................
Washington Inland Waters ....................
Eastern U.S ...........................................
U.S ........................................................
Washington Northern Inland .................
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to the activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses.
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting the activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, NMFS considers two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
Stock abundance
Total proposed
take
11,233
36,308
257,606
16,451
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned), the
likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned),
and;
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations.
Pre-start Clearance Monitoring—Prior
to the start of daily in-water
construction activity, or whenever a
break in pile driving/removal of 30
minutes or longer occurs, PSOs would
observe the shutdown and monitoring
zones for a period of 30 minutes. The
shutdown zone would be considered
cleared when a marine mammal has not
been observed within the zone for that
30-minute period. If a marine mammal
is observed within the shutdown zone,
a soft-start (discussed below) cannot
proceed until the animal has left the
zone or has not been observed for 15
minutes. If the monitoring zone has
been observed for 30 minutes and
marine mammals are not present within
the zone, soft-start procedures can
commence and work can continue. Pre-
Proposed take as
percentage of
stock
447
35
105
157
3.97
0.10
0.04
0.95
start clearance monitoring must be
conducted during periods of visibility
sufficient for the lead PSO to determine
that the shutdown zones, indicated in
table 11, are clear of marine mammals.
Pile driving may commence following
30 minutes of observation, when the
determination is made that the
shutdown zones are clear of marine
mammals. If work ceases for more than
30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring
of both the monitoring zone and
shutdown zone would commence.
Implementation of Shutdown Zones—
For all pile driving activities, Phillips 66
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 takes by Level A
harassment from vibratory pile driving
for all four species for which take may
occur.
A minimum shutdown zone of 10 m
would be required for all in-water
construction activities to avoid physical
interaction with marine mammals.
Proposed shutdown and monitoring
zones for each activity type are shown
in table 11.
TABLE 11—SHUTDOWN ZONES DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL (m)
Shutdown zones
HF
Phocid
Otariid
Level B
harassment
monitoring zone
10
10
10
1,585
Pile size/type
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
20-in steel Vibratory .................................................................
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 one
of the four species of marine mammal
for which take would be authorized
enters the Level B harassment zone, inwater activities would continue and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
pile driving activities will be shut down
immediately. Activities will not resume
until the animal has been confirmed to
have left the area or 15 minutes has
elapsed with no sighting of the animal.
Coordination With Local Marine
Mammal Research Network—Prior to
the start of pile driving for the day the
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
PSOs would contact the Orca Network
to find out the location of the nearest
sightings of any killer whales or
humpback whales. Phillips 66 must
delay or halt pile driving activities if
any killer whales or humpback whales
are sighted within the vicinity of the
project area and are approaching the
Level B harassment zones (table 11)
during in-water activities. Finally, if a
SRKW, unidentified killer whale, or
humpback whale enters the Level B
harassment zone undetected, in-water
pile driving must be suspended
immediately upon detection and must
not resume until the animal exits the
Level B harassment zone or 15 minutes
have passed without re-detection of the
animal.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the
proposed mitigation measures provide
the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that
requests for authorizations must include
the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge
of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present while conducting the activities.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 shall be conducted by
NMFS-approved observers. Trained
observers shall be placed from the best
vantage point(s) practicable to monitor
for marine mammals and implement
shutdown or delay procedures when
applicable through communication with
the equipment operator. Observer
training must be provided prior to
project start, and shall include
instruction on species identification
(sufficient to distinguish the species in
the project area), description and
categorization of observed behaviors
and interpretation of behaviors that may
be construed as being reactions to the
specified activity, proper completion of
data forms, and other basic components
of biological monitoring, including
tracking of observed animals or groups
of animals such that repeat sound
exposures may be attributed to
individuals (to the extent possible).
Monitoring would be conducted 30
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after pile driving activities. In addition,
observers shall record all incidents of
marine mammal occurrence, regardless
of distance from activity, and shall
document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being
driven. Pile driving 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 two PSOs would be on
duty during all in-water pile driving
activities. One ‘shore-based’ observer
will be stationed at locations offering
best line of sight views to monitor the
entirety of the shutdown zones and
provide the most complete coverage of
the monitoring zones. Additionally,
Phillips 66 proposes to deploy one boatbased PSO that will be positioned at a
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53061
location or moving in a pattern that
offers the most complete visual coverage
of the monitoring zone. Note, however,
PSO position(s) may vary based on
construction activity and location of
piles or equipment.
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. Phillips 66 would
adhere to the following observer
qualifications:
1. PSOs must be independent of the
activity contractor (for example,
employed by a subcontractor) and have
no other assigned tasks during
monitoring periods,
2. 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,
3. 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,
4. 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,
5. 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
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
53062
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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 would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of
pile driving and removal activities. It
would include an overall description of
work completed, a narrative regarding
marine mammal sightings, and
associated PSO data sheets. Specifically,
the report must include:
• 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,
and the total equipment duration or
total number of minutes for each pile
(vibratory 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 zone, 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 final
report would constitute the final report.
If comments are received, a final report
addressing NMFS comments must be
submitted within 30 days after receipt of
comments.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine
Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such
as an injury, serious injury or mortality,
Phillips 66 would immediately cease
the specified activities and report the
incident to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast
Region regional stranding coordinator.
The report would include the following
information:
• 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 would not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS would work with Phillips 66 to
determine what is necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. Phillips 66 would not be
able to resume their activities until
notified by NMFS.
In the event that Phillips 66 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), Phillips 66 would
immediately report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources
(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov),
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Phillips 66 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., 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 9, 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.
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
Pile driving 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 B harassment from
underwater sounds generated from pile
driving. Potential takes could occur if
individuals of these species are present
in zones ensonified above the
thresholds for Level B harassment
identified above when these activities
are underway.
Take by Level B harassment would be
due to potential behavioral disturbance,
and TTS. No serious injury or mortality
is anticipated or proposed for
authorization given the nature of the
activity and measures designed to
minimize the possibility of injury to
marine mammals. The potential for
harassment is minimized through the
construction method and the
implementation of the planned
mitigation measures (see Proposed
Mitigation section).
Based on reports in the literature as
well as monitoring from other similar
activities, behavioral disturbance (i.e.,
Level B harassment) would likely be
limited to reactions such as increased
swimming speeds, increased surfacing
time, or decreased foraging (if such
activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson
and Reyff, 2006; HDR, Inc., 2012; Lerma,
2014). Most likely for pile driving,
individuals would simply move away
from the sound source and be
temporarily displaced from the areas of
pile driving, although even this reaction
has been observed primarily only in
association with impact pile driving.
The pile driving activities analyzed here
are similar to, or less impactful than,
numerous other construction activities
conducted in Washington, which have
taken place with no observed severe
responses of any individuals or known
long-term adverse consequences. The
impact of Level B harassment takes on
the affected individuals would be
minimized through use of mitigation
measures described herein and, if sound
produced by project activities is
sufficiently disturbing, animals are
likely to simply avoid the area while the
activity is occurring. The project site
itself is frequented by large tankers
every few days, but the majority of
sound fields produced by the specified
activities are relatively close to the
dock. Animals disturbed by project
sound would be expected to avoid the
area and use nearby higher-quality
habitats.
The project also is not expected to
have significant adverse effects on
affected marine mammals’ habitat. The
project activities would not modify
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
existing marine mammal habitat for a
significant amount of time. The
activities may cause some fish or
invertebrates to leave the area of
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting
marine mammals’ foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the
foraging range; but, because of the
intermittent driving schedule (35 inwater work days between August 1 and
October 31, 2024); short duration of the
activities (no more than 4 hours per day
vibratory driving); the relatively small
area of the habitat that may be affected;
and the availability of nearby habitat of
similar or higher value, the impacts to
marine mammal habitat are not
expected to cause significant or longterm negative consequences.
While there are haulouts for
pinnipeds in the area, these locations
are some distance from the actual
project site. There are two documented
California sea lion haulouts in the
southern Strait of Georgia, both on the
western coast of the Strait in British
Columbia. The closest haulout in near
Tumbo Island on the eastern edge of the
Gulf Island, over 15 miles from the
project site. The closest documented
Steller sea lion haulout location is over
10 miles from the project site, on Sucia
Island (Jeffries et al., 2000). The closest
documented harbor seal haulouts are
two different low population (≤100
individuals) locations approximately 5
miles from the project site, one to the
north and one to the south (Jeffries et
al., 2000). To the southwest and west of
the project location are 14 other
haulouts dotted throughout a few of the
small northern San Juan Islands (North
of Orcas Island) within 10 miles of the
project (Jeffries et al., 2000).
While repeated exposures of
individuals to this pile driving activity
could cause limited Level B harassment
in harbor seals, harbor porpoises, 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 preliminary determination that the
impacts resulting from this activity are
not expected to adversely affect any of
the species or stocks through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized;
• 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 area from the project
is very small relative to the overall
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53063
habitat ranges of all species and stocks,
and no habitat of particular importance
would be impacted;
• Repeated exposures of marine
mammals to this pile driving activity
could cause Level B harassment in seals,
harbor porpoise and sea lion species,
but are unlikely to considerably disrupt
foraging behavior or result in significant
decrease in fitness, reproduction, or
survival for the affected individuals. In
all, there would be no adverse impacts
to the stocks as a whole; and
• The proposed mitigation measures
are expected to reduce the effects of the
specified activity by minimizing the
intensity and/or duration of harassment
events.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of
small numbers of marine mammals may
be authorized under sections
101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military
readiness activities. The MMPA does
not define small numbers and so, in
practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number
of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of
the relevant species or stock in our
determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. When the
predicted number of individuals to be
taken is fewer than one-third of the
species or stock abundance, the take is
considered to be of small numbers.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
Table 8 demonstrates the number of
instances in which individuals of a
given species could be exposed to
received noise levels that could cause
take of marine mammals. Our analysis
shows that the total taking proposed for
authorization is less than 4 percent of
the best available population abundance
estimate for all species.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
53064
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2024 / Notices
numbers of marine mammals would be
taken, relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
the total taking of affected species or
stocks would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed
species is proposed for authorization or
expected to result from this activity.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
formal consultation under section 7 of
the ESA is not required for this action.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to Phillips 66 for conducting inwater pile driving activities at the
Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery Dock in
Ferndale Washington from August 1,
2024 through July 31, 2025, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. A draft of the
proposed IHA can be found at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this notice of proposed
IHA for the proposed construction
activities. We also request comment on
the potential renewal of this proposed
IHA as described in the paragraph
below. Please include with your
comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform
decisions on the request for this IHA or
a subsequent renewal IHA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jun 24, 2024
Jkt 262001
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA
following notice to the public providing
an additional 15 days for public
comments when (1) up to another year
of identical or nearly identical activities
as described in the Description of
Proposed Activity section of this notice
is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of
Proposed Activity section of this notice
would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a renewal would allow
for completion of the activities beyond
that described in the Dates and Duration
section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to the needed
renewal IHA effective date (recognizing
that the renewal IHA expiration date
cannot extend beyond 1 year from
expiration of the initial IHA),
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
1. An explanation that the activities to
be conducted under the requested
renewal IHA are identical to the
activities analyzed under the initial
IHA, are a subset of the activities, or
include changes so minor (e.g.,
reduction in pile size) that the changes
do not affect the previous analyses,
mitigation and monitoring
requirements, or take estimates (with
the exception of reducing the type or
amount of take), and
2. A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized,
and
• Upon review of the request for
renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
will remain the same and appropriate,
and the findings in the initial IHA
remain valid.
Dated: June 18, 2024.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–13818 Filed 6–24–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
Review and Approval; Comment
Request; Evaluation of Public Visitors’
Experience at the National Marine
Sanctuaries Visitor Centers and
Exhibits
National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of information collection,
request for comment.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to comment on
proposed, and continuing information
collections, which helps us assess the
impact of our information collection
requirements and minimize the public’s
reporting burden. The purpose of this
notice is to allow for 60 days of public
comment preceding submission of the
collection to OMB.
DATES: To ensure consideration,
comments regarding this proposed
information collection must be received
on or before August 26, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments to
Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer,
at NOAA.PRA@noaa.gov. Please
reference OMB Control Number 0648–
0582 in the subject line of your
comments. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise
sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
specific questions related to collection
activities should be directed to Dr.
Giselle Samonte, Economist, NOAA
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries,
1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, 10th
Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910; (301)
427–8606 or email address:
Giselle.Samonte@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Abstract
The Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS) is requesting
revision and extension of a currently
approved information collection. The
evaluation of visitor demographics,
experiences, and opinions about visitor
centers and exhibits is needed to
support the conservation, education,
and management goals of ONMS to
strengthen and improve the
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53046-53064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13818]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XE014]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ferndale Refinery Dock Maintenance
and Pile Replacement Activities in Ferndale, Washington
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Phillips 66 Co. (Phillips 66)
for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Ferndale
Refinery Dock Maintenance and Pile Replacement Activities in Ferndale,
Washington. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals
during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a
possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain
circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request
for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider
public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of
the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be
summarized in the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 25,
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
[email protected]. 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/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed below.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Gatzke, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections
below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not
individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts
on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not
identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically
excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On February 29, 2024 we received a request from Phillips 66 for an
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Ferndale Refinery Dock
Maintenance and Pile Replacement Activities in Ferndale, Washington.
Following NMFS' review of the application, Phillips 66 submitted
revised versions on May 16 and May 20, 2024. The
[[Page 53047]]
application was deemed adequate and complete on May 21, 2024. Phillips
66 has requested authorization of take by Level B harassment for harbor
seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion and harbor porpoise.
Neither Phillips 66 nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to
result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Phillips 66 is proposing to modernize the existing timber loading
dock and replace it with a stronger structure that meets current
industry best practices. The activity includes installation of steel
piles by vibratory driving, and pile removal using an underwater
chainsaw or cutting torch.
In-water pile installation construction would occur for 35 days,
which would occur intermittently between approximately August 1, 2024
and October 31, 2024. Take of marine mammals is anticipated to occur
due to vibratory pile installation. Removal of all piles is expected to
take up to 66 days for underwater pile cutting with a chainsaw. Take of
marine mammals is not anticipated to occur due to pile removal.
Dates and Duration
This IHA would be valid for 1 year from the date of issuance. Due
to in-water work timing restrictions to protect Endangered Species Act
(ESA)-listed salmonids, all planned in-water construction in this area
is limited to a work window beginning August 1 and ending February 1.
However, since the Strait of Georgia is a very large water body with a
long fetch, calm in-water work conditions are typically only available
from August to the end of October. Pile removal processes are less
dependent on good weather, and this portion of the project may occur
from approximately August 1 to February 1. Therefore, Phillips 66
expects that in-water pile installation construction work will occur
from August 1, 2024 to October 31, 2024. Pile driving is anticipated to
take up to 35 days to complete. Work may occur on nonconsecutive days
due to weather and other project needs. Pile driving would be completed
intermittently throughout daylight hours.
Specific Geographic Region
Phillips 66 maintains and operates a marine dock on the
southeastern shoreline of the Strait of Georgia in Ferndale, Washington
as shown in figure 1. The Strait of Georgia encompasses the northern
marine waters of the Salish Sea, with a long fetch that extends to the
northwest between the Canadian mainland and Vancouver Island. The dock
is built on aquatic lands leased from the Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR), with the lease boundary shown in figure 2.
The shoreline and aquatic area surrounding the dock is part of the
Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve, a WDNR protected marine environment. The
shore area is characterized by wave washed feeder bluffs where sediment
transport creates both sandy and cobbled beaches and intertidal zones.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 53048]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25JN24.004
Figure 1--Vicinity Map Showing the Strait of Georgia in the Northeast
Puget Sound, WA
[[Page 53049]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25JN24.005
Figure 2--Project Location Showing the WDNR Lease Boundary in Ferndale,
WA
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Detailed Description of the Specified Activity
The first phase of in-water construction activity consists of the
vibratory installation of 116 steel piles of 20 inch diameter. Piles
will be driven to approximately 40 ft (12.19 m) of penetration into the
sea floor. Pile driving time is estimated to take 15 minutes per pile.
Pile driving will take 35 days and pile driving time is not expected to
exceed 4 hours in any 24-hour period.
The next project phase is the removal of the old timber and steel
pilings. Note that Phillips 66 is proposing to install the new steel
piles before removing the old timber and steel ones in order to
minimize facility downtime. Phillips 66 has determined that there is
limited access for pile removal via vibratory or direct pull methods
due to the location of the piles under the causeway. It may be
necessary to utilize a variety of pile removal methods to safely
complete this work. The existing 12-inch steel and creosote-treated
timber piles (677 in total) will be cut below the mudline with an
underwater chainsaw or cutting torch. Underwater chainsaw average
underwater SPL (Sound Pressure Level) of 140 dB RMS. However, as noted
above, this activity is not expected to cause incidental take of marine
mammals as it produces relatively low source levels of noise that is
similar to numerous other noise sources at a heavily used industrial
marine environment. A cutting torch is not anticipated to generate
significant noise. The removed piles will be lifted to a barge for
proper disposal. Note that NMFS has determined that use of an
underwater chainsaw or cutting torch is not expected to result in take
and, therefore, these activities will not be discussed further.
A summary of the proposed pile installation and removal methods for
the dock project is presented below in table 1.
[[Page 53050]]
Table 1--Summary of In-Water Pile Removal and Installation at Phillips 66 Dock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours pile
Pile type and size Activity Removal/install Number of Total days of in-water Approximate driver in use
method piles work piles per day per day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-inch steel pipe pile............ Install.............. Vibratory hammer..... 116 Up to 35................ 16 4
12-inch timber and steel pipes..... Removal.............. Underwater chainsaw 677 Up to 66................ NA NA
and cutting torch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends and threats may be found in
NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 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 2 lists all species or stocks for which exposure is expected
for this activity and summarizes information related to the population
or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and
potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the
MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or
mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or
stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the
most recent available at the time of publication (including from the
draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at: (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
Table 2--Species for Which Take Could Occur in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock Strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI3 \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Artiodactyla--Cetacea--Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback Whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Central America/ E, D, Y 1,494 (0.171, 1,284, 3.5 14.9
Southern Mexico--CA/OR/ 2021).
WA.
Humpback Whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Mainland Mexico--CA/OR/ T, D, Y 3,477 (0.101, 3,185, 43 22
WA. 2018).
Humpback Whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Hawaii................. -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 127 27.09
2020).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Killer Whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Eastern North Pacific E, D, Y 73 (N/A, 73, 2022).... 0.13 0
Southern Resident.
Killer Whale.................... Orcinus orca........... West Coast Transient... -, -, N 349 (N/A, 349, 2018).. 3.5 0.4
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Washington Inland -, -, N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 66 >=7.2
Waters. 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California Sea Lion............. Zalophus californianus. U.S.................... -,-; N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 14,011 >321
2014).
Steller Sea Lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern................ -,-; N 36,308 (N/A, 36,308, 2,178 93.2
2022).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
[[Page 53051]]
Harbor Seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... Washington Northern -, -, N 16,451 (0.07, 15,462, 928 40
Inland Waters. 2019).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on the classification of marine mammal species follows The Society for Marine Mammalogy's Committee on Taxonomy (https://www.marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/).ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status:
Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic
stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the
ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic
stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: 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.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range.
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project
area are included in table 2 of the IHA application. While the gray
whale, minke whale, Dall's porpoise, and the Eastern North Pacific
Northern Resident stock of killer whale have been reported in the area,
the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that
take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further
beyond the explanation provided here. The gray whale is uncommon in the
area, but may pass through the Puget Sound during migration. Per the
population analysis on gray whales from 1996-2015, from June 1 to
November 30, there were only 6 days when sightings were recorded in the
Northern Puget Sound. The Northern Puget Sound refers to a study range
of the Puget Sound marine waters from Edmonds, WA to the Canadian
border (Calambokidis, 2017). Additionally, gray whales would not be
migrating when in-water work would most likely occur for this project
(i.e., August through October). Therefore, since the occurrence of the
gray whale is low at any time of year, and no gray whales are expected
to occur during the expected work period, take of this species is not
expected. While the minke whale may be observed in the San Juan Islands
and southern Puget Sound, reports of minke whales in the Southeastern
Strait of Georgia are rare. The Dall's porpoise has historically been
present in the Puget Sound, but their numbers have declined
significantly and are now also considered to be rare (Evenson 2016,
Jefferson et al., 2016, Jefferson 2024). Finally, while the Eastern
North Pacific Northern Resident stock of killer whale may occur
infrequently in Washington, its primary range is located in British
Columbia, Canada, and Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al., 1997, Ford et
al., 2000), and no take of this stock is expected to occur.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found in coastal waters of Washington as they
migrate from feeding grounds in Alaska to California to winter breeding
grounds in Central America and Mexico or Hawaii. Humpbacks used to be
considered only rare visitors to Puget Sound. In 1976 and 1978, two
sightings were reported in Puget Sound and one sighting was reported in
1986 (Osborne et al., 1988; Calambokidis and Steiger 1990; Calambokidis
and Baird 1994). Humpback whale occurrence in Puget Sound has been
steadily increasing since 2000, with some individuals remaining in the
area through the winter (Calambokidis et al., 2018).
On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the once single species into 14
distinct population segments (DPS) under the ESA, removed the species-
level listing as endangered, and, in its place, listed four DPSs as
endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016).
The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. There are four DPSs in the
North Pacific, including Western North Pacific and Central America,
which are listed as endangered, Mexico, which is listed as threatened,
and Hawaii, which is not listed.
The 2022 Pacific SARs described a revised stock structure for
humpback whales which modifies the previous stocks designated under the
MMPA to align more closely with the ESA-designated DPSs (Caretta et
al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). Specifically, the three previous North
Pacific humpback whale stocks (Central and Western North Pacific stocks
and a CA/OR/WA stock) were replaced by five stocks, largely
corresponding with the ESA-designated DPSs. These include Western North
Pacific and Hawaii stocks and a Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/
WA stock (which corresponds with the Central America DPS). The
remaining two stocks, corresponding with the Mexico DPS, are the
Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mexico-North Pacific stocks (Caretta et
al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). The former stock is expected to occur
along the west coast from California to southern British Columbia,
while the latter stock may occur across the Pacific, from northern
British Columbia through the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands/Bering
Sea region to Russia.
Within U.S. west coast waters, three current DPSs may occur: The
Hawaii DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central America
DPS (endangered). According to Wade et al. (2021), the probability that
whales encountered in Washington waters are from a given DPS are as
follows: Hawaii, 69 percent; Mexico (CA-OR-WA), 25 percent; Central
America, 6 percent.
Humpback whales, while relatively few in number, are regularly seen
in the Puget Sound. They are most frequently found in the South Puget
Sound, the Strait of Juan De Fuca, the Haro Strait and among the
Canadian Gulf Islands. They are found in transit in the southern parts
of the Strait of Georgia on occasion, but are not a common occurrence
per the sightings archive of the Orca Network (https://www.orcanetwork.org/recent-sightings, accessed June 2024).
Killer Whale
There are three distinct ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales
recognized in the north Pacific: resident, transient, and offshore. The
three ecotypes differ morphologically, ecologically, behaviorally, and
genetically. Resident killer whales exclusively prey upon fish, with a
clear preference for salmon (Ford and Ellis 2006; Hanson et al., 2010;
Ford et al., 2016), while transient killer whales exclusively prey upon
marine mammals (Caretta et al., 2019). Less is known about offshore
killer whales, but they are believed to consume primarily fish,
including several species of shark (Dahlheim et al., 2008). The
seasonal movements of
[[Page 53052]]
transients are largely unpredictable, although there is a tendency to
investigate harbor seal haulouts off Vancouver Island more frequently
during the pupping season in August and September (Baird 1994; Ford
2014). Transient killer whales have been observed in central Puget
Sound in all months (Orca Network 2021).
Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW) are typically found in the
Salish Sea in spring, summer and fall, and are found along the west
coast of the United States and British Columbia in the winter (NOAA,
2022). The J pod tends to stay closer to the Puget Sound even during
winter. The orca pods travel about the Puget Sound swiftly and, though
a rare occurrence, the pods may pass through in the project area. On
March 28, 2024, the J pod was sighted in the Strait of Georgia, about
23 miles west of the project area near Mayne Island (Orca Network, June
2024). ESA summer core area critical habitat for SRKW has been
designated in Puget Sound, which includes all U.S. marine waters in
Whatcom County, WA, where Ferndale Dock is located (50 CFR 226; August
2, 2021).
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoise occur along the U.S. west coast from southern
California to the Bering Sea (Carretta et al., 2020). The Washington
Inland Waters stock is found from Cape Flattery throughout Puget Sound
and the Salish Sea region. In southern Puget Sound, harbor porpoise
were common in the 1940s, but marine mammal surveys, stranding records
since the early 1970s, and harbor porpoise surveys in the early 1990's
indicated that harbor porpoise abundance had declined (Carretta et al.,
2020). Annual winter aerial surveys conducted by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife from 1995 to 2015 revealed an
increasing trend in harbor porpoise in Washington inland waters,
including the return of harbor porpoise to Puget Sound (Carretta et
al., 2020). Seasonal surveys conducted in spring, summer, and fall
2013-2015 in Puget Sound and Hood Canal documented substantial numbers
of harbor porpoise in Puget Sound. Observed porpoise numbers were twice
as high in spring as in fall or summer, indicating a seasonal shift in
distribution.
Harbor porpoise reside in the Puget Sound year-round. Data from
harbor porpoise sightings indicate that distribution is heterogeneous
with some areas consistently suggesting higher densities of harbor
porpoise. The British Columbia Cetacean Sightings Network (BCCSN)
reports summer concentrations in areas that include the South-Central
Strait of Georgia (Canadian side), Haro Strait, Boundary Pass and sites
further north in British Columbia. Winter concentrations include the
Port of San Juan, Haro Strait, Swanson Channel, and the central Strait
of Georgia (in British Columbia) (Zier, 2015).
California Sea Lion
California sea lions occur from Vancouver Island, British Columbia,
to the southern tip of Baja California. They breed on the offshore
islands of southern and central California from May through July (Heath
and Perrin, 2008). During the non-breeding season, adult and subadult
males and juveniles migrate northward along the coast to central and
northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island
(Jefferson et al., 1993). They return south the following spring (Heath
and Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney, 2005). Females and some juveniles
tend to remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et al., 1990; Melin et
al., 2008).
California sea lions regularly occur on rocks, buoys and other
structures, and are the most frequently sighted otariid found in
Washington waters. Some 3,000 to 5,000 animals are estimated to move
into Pacific Northwest waters of Washington and British Columbia during
the fall (September) and remain until the late spring (May) when most
return to breeding rookeries in California and Mexico (Jeffries et al.,
2000). Peak counts of over 1,000 animals have been made in Puget Sound
(Jeffries et al., 2000).
There are no known haulouts in close proximity to the proposed
project area but California sea lions may be in the vicinity foraging
as they move through the wider area. While California sea lions can be
found throughout the Puget Sound, estimates place the number of
California sea lions in the springtime at an average of 450 in the
Puget Sound proper (Jefferson, et al., 2023). There are two documented
haulouts in the southern Strait of Georgia, both along the western
coast of the Strait of Georgia in British Columbia, Canada. The closest
haulout is near Tumbo Island on the eastern edge of the Gulf Islands,
over 15 miles from the project site (LeValley, E., 2021).
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions in the project area are expected to be from the
Eastern U.S. stock. The Eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lions is
found along the coasts of southeast Alaska to northern California where
they occur at rookeries and numerous haulout locations along the
coastline (Jeffries et al., 2000; Scordino, 2006; NMFS, 2013).
In Washington waters, numbers decline during the summer months,
which correspond to the breeding season at Oregon and British Columbia
rookeries (approximately late May to early June) and peak during the
fall and winter month.
The majority of Steller sea lion population in Washington is found
on the west coast but there are consistently used haulouts and breeding
sites throughout the Puget Sound. These sites are typically rocky,
gravel or sand beaches, ledges and reefs. There are two documented
haulouts in the southern Strait of Georgia. The first is near Tumbo
Island on the eastern edge of the Gulf Islands in British Columbia,
Canada, (west coast of the Strait of Georgia), approximately 15 miles
from the project area. The second is on Sucia Island (LeValley, E.
2021), approximately 10 miles distant from the project area, at the
southern end of the Strait of Georgia.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are the most common, widely distributed marine mammal
found in Washington marine waters and are frequently observed in the
nearshore marine environment. They occur year-round and breed in
Washington. They are frequently found in saltwater bays, estuaries and
inlets. Their preferred haulouts include intertidal and subtidal rocks,
beaches, sandbars, rocky reefs, log booms and floats.
There are 3 delineated stocks in the Puget Sound. These stocks
include the Hood Canal stock, the Northern Inland Waters stock and the
Southern Puget Sound stock.
This project is only likely to affect the Northern Inland Waters
Stock, which is the most wide-spread stock throughout the Puget Sound,
from Cape Flattery, to the Strait of Georgia, to the Tacoma Narrows
Bridge (NOAA, 2022). Haulouts may be just a few individuals but may
range beyond 500 individuals. Harbor seals generally live and feed in a
limited range but may travel up to 400 miles for seasonal prey. The
Strait of Georgia is a very large body of water with no haulouts in the
immediate vicinity of the project. The closest documented haulouts are
two different low population (>100 individuals) locations approximately
5 miles from the project site, one to the north and one to the south
(Jeffries et al., 2000). To the southwest and west of the project
location are 14 other haulouts dotted throughout a few of the small
northern San Juan Islands (North of Orcas Island)
[[Page 53053]]
within 10 miles of the project (Jeffries et al., 2000).
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal
hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in table 3.
Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
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
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components
of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat.
The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals
and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many
sources both near and far. The sound level of an area is defined by the
total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources.
These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind, precipitation,
earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds produced
by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound
(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10 to 20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
include vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile removal. The sounds
produced by these activities are considered non-impulsive. Impulsive
sounds (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving)
are typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and
consist of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid
decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive
sounds (e.g., aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be
broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or
intermittent), and typically do not have the high peak sound pressure
with raid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH,
1998; NMFS, 2018). The distinction between these two sound types is
important because they have differing potential to cause physical
effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Southall et al.,
2007).
[[Page 53054]]
Only one type of pile hammer would be used on this project:
vibratory. Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and
allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment.
Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers.
Peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are
generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile
driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is
slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound
energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and
Edwards, 2002; Carlson, et al., 2005).
The likely or possible impacts of activity proposed by Phillips 66
on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic
stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors include the physical
presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine
mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.
Auditory Effects
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic
environment from pile driving is the primary means by which marine
mammals may be harassed from the Phillips 66 specified activity. In
general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may
experience physical and behavioral effects, ranging in magnitude from
none to severe (Southall et al., 2007, 2021). Exposure to pile driving
noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts (TS) and
behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging
and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic
noise can also lead to non-observable physiological responses such an
increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's
habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out
daily functions such as communication and predator and prey detection.
The effects of pile driving noise on marine mammals are dependent on
several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type (e.g.,
impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class (e.g.,
adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance
between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of
exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004;
Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects (TSs)
followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as a change, usually an increase,
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of threshold shift is customarily
expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in
NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the
consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal
pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual
would be exposed for a long enough duration or to a high enough level
to induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to
minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of the exposure (i.e.,
spectral content), the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the
exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how
animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g.,
Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap between the animal and the
source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold
shift approximates PTS onset (Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960;
Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et
al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the
exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor
seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS
in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical
reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels
inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--A temporary, reversible increase
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements
(Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum
threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-
session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et
al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran
(2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases
with cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating
fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is
typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures
with higher SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and approach
linear relationships with the noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena
asiaeorientalis)) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained
spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to
impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset
(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises
have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species
(Finneran, 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data
come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data
are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For
summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of
TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and table 5 in NMFS (2018).
Installing piles for this project requires vibratory pile driving.
For the project, there would likely be pauses in
[[Page 53055]]
activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and
that many marine mammals are likely moving through the action area and
not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS
declines, and is considered unlikely for this project.
Behavioral harassment--Exposure to noise from pile driving and
removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals.
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound;
therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound
in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the
signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by
changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the
change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the
stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged
period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant
(e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005, Southall et
al., 2021).
Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw
clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound
are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on
numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory
sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al.,
2007, 2021; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions
can vary not only among individuals but also within exposures of an
individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source,
context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012, Southall et
al., 2021), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with
the sound source (e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of
sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more
tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially
disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be
less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans.
For a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to
sound, see Southall et al., 2007; Gomez et al., 2016; and Southall et
al., 2021 reviews.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.,
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al.,
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked.
Ferndale Dock services barges, tanker ships, and other vessels.
Approximately 3,000 ships travel through the Strait of Georgia to visit
Vancouver. Therefore, background sound levels in the project area are
likely already elevated.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
The proposed Phillips 66 construction activities could have
localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat by increasing in-
water SPLs and slightly decreasing water quality. Construction
activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary
impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater sound.
Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking
discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the
vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During pile
driving, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify waters
around the dock, where both fish and mammals may occur, and could
affect foraging success.
In-water pile driving and pile removal would also cause short-term
effects on water quality due to increased turbidity. Local currents are
anticipated to disburse suspended sediments produced by project
activities at moderate to rapid rates, depending on tidal stage.
Phillips 66 would employ standard construction best management
practices, thereby reducing any impacts. Considering the nature and
duration of the effects, combined with the measures to reduce
turbidity, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be
discountable.
Pile installation may temporarily increase turbidity resulting from
suspended sediments. Any increases would be temporary, localized, and
minimal. Phillips 66 must comply with state water quality standards
during these operations by limiting the extent of turbidity to the
immediate project area. In general, turbidity associated with pile
installation is localized to about a 25-feet (ft) radius around the
pile (Everitt et al., 1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be close
enough to the project pile driving areas to experience effects of
turbidity, and any pinnipeds would likely be transiting the area and
could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from
increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine
mammals. Furthermore, pile driving at the project site would not
obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.
[[Page 53056]]
Effects on Prey
Construction activities would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory
pile driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds that are especially strong
and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds
can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local
distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies
that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy.
Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on fish,
although several are based on studies in support of large, multiyear
bridge construction projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper
and Hastings, 2009). Sound pulses at received levels may cause
noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al.,
1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to
fish and fish mortality. Since only continuous vibratory piling will be
used in this project, impacts are expected to be less.
Impacts on marine mammal prey (i.e., fish or invertebrates) of the
immediate area due to the acoustic disturbance are possible. The
duration of fish or invertebrate avoidance or other disruption of
behavioral patterns in this area after pile driving stops is unknown,
but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is
anticipated. Further, significantly large areas of fish and marine
mammal foraging habitat are available in the nearby waters.
The duration of the construction activities is relatively short,
with pile driving activities expected to take only 35 days. There will
be no more than a total of 4 hours vibratory driving per day and pile
driving activities would be restricted to daylight hours. The most
likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the project area
would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. In general,
impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and
temporary due to the short timeframe for the project.
Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have
the potential to adversely affect fish in the project area. Increased
turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate vicinity of
construction activities. However, suspended sediments and particulates
are expected to dissipate quickly within a single tidal cycle. Given
the limited area affected and high tidal dilution rates, any effects on
fish are expected to be minor or negligible. In addition, best
management practices would be in effect, which would limit the extent
of turbidity to the immediate project area.
In summary, given the relatively short daily duration of sound
associated with individual pile driving and events and the relatively
small areas being affected, pile driving activities associated with the
proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on
any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, we conclude
that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than
short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey
species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected
to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual
marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their
populations.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS'
consideration of ``small numbers,'' the negligible impact
determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, as use of the
acoustic stressors (i.e., pile driving) has the potential to result in
disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. The
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize
the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by
considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally
harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the
area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a
day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these
ensonified areas; and (4) the number of days of activities. We note
that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional
information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also
sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring results or average group
size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail
and present the proposed take estimates.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to
Level B harassment).
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 53057]]
potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals
(conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in
behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.
The Phillips 66 proposed activity includes the use of continuous
sound sources (vibratory driving), and therefore the RMS SPL threshold
of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa is applicable.
These thresholds are provided in the table 4 below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Table 4--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds * (Received Level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and TL coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., vibratory pile driving).
Additionally, vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial
activities in the project area may contribute to elevated background
noise levels which may mask sounds produced by the project.
TL is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure
wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency,
temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water
depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The
general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * 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 B harassment sound thresholds for the method
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
pile installation of 20-in steel piles. Source levels for the pile size
and driving method are presented in table 5. The closest representative
pile size for reference sound levels was 24-inch piles (WSDOT 2020).
Table 5--Proxy Sound Source Levels for Pile Sizes and Driving Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise level
Equipment used -------------------------------------------------- Distance from
dB Peak dB rms dB SEL measurement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile driving 24-inch steel piles 181 153 .............. 10 m
\1\.........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Caltrans 2020.
[[Page 53058]]
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 NMFS User Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting
estimated isopleths, are reported below in tables 6 and table 7 below.
Table 6--User Spreadsheet Inputs for Level A Harassment Isopleths
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs 20-in steel
------------------------------------------------------ vibratory
installation
------------------
Vibratory Pile
Spreadsheet Tab Used Driving
(Stationary: non-
impulsive,
Continuous)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL)................ .................
Peak................................................. .................
RMS.................................................. 153
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz).................... 2.5
Strikes per pile..................................... .................
Piles per day........................................ 16
Propagation (xLogR).................................. 15
Duration............................................. 15
Distance of source level measurement (meters)+....... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Calculated Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths (m) and Ensonified Areas
[km\2\ in Parentheses]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A pinnipeds Level A cetaceans
Pile size/type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level B
Harbor seal Sea lions LF MF HF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Installation 120 dB threshold.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-in steel........................ 3.1 (.003) <1 (.000) 5 (.005) <1 (.000) 7.5 (.007) 1585 (1.5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Level A harassment isopleths associated with vibratory installation are all below the minimum shutdown zone and result in very small ensonified
areas. Therefore they are not provided in this table but will be included in the following calculated take tables.
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). These density estimates are shown in table 8 and will be used to
calculate take due to the lack of site-specific data that is available.
To quantitatively assess potential exposure of marine mammals to
noise levels from pile driving over the NMFS threshold guidance, the
following equation was first used to provide an estimate of potential
exposures within estimated harassment zones:
Exposure estimate = N x harassment zone (km\2\) x maximum days of
pile driving where
N = density estimate (animals per km\2\) used for each species.
Table 8--Marine Mammal Species Densities Used for Exposure Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (animals/
Species Region characterized km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale................ North Puget Sound/San 0.0027
Juan Islands (Fall
and Winter).
Killer Whale (Southern North Puget Sound/San 0.0078
Resident). Juan Islands (Fall
and Winter).
Killer Whale (Transient)...... North Puget Sound/San 0.0031
Juan Islands (Fall
and Winter).
Harbor Porpoise............... North Puget Sound..... 2.16
Steller Sea Lion.............. North Puget Sound/San 0.0027
Juan Islands (Fall).
California Sea Lion........... North Puget Sound/San 0.0179
Juan Islands (Fall).
Harbor Seal................... North Puget Sound/San 0.76
Juan Islands (Fall).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Navy 2019.
[[Page 53059]]
Potential Level A harassment zones were all calculated to less than
10 meters. As seen from table 7, marine mammals will have to be very
close to the vibratory driving activity to be within the estimated
Level A harassment zone. Marine mammal monitors will be in place,
closely monitoring this zone and stopping work before any marine mammal
gets near the largest Level A harassment zone of 6.2m from the project
source. Based on the estimated Level A harassment zones, and density-
based calculations for all species, no take by Level A Harassment was
estimated (all less than 1.0). Harbor porpoise is the species with the
highest density at 2.16 per km, multiplied by the Level A harassment
zone of .007 km (table 7), and 35 days of work yields 0.53 individuals
exposed to Level A harassment. Therefore, when considered in context of
planned mitigation, no take by Level A harassment is expected. Table 9
below shows the total calculated take by Level B harassment over the 35
in-water work days proposed for the Phillips 66 activity resulting in
total calculated take.
Table 9--Calculated and Requested Take by Level B Harassment From
Vibratory Pile Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 Days of 20-inch pile installation by vibratory hammer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Total level B harassment
Species harassment proposed for
calculated authorization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Porpoise................... 447 447
Steller Sea Lion.................. 1 35
California Sea Lion............... 4 105
Harbor Seal....................... 157 157
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are an uncommon occurrence near the project area
but they do have the potential to be in the area as they migrate to
feeding grounds to the north and mating grounds far south. Based on
best available density estimates, Phillips 66 has calculated the
potential take of one humpback whale, by Level B harassment only.
However, Phillips 66 proposes to shut down whenever humpback whales
approach the Level B harassment zone. Given the low density of humpback
whales in the project area, the ability to detect the whales visually
from a considerable distance, the capacity to track whales through the
Orca Network, and the anticipated efficacy of proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures, Phillips 66 determined that no take of humpback
whales is likely to occur and did not request that any such take be
authorized. NMFS concurs with this request and, therefore, is not
proposing to authorize take of humpback whales.
Killer Whales
Both SRKW and transient killer whales could potentially occur near
the project area. Based on best available density estimates, Phillips
66 has calculated that up to two SRKWs and one transient whale could be
taken, by Level B harassment only. Even though the project site is
located in summer core area critical habitat, and the project may begin
August 1, the southeastern corner of the Strait of Georgia (where the
project is located) is not a location where SRKW are commonly sighted.
According to the monthly ORCA network reports of September through
October, from 2016-2023, the occurrence of killer whales from any stock
was uncommon in the southeastern corner of the Strait of Georgia. When
compared to transient killer whales, sightings of SRKWs were far less
prevalent (ORCA 2024). Mitigation requires that pile driving activity
shut down whenever a killer whale from any stock is observed
approaching a harassment zone. Given the ability to visually detect
killer whales from proposed PSO locations (including boats), the
capacity to track this species through contact with the ORCA Network,
and the expected efficacy of proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures, Phillips 66 elected to not request take. Due to the expansive
range of SRKWs; the relatively small area of their habitat that may be
affected by the proposed project; the ready availability of habitat of
similar or higher value, and the short-term nature of installation
construction (35 days), Phillips 66 determined that no take of killer
whales is likely to occur and did not request that any such take be
authorized. NMFS concurs with this request and, therefore, is not
proposing to authorize take of killer whales.
Steller Sea Lion
Calculated take based upon the species density in the Strait of
Georgia yielded one potential take by Level B harassment during the 35
days of in-water pile driving work. While there are no known nearby
haulouts, there are haulouts in the greater Strait of Georgia. Phillips
66 determined, based on anecdotal sightings at the facility, that the
calculated value was too low. In addition, this species is known to
travel significant distances in search for prey, possibly into the
surrounding marine waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve.
NMFS reviewed other IHA monitoring reports from Puget Sound and
found that the Seattle Pier 63 construction project (87 FR 31985, May
26, 2022) reported a maximum of one animal present per day over 17 in-
water work days between October 12 and November 30, 2022. Therefore,
NMFS assumes a similar rate of occurrence and is proposing to authorize
35 (one/day) takes of Steller sea lion by Level B harassment.
California Sea Lion
Calculated take based upon the species density in the Strait of
Georgia found 4 potential takes by Level B harassment during the 35
days of pile driving work at the Phillips 66 dock. While there are no
known nearby haulouts, there are haulouts in the greater Strait of
Georgia. Phillips 66 determined, based on anecdotal sightings at the
facility, that the calculated value was too low. In addition, this
species is known to travel significant distances in search for prey,
possibly into the surrounding marine waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic
Reserve.
NMFS reviewed other IHA monitoring reports from Puget Sound and
found that the Seattle Pier 63 construction project (87 FR 31985, May
26, 2022) reported a maximum of three California sea lions present per
day over 17 in-water work days between October 12 and November 30,
2022. Therefore, NMFS assumes a similar rate of occurrence and is
proposing to authorize 105 (three/day) takes of
[[Page 53060]]
California sea lions by Level B Harassment.
Details of proposed takes by Level B harassment as a percentage of
stocks are shown in table 10.
Table 10--Proposed Take of Marine Mammals by Level B Harassment by Species, Stock, and Percent of Take by Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed take as
Common name Stock Stock abundance Total proposed percentage of
take stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise.................. Washington Inland 11,233 447 3.97
Waters.
Steller sea lion................. Eastern U.S......... 36,308 35 0.10
California sea lion.............. U.S................. 257,606 105 0.04
Harbor seal...................... Washington Northern 16,451 157 0.95
Inland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental
take authorizations to include information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and
manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and
their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations.
Pre-start Clearance Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-
water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/
removal of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs would observe the shutdown
and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone
would be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed
within the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is
observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start (discussed below)
cannot proceed until the animal has left the zone or has not been
observed for 15 minutes. If the monitoring zone has been observed for
30 minutes and marine mammals are not present within the zone, soft-
start procedures can commence and work can continue. Pre-start
clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility
sufficient for the lead PSO to determine that the shutdown zones,
indicated in table 11, are clear of marine mammals. Pile driving may
commence following 30 minutes of observation, when the determination is
made that the shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals. If work
ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both
the monitoring zone and shutdown zone would commence.
Implementation of Shutdown Zones--For all pile driving activities,
Phillips 66 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 takes by Level A harassment from
vibratory pile driving for all four species for which take may occur.
A minimum shutdown zone of 10 m would be required for all in-water
construction activities to avoid physical interaction with marine
mammals. Proposed shutdown and monitoring zones for each activity type
are shown in table 11.
Table 11--Shutdown Zones During Pile Installation and Removal (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zones Level B
Pile size/type ------------------------------------------------------------ harassment
HF Phocid Otariid monitoring zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-in steel Vibratory........... 10 10 10 1,585
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 one of the four species of marine mammal for which take would
be authorized enters the Level B harassment zone, in-water activities
would continue and PSOs would document the animal's presence within the
estimated harassment zone.
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a
species which has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is
observed approaching or within the Level B harassment zone, pile
driving activities will be shut down immediately. Activities will not
resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or 15
minutes has elapsed with no sighting of the animal.
Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network--Prior to
the start of pile driving for the day the
[[Page 53061]]
PSOs would contact the Orca Network to find out the location of the
nearest sightings of any killer whales or humpback whales. Phillips 66
must delay or halt pile driving activities if any killer whales or
humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and
are approaching the Level B harassment zones (table 11) during in-water
activities. Finally, if a SRKW, unidentified killer whale, or humpback
whale enters the Level B harassment zone undetected, in-water pile
driving must be suspended immediately upon detection and must not
resume until the animal exits the Level B harassment zone or 15 minutes
have passed without re-detection of the animal.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while
conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
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 shall be conducted by NMFS-approved observers. Trained
observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to
monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures
when applicable through communication with the equipment operator.
Observer training must be provided prior to project start, and shall
include instruction on species identification (sufficient to
distinguish the species in the project area), description and
categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors
that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity,
proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of
biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups
of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to
individuals (to the extent possible).
Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after pile driving activities. In addition, observers shall
record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of
distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being driven. Pile driving 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 two PSOs would be on duty during all in-water pile
driving activities. One `shore-based' observer will be stationed at
locations offering best line of sight views to monitor the entirety of
the shutdown zones and provide the most complete coverage of the
monitoring zones. Additionally, Phillips 66 proposes to deploy one
boat-based PSO that will be positioned at a location or moving in a
pattern that offers the most complete visual coverage of the monitoring
zone. Note, however, PSO position(s) may vary based on construction
activity and location of piles or equipment.
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. Phillips 66 would adhere
to the following observer qualifications:
1. PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for
example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks
during monitoring periods,
2. 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,
3. 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,
4. 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,
5. 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
[[Page 53062]]
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 would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal
activities. It would include an overall description of work completed,
a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
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, and the total equipment duration or total
number of minutes for each pile (vibratory 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
zone, 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
final report would constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA
(if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, Phillips
66 would immediately cease the specified activities and report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast
Region regional stranding coordinator. The report would include the
following information:
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 would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Phillips 66
to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Phillips 66 would not be
able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that Phillips 66 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),
Phillips 66 would 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
Phillips 66 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 9, 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.
[[Page 53063]]
Pile driving 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 B harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile
driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species
are present in zones ensonified above the thresholds for Level B
harassment identified above when these activities are underway.
Take by Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral
disturbance, and TTS. No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed for authorization given the nature of the activity and
measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine
mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the
construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation
measures (see Proposed Mitigation section).
Based on reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other
similar activities, behavioral disturbance (i.e., Level B harassment)
would likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds,
increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were
occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; HDR, Inc., 2012; Lerma,
2014). Most likely for pile driving, individuals would simply move away
from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of
pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily
only in association with impact pile driving. The pile driving
activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than,
numerous other construction activities conducted in Washington, which
have taken place with no observed severe responses of any individuals
or known long-term adverse consequences. The impact of Level B
harassment takes on the affected individuals would be minimized through
use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by
project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to
simply avoid the area while the activity is occurring. The project site
itself is frequented by large tankers every few days, but the majority
of sound fields produced by the specified activities are relatively
close to the dock. Animals disturbed by project sound would be expected
to avoid the area and use nearby higher-quality habitats.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities
would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant
amount of time. The activities may cause some fish or invertebrates to
leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine
mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging
range; but, because of the intermittent driving schedule (35 in-water
work days between August 1 and October 31, 2024); short duration of the
activities (no more than 4 hours per day vibratory driving); the
relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected; and the
availability of nearby habitat of similar or higher value, the impacts
to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-
term negative consequences.
While there are haulouts for pinnipeds in the area, these locations
are some distance from the actual project site. There are two
documented California sea lion haulouts in the southern Strait of
Georgia, both on the western coast of the Strait in British Columbia.
The closest haulout in near Tumbo Island on the eastern edge of the
Gulf Island, over 15 miles from the project site. The closest
documented Steller sea lion haulout location is over 10 miles from the
project site, on Sucia Island (Jeffries et al., 2000). The closest
documented harbor seal haulouts are two different low population (>100
individuals) locations approximately 5 miles from the project site, one
to the north and one to the south (Jeffries et al., 2000). To the
southwest and west of the project location are 14 other haulouts dotted
throughout a few of the small northern San Juan Islands (North of Orcas
Island) within 10 miles of the project (Jeffries et al., 2000).
While repeated exposures of individuals to this pile driving
activity could cause limited Level B harassment in harbor seals, harbor
porpoises, 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 preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species
or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
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 area from the project is very small relative
to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and no habitat
of particular importance would be impacted;
Repeated exposures of marine mammals to this pile driving
activity could cause Level B harassment in seals, harbor porpoise and
sea lion species, but are unlikely to considerably disrupt foraging
behavior or result in significant decrease in fitness, reproduction, or
survival for the affected individuals. In all, there would be no
adverse impacts to the stocks as a whole; and
The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce
the effects of the specified activity by minimizing the intensity and/
or duration of harassment events.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals
may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Table 8 demonstrates the number of instances in which individuals
of a given species could be exposed to received noise levels that could
cause take of marine mammals. Our analysis shows that the total taking
proposed for authorization is less than 4 percent of the best available
population abundance estimate for all species.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
[[Page 53064]]
numbers of marine mammals would be taken, relative to the population
size of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is
not required for this action.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to Phillips 66 for conducting in-water pile driving
activities at the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery Dock in Ferndale
Washington from August 1, 2024 through July 31, 2025, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed
construction activities. We also request comment on the potential
renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below.
Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature
citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a
subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal
IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly
identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration
of the initial IHA),
The request for renewal must include the following:
1. An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take),
and
2. A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized, and
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: June 18, 2024.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-13818 Filed 6-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P