4844 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

3. What metric(s) should be used to 

measure progress in meeting these 

goals? 

Comments should include a reference 

to this Federal Register notice. 

Jennifer Aguinaga, 

Deputy Director for Policy & Planning, 

National Travel and Tourism Office, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01795 Filed 1–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB634] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to BNSF Railway 

Bridge Heavy Maintenance Project in 

King County, Washington 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorizations; request for 

comments on proposed authorizations 

and possible renewals. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from BNSF Railway (BNSF) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to a Railway Bridge Heavy 

Maintenance Project in King County, 

Washington. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is requesting comments on its proposal 

to issue two consecutive incidental 

harassment authorization (IHAs) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS is 

also requesting comments on possible 

one-time, one-year renewals for each 

IHA 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 

notification. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than March 2, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov. 

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 

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: 

Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

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/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

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 

incidental harassment authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

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 

IHAs) 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 NOAA 

Administrative Order 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 IHAs qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this 

notification prior to concluding our 

NEPA process or making a final 

decision on the IHA request. 

Summary of Request 

On August 17, 2021, NMFS received 

a request from BNSF Railway (BNSF) for 

two consecutive IHAs allowing the take 

of marine mammals incidental to the 

Railway Bridge 0050–0006.3 (Bridge 

6.3) Heavy Maintenance Project in King 

County, Washington. The application 

was deemed adequate and complete on 

November 22, 2021. BNSF’s request is 

for take of a small number of seven 

species of marine mammal by Level B 

harassment and Level A harassment. 

Neither BNSF nor NMFS expects 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

this activity and, therefore, IHAs are 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

BNSF is proposing to engage in 

maintenance activities at Bridge 6.3, a 

bridge with a movable deck to allow 

vessels to pass. The purpose of this 

project is to extend the service life of the 

existing structure by replacing several 

components of the existing movable 

span including replacing the existing 

counterweight, counterweight trunnion 

bearings, and rocker frame system of the 

existing movable span. This work would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4845 

occur over two years, requiring the 

issuance of two consecutive IHAs. 

In-water activities that could result in 

take of marine mammals include impact 

pile driving of 36-inch temporary steel 

piles (which will be removed via cutting 

with Broco Rod which is not likely to 

cause take), vibratory installation and 

extraction of 14-inch H-piles, vibratory 

installation and extraction of 12-inch 

timber piles, hydraulic clipper cutting 

and extraction of 12-inch timber piles, 

drilling of 48-inch diameter shafts using 

oscillator rotator equipment, and 

removing the pile created by filling the 

drilled shaft and steel casing with 

concrete and removing the casing with 

a diamond wire saw. 

Bubble curtains will be used during 

impact pile driving to reduce in-water 

sound levels. The work would occur 

over two years during July 16 through 

February 15 of each year due to the U.S. 

Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) inwater work window restrictions for 

salmonids. 

Dates and Duration 

BSNF anticipates that the project will 

requires approximately 122 days of inwater work over 24 months. The 

proposed IHAs would be effective from 

July 16, 2022 to July 15, 2023 for Year 

1, which would include 113 days of inwater activities and July 16, 2023 to July 

15, 2024 for Year 2, which would 

include 9 days of in-water activities. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The project activities will occur at 

BNSF Bridge 6.3, in Ballard, WA, which 

is located in King County at Latitude 

47.666784° North by Longitude 

–122.402108° West. The Bridge spans 

the Lake Washington Ship Canal which 

runs through the city of Seattle and 

connects the fresh water body of Lake 

Washington with Puget Sound’s 

Shilshole Bay. The Bridge is located just 

west of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks 

and is the last bridge to span the Lake 

Washington Ship Canal before it flows 

into Puget Sound 2,500 ft (772 m) to the 

west. The Bridge is approximately 1,144 

ft (349 m) long and was built in 1917 

(See Figure 1). The substrate below the 

ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is 

composed of sandy silt intermixed with 

gravels and riprap. Approximately 75 

percent of the Canal shoreline is 

developed with armored bulkheads, 

ship holding areas, and other artificial 

structures. 

The nearest pinniped haulouts are 

located 0.82 mi (Shilshole Bay Jetty) and 

1.42 mi (West Point Buoy) away but not 

in direct line of sight with the 

construction activity as shown in Figure 

6 in the Application. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4846 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Bridge 6.3 consists of 18 spans 

supported by 19 piers. Pier 1 is the 

southern abutment, and Pier 19 is the 

northern abutment. Piers 6 through 11 

are either at the edge of or below the 

OHWM of the Canal. Pier 6 is at the 

southern shoreline, adjacent to 

Commodore Park, and extends partially 

below the OHWM. Pier 11 is at the base 

of a steep slope at the northern 

shoreline and extends partially below 

the OHWM. Piers 7 through 10 are fully 

within the Canal. Pier 7 is near the 

middle of the Canal, and Piers 8, 9, and 

10 are to the north of the north guide 

wall. Span 7 is a movable span (Strauss 

Heel-Trunnion Bascule) that rotates 

clockwise up when opening for marine 

vessels that cannot pass under the 

bridge when it is in the closed (down) 

position. (See Appendix A in 

Application for additional detail). 

Work trestles are required to provide 

access to the superstructure above Piers 

8, 9, and 10. Cranes and associated 

construction equipment will be used 

atop the work trestles to install the 

temporary drilled shafts and then 

replace the existing counterweight, 

counterweight trunnion bearings, and 

rocker frame system. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN31JA22.001</GPH>

0 (i:75 1.5 3 --=:::::11---•· Miles 

Figure 1. Railway Bridge 6.3 Location 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4847 

The overall construction process can 

be segmented into following primary 

phases: 

1. Site Mobilization; 

2. Demolish Residential Structures; 

3. Install Work Trestles; 

4. Install Drilled Shafts; 

5. Replace Bascule Span Components; 

6. Remove Work Trestles; and 

7. Site Demobilization 

Only phase 2, 3, 4 and 6 involve inwater work which could result in the 

harassment of marine mammals. 

Therefore, the other phases will not be 

discussed further, although additional 

information may be found in the 

application. 

Demolish Residential Structures 

Previous owners of an adjacent parcel 

had expanded their dock/deck, float, 

and shed onto the BNSF right-of-way to 

the extent that a portion of their 

structure is attached to bridge Pier 11. 

This dock and shed are within the 

footprint of where the western work 

trestle will be installed and in the 

general vicinity of where construction 

barges may need to be deployed. These 

structures are supported by in-water 80 

12-inch timber piles that must be 

removed prior to installation of the 

work trestles. 

Install Work Trestles 

Two temporary work trestles are 

required to provide construction access 

to the moveable span, as well as a work 

platform for support cranes and 

associated construction equipment and 

supplies. Each work trestle is composed 

of a series of large wood planks that rest 

on steel crossbeams that are welded 

onto the top of steel support pipe piles. 

The number and size of the steel pipe 

piles required for the project is dictated 

by the anticipated weight of the cranes, 

counterweight, steel beams, trunnion 

bearings, support equipment, and 

industry standard safety factor. All piles 

will be proofed to a predetermined 

loading capacity. Each work trestle will 

be approximately 240 ft (73 m) long by 

45 ft (13.7.m) wide. A total of 170 

temporary piles (140 in-water and 30 

above water) are required (Table 1). A 

20 percent contingency is included in 

this estimate. Pile types include 136 36- 

inch steel pipe piles and 34 14-inch Hpiles. 

TABLE 1—TEMPORARY PILE SUMMARY BY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSE

Pile size 

(inch) Pile type Pile use In-water Uplands Total 

36 ............................................... Steel Pipe ........ Trestle Support ................................................... 116 20 136 

14 ............................................... H-Pile .............. Trestle Approach ................................................ 0 8 8 

14 ............................................... H-Pile .............. Turbidity Fencing ................................................ 20 0 20 

Subtotal .............................. ......................... ............................................................................. 136 28 140 

14 ............................................... H-Pile .............. 20% Contingency ............................................... 4 2 6 

Total ................................... ......................... ............................................................................. 140 30 170 

Trestle approach piles and trestle 

support piles will be installed with an 

impact hammer from start to finish due 

to concerns associated with movement 

of the existing bridge. A bubble curtain 

will be utilized during all impact pile 

driving when water depth is greater 

than 2 ft (0.6 m). In-water 14-inch Hpiles for turbidity fencing will be 

installed with a vibratory hammer. 

Concurrent impact driving of 36-inch 

steel pipes may be utilized, but BNSF 

may select to only utilize one piledriving crew depending on schedule, 

rate of progress, and number of days 

remaining in the allowable in-water 

work window. 

Install Drilled Shafts 

A total of 22 temporary, 4-footdiameter drilled shafts may be installed, 

including 11 immediately west and 11 

east of Piers 9 and 10. Drilled shafts are 

anticipated to be installed by using 

oscillator rotator equipment with the 

advanced full-case method. Oscillator 

rotator equipment is used to excavate a 

circular hole into the ground. Since the 

project area likely includes unstable 

soils, a casing will be used to keep the 

hole open. The rotator/oscillator method 

uses hydraulic jacks that use pressure/ 

torque to rotate the casing 20 degrees 

one direction and then 20 degrees the 

other direction as it pushes the casing 

into the substrate. The tip of the first or 

initial casing has teeth that cut into the 

earth as it advances. Once one section 

of casing is installed, another section of 

casing is connected to the previously 

installed casing by bolting them together 

with an impact wrench. This process 

continues until the design load depth 

has been reached. Once the casing is 

fully installed, all the material within it 

is then removed (with a clamshell 

bucket or other method) prior to filling 

the shafts with concrete. The top of the 

concrete filled shafts or piles are then 

connected to a platform that will also be 

formed of concrete. The platform and 

concrete-filled shafts will be removed 

after maintenance has been completed. 

Note BNSF may use 116 36-inchdiameter pipe piles instead of the 

drilled shafts. This contingency for 36- 

inch diameter pipe piles has been 

included in the estimated total number 

of 36-inch pipe piles that may be used 

during this project and analyzed below. 

Remove Work Trestles and Shafts 

All the temporary work trestle piles 

will be removed to a depth of 2 ft (0.6 

m) below mudline. The piles will be cut 

by a diver using the Broco Rod cutting 

method. A diver will make two cuts and 

then reach/penetrate inside and cut the 

pipe pile from the inside diameter 2 ft 

(0.6 m) below mudline. The crane will 

then be used to snap and lift the pile out 

of the Canal and off the platform. This 

operation will continue to the north 

shoreline until the crane is on land and 

has removed all the work trestle piles. 

Drilled shafts will be removed to a 

depth of 2 ft (0.6 m) below the mudline. 

The concrete-filled shafts may be cut 

with a diamond wire saw. In-water 14- 

inch H-piles or wood/steel posts will be 

pulled out of the substrate by a crane or 

vibratory hammer removal as necessary. 

During Year 1 12-inch wood piles (12 

days) would be extracted while 36-inch 

steel pipes (10 days), 14-inch H-piles (3 

days), and 48-inch drilled shaft casings 

(88 days) would be installed. During 

Year 214-inch H-piles (3 days) and 48- 

inch (6 days) drilled shaft casings would 

be removed. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4848 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this action, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2021). 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’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species 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’s 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’s U.S. SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 

2021a). All values presented in Table 2 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

2020 U.S. Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 

2021a) and 2021 draft Pacific and 

Alaska SARs (Carretta et al., 2021b, 

Muto et al., 2021) available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports. 

TABLE 2—SPECIES PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZED TAKE

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) a

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) b

PBR Annual 

M/SI c

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

Minke whale ............................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata ...... California/Oregon/ .....................

Washington ...............................

-, -, N 915 (0.792, 509, 2018) ... 4.1 ≥ 0.59 

Family Delphinidae 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin ..... Tursiops truncatus .................... California/Oregon/Washington 

offshore.

-, -, N 3,477 (0.696, 2,048, 

2018).

19.70 0.82 

Long-beaked Common Dolphin Delphinus capensis ................... California ................................... -, -, N 83,379 (0.216, 69,636, 

2018).

668 ≥29.7 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise ......................... Phocoena phocoena ................. Washington Inland Waters ....... -, -, N 11,233 (0.37, 8,308, 

2015).

66 ≥7.2 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California Sea Lion .................... Zalophus californianus .............. United States ............................ -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 

2014).

14,011 >320 

Steller sea lion ........................... Eumetopias jubatus 

monteriensis.

Eastern U.S. ............................. -, -, N 43,201 d (see SAR, 

43,201, 2017).

2,592 113 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ................................ Phoca vitulina ........................... Washington Northern Inland 

Waters.

-, -, N 1,088 (0.15, UNK, 

1999) e.

NA 10.6 

a—ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be 

declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA 

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 

b—NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 

c—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, ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. 

d—Best estimate of pup and non-pup counts, which have not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance surveys. 

e—The abundance estimate for this stock is greater than eight years old and is therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for this stock, as 

there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates, as these represent the best 

available information for use in this document. 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales are the most abundant 

of the rorquals and the population is 

considered mostly stable globally. In the 

Pacific, minke whales are usually seen 

over continental shelves (Brueggeman et 

al., 1990). In the extreme north, minke 

whales are believed to be migratory, but 

in inland waters of Washington and in 

central California they appear to 

establish home ranges (Dorsey et al., 

1990). They feed on crustaceans, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4849 

plankton, and small schooling fish (like 

sandlance) through side lunging. 

Minke whales are reported in 

Washington inland waters year-round, 

although few are reported in the winter 

(Calambokidis and Baird 1994). Minke 

whales are relatively common in the 

San Juan Islands and Strait of Juan de 

Fuca (especially around several of the 

banks in both the central and eastern 

Strait), but are relatively rare in Puget 

Sound. 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin 

Bottlenose dolphins are distributed 

worldwide in tropical and warmtemperate waters. In many regions, 

including California, separate coastal 

and offshore populations are known 

(Walker 1981; Ross and Cockcroft 1990; 

Lowther 2006). They have also been 

documented in offshore waters as far 

north as about 41 °N and they may range 

into Oregon and Washington waters 

during warm-water periods. Sighting 

records off California and Baja 

California (Lee 1993; Mangels and 

Gerrodette 1994) suggest that offshore 

bottlenose dolphins have a continuous 

distribution in these two regions. There 

is no apparent seasonality in 

distribution (Forney and Barlow 1998). 

Bottlenose dolphins employ a variety 

of strategies to feed, including both 

individual and cooperative hunting and 

techniques such as herding and 

charging schools of fish, passive 

listening, and echolocation. The 

California/Oregon/Washington offshore 

stock is the one most likely to occur in 

Washington waters. 

Long-Beaked Common Dolphin 

The common dolphin has been 

observed in the project area. There is 

debate as to whether short-beaked and 

long-beaked common dolphins are the 

same species; we separate the two based 

on COT (2021). Only long-beaked 

common dolphins have been spotted in 

central and south Puget Sound (Orca 

Network 2020) and this report addresses 

only the California long-beaked 

common dolphin stock. 

Long-beaked common dolphins 

typically inhabit warmer temperate and 

tropical waters and are not usually 

present north of California; however, 

sightings of live dolphins and dead 

stranded individuals have been 

increasing in the Salish Sea since the 

early 2000s. Common dolphins were 

sighted in 2003, 2011–12, and 2016–17, 

with strandings occurring in inland 

waters in 2012 and 2017. These sighting 

and stranding events are proximal to El 

Nin ̃ o periods. Since June 2016, several 

common dolphins have remained in 

Puget Sound and group sizes of 5–20 

individuals are often reported (Shuster 

et al., 2018). 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoise occur along the U.S. 

west coast from southern California to 

the Bering Sea (Carretta et al., 2020). 

They rarely occur in waters warmer 

than 63 degrees Fahrenheit (17 degrees 

Celsius). 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. 

In most areas, harbor porpoise occur 

in small groups of just a few 

individuals. Harbor porpoise must 

forage nearly continuously to meet their 

high metabolic needs (Wisniewska et 

al., 2016). They consume up to 550 

small fish (1.2–3.9 inches (3–10 cm); 

e.g., anchovies) per hour at a nearly 90 

percent capture success rate 

(Wisniewska et al., 2016). 

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). 

Pupping occurs primarily on the 

California Channel Islands from late 

May until the end of June (Peterson and 

Bartholomew 1967). Weaning and 

mating occur in late spring and summer 

during the peak upwelling period 

(Bograd et al., 2009). After the mating 

season, adult males migrate northward 

to feeding areas as far away as the Gulf 

of Alaska (Lowry et al., 1992), and they 

remain away until spring (March–May), 

when they migrate back. Adult females 

generally remain south of Monterey Bay, 

California throughout the year, feeding 

in coastal waters in the summer and 

offshore waters in the winter, 

alternating between foraging and 

nursing their pups on shore until the 

next pupping/breeding season (Melin 

and DeLong, 2000; Melin et al., 2008). 

California sea lions regularly occur on 

rocks, buoys and other structures. 

Occurrence in the project area is 

expected to be common. The California 

sea lion is the most frequently sighted 

otariid found in Washington waters. 

Some 3,000 to 5,000 animals are 

estimated to move into Pacific 

Northwest waters of Washington and 

British Columbia during the fall 

(September) and remain until the late 

spring (May) when most return to 

breeding rookeries in California and 

Mexico (Jeffries et al., 2000). Peak 

counts of over 1,000 animals have been 

made in Puget Sound (Jeffries et al., 

2000). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions range along the North 

Pacific Rim from northern Japan to 

California, with centers of abundance 

and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska 

and Aleutian Islands. Large numbers of 

individuals widely disperse when not 

breeding (late May to early July) to 

access seasonally important prey 

resources (Muto et al., 2019). Steller sea 

lions were subsequently partitioned into 

the western and eastern Distinct 

Population Segments (DPSs; western 

and eastern stocks) in 1997 (62 FR 

24345, May 5, 1997) when they were 

listed under the ESA. The western DPS 

breeds on rookeries located west of 

144 °W in Alaska and Russia, whereas 

the eastern DPS breeds on rookeries in 

southeast Alaska through California. 

The eastern DPS was delisted from the 

ESA in 2013. 

The eastern DPS and MMPA stock is 

the only population of Steller’s sea lions 

thought to occur in the project area. In 

Washington waters, numbers decline 

during the summer months, which 

correspond to the breeding season at 

Oregon and British Columbia rookeries 

(approximately late May to early June) 

and peak during the fall and winter 

months. Steller sea lion abundances 

vary seasonally with a minimum 

estimate of 1,000 to 2,000 individuals 

present or passing through the Strait of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4850 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

Juan de Fuca in fall and winter months 

(Jeffries et al., 2000). 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are found from Baja 

California to the eastern Aleutian 

Islands of Alaska (Harvey and Goley, 

2011). The animals in the project area 

are part of the Southern Puget Sound 

stock. Harbor seals are the most 

common marine mammal species 

observed in the project area and are the 

only one that breeds and remains in the 

inland marine waters of Washington 

year-round (Calambokidis and Baird, 

1994). 

Harbor seals are central-place foragers 

(Orians and Pearson, 1979) and tend to 

exhibit strong site fidelity within season 

and across years, generally forage close 

to haulout sites, and repeatedly visit 

specific foraging areas (Grigg et al., 

2012; Suryan and Harvey, 1998; 

Thompson et al., 1998). Depth, bottom 

relief, and prey abundance also 

influence foraging location (Grigg et al., 

2012). 

Harbor seals molt from May through 

June. Peak numbers of harbor seals haul 

out during late May to early June, which 

coincides with the peak molt. During 

both pupping and molting seasons, the 

number of seals and the length of time 

hauled out per day increase, from an 

average of 7 hours per day to 10–12 

hours (Harvey and Goley, 2011; Huber 

et al., 2001; Stewart and Yochem, 1994). 

Harbor seals tend to forage at night 

and haul out during the day with a peak 

in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 

p.m. (Grigg et al., 2012; London et al., 

2001; Stewart and Yochem, 1994; 

Yochem et al., 1987). Tide levels affect 

the maximum number of seals hauled 

out, with the largest number of seals 

hauled out at low tide, but time of day 

and season have the greatest influence 

on haul out behavior (Manugian et al., 

2017; Patterson and Acevedo-Gutie ́rrez, 

2008; Stewart and Yochem, 1994). 

As indicated above, all 7 species (with 

7 managed stocks) in Table 2 temporally 

and spatially co-occur with the activity 

to the degree that take is reasonably 

likely to occur, and we have proposed 

authorizing it. 

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. Current data indicate 

that 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) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al., (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ................................................................................................... 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ......................... 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus 

cruciger & L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ................................................................................................. 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ............................................................................ 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 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Seven marine 

mammal species (four cetacean and 

three pinniped (two otariid and one 

phocid) species) have the reasonable 

potential to co-occur with the proposed 

survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. 

Minke whales are low frequency 

cetaceans, long-beaked common 

dolphins and common bottlenose 

dolphins are mid-frequency cetaceans, 

harbor porpoises are classified as highfrequency cetaceans, Harbor seals are in 

the phocid group, and Steller sea lions 

and California sea lions are otariids. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take 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 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 how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activity can occur 

from vibratory and impact pile driving 

and drilling, cutting, and clipping. The 

effects of underwater noise from BNSF’s 

proposed activities have the potential to 

result in Level A and Level B 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

action area. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4851 

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 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact pile driving, vibratory 

pile driving, vibratory pile removal, 

drilling by oscillator rotators, cutting 

with a wire saw, and clipping of wood 

timbers. The sounds produced by these 

activities fall into one of two general 

sound types: Impulsive and nonimpulsive. 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 2018a). Nonimpulsive sounds (e.g. aircraft, 

machinery operations such as drilling or 

dredging, vibratory pile driving, 

clipping, cutting, and active sonar 

systems) can be broadband, narrowband 

or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous 

or intermittent), and typically do not 

have the high peak sound pressure with 

raid rise/decay time that impulsive 

sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; 

NMFS 2018). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

regard to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in 

Southall et al., 2007). 

Two types of pile hammers would be 

used on this project: Impact and 

vibratory. Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto 

a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. 

Sound generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper 

2005). Vibratory hammers install piles 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, 

but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than 

SPLs generated during impact pile 

driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman 

et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, 

reducing the probability and severity of 

injury, and sound energy is distributed 

over a greater amount of time (Nedwell 

and Edwards 2002; Carlson et al., 2005). 

Hydraulic pile clippers are placed over 

the pile and lowered to the mudline 

where they use opposing blades in a 

horizontal motion to cut the existing 

wood piles. Diamond wire cutting is the 

process of using wire of various 

diameters and lengths, impregnated 

with diamond dust of various sizes, to 

cut through drilled shaft casing. 

The likely or possible impacts of 

BNSF’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of the 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to primarily be acoustic in 

nature. Acoustic stressors include 

effects of heavy equipment operation 

during pile installation and removal. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving and removal, drilling, 

cutting and clipping is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from BNSF’s specified 

activity. In general, animals exposed to 

natural or anthropogenic sound may 

experience physical and psychological 

effects, ranging in magnitude from none 

to severe (Southall et al., 2007). In 

general, exposure to pile driving and 

removal noise has the potential to result 

in auditory threshold shifts and 

behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, 

temporary cessation of foraging and 

vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). 

Exposure to anthropogenic noise can 

also lead to 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 

drilling, cutting, pile driving and 

removal noise on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including, 

but not limited to, sound type (e.g., 

impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the 

species, age and sex class (e.g., adult 

male vs. mom with calf), duration of 

exposure, the distance between the pile 

and the animal, received levels, 

behavior at time of exposure, and 

previous history with exposure 

(Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 

2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB. A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), 

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

exposure (i.e., spectral content), the 

hearing and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e., 

how an 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4852 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see 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)— 

TTS is 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 (see 

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, 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 

requires a combination of impact pile 

driving and vibratory pile driving. For 

this project, these activities would not 

occur at the same time and there would 

be pauses in activities producing the 

sound during each day. Given these 

pauses and that many marine mammals 

are likely moving through the 

ensonified area and not remaining for 

extended periods of time, the potential 

for TS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal also 

has the potential to behaviorally disturb 

marine mammals. Available studies 

show wide variation in response to 

underwater sound; therefore, it is 

difficult to predict specifically how any 

given sound in a particular instance 

might affect marine mammals 

perceiving the signal. If a marine 

mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau & 

Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 

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; Weilgart 

2007). Behavioral reactions can vary not 

only among individuals but also within 

an individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), 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. 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al., (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4853 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 

Moberg 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, 

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For 

example, Rolland et al., (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003), however distress is an unlikely 

result of this project based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous, similar projects in the area. 

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 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with drilling, cutting, clipping, pile 

driving and removal that have the 

potential to cause behavioral 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from the activities. Cetaceans are not 

expected to be exposed to airborne 

sounds that would result in harassment 

as defined under the MMPA. 

Airborne noise would primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels 

exceeding the acoustic thresholds. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with their heads above 

water. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, these animals would 

previously have been ‘taken’ because of 

exposure to underwater sound above the 

behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are, in all cases, larger than those 

associated with airborne sound. As 

described above there are no regular 

haulouts in direct line of sight of the 

project area. Thus, the behavioral 

harassment of these animals is already 

accounted for in these estimates of 

potential take. Therefore, authorization 

of incidental take resulting from 

airborne sound for pinnipeds is not 

warranted, and airborne sound is not 

discussed further here. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

BNSF’s construction activities could 

have localized, temporary impacts on 

marine mammal habitat by increasing 

in-water sound pressure levels and 

slightly decreasing water quality. 

Construction activities are of short 

duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

sound. Increased noise levels may affect 

acoustic habitat (see masking discussion 

above) and adversely affect marine 

mammal prey in the vicinity of the 

project area (see discussion below). 

During drilling, cutting, clipping, 

impact and vibratory pile driving, 

elevated levels of underwater noise 

would ensonify a portion of the Ship 

Canal and potentially radiate some 

distance into Shilshole Bay depending 

on the sound source where both fish 

and mammals may occur and could 

affect foraging success. Additionally, 

marine mammals may avoid the area 

during construction, however, 

displacement due to noise is expected to 

be temporary and is not expected to 

result in long-term effects to the 

individuals or populations. 

A temporary and localized increase in 

turbidity near the seafloor would occur 

in the immediate area surrounding the 

area where piles or shafts are installed 

(and removed in the case of the 

temporary piles). The sediments on the 

sea floor will be disturbed during pile 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4854 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

driving and shaft drilling; however, 

suspension will be brief and localized 

and is unlikely to measurably affect 

marine mammals or their prey in the 

area. In general, turbidity associated 

with pile installation is localized to 

about a 25-foot (7.6-meter) radius 

around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). 

Cetaceans are not expected to be close 

enough to the pile driving areas to 

experience effects of turbidity, and any 

pinnipeds could avoid localized areas of 

turbidity. Therefore, we expect the 

impact from increased turbidity levels 

to be discountable to marine mammals 

and do not discuss it further. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The proposed activities would not 

result in permanent impacts to habitats 

used directly by marine mammals 

except for the actual footprint of the 

project. The total seafloor area affected 

by pile installation and removal is a 

very small area compared to the vast 

foraging area available to marine 

mammals in Puget Sound. 

Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) 

of the immediate area due to the 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat is 

also possible. The duration of fish 

avoidance of this area after pile driving 

stops is unknown, but we anticipate a 

rapid return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior. Any 

behavioral avoidance by fish of the 

disturbed area would still leave large 

areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in 

Puget Sound. 

Effects on Potential Prey 

Sound may affect marine mammals 

through impacts on the abundance, 

behavior, or distribution of prey species 

(e.g., fishes). Marine mammal prey 

varies by species, season, and location. 

Here, we describe studies regarding the 

effects of noise on known marine 

mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., 

Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

(Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects 

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

(e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and 

other environmental factors. 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). 

Several studies have demonstrated that 

impulse sounds might affect the 

distribution and behavior of some 

fishes, potentially impacting foraging 

opportunities or increasing energetic 

costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 

2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 

1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 

2017). However, some studies have 

shown no or slight reaction to impulse 

sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle 

et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 

2009; Cott et al., 2012). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al., (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

The most likely impact to fish from 

drilling, cutting, clipping, and pile 

driving activities at the project areas 

would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of an area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

The area impacted by the project is 

relatively small compared to the 

available habitat in Shilshole Bay and 

larger Puget Sound. Any behavioral 

avoidance by fish of the disturbed area 

would still leave significantly large 

areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. 

Additionally, as noted previously, BNSF 

will adhere to the USACE’s in-water 

work window restrictions on pile 

extraction and installation (July 16 to 

January 15) to reduce potential effects to 

salmonids, including juvenile ESAlisted salmonids. As described in the 

preceding, the potential for BNSF’s 

construction to affect the availability of 

prey to marine mammals or to 

meaningfully impact the quality of 

physical or acoustic habitat is 

considered to be insignificant. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic sources for pile installation and 

extraction has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result, primarily 

for harbor seals, because predicted 

auditory injury zones are large. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 

low-frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency 

cetaceans, high-frequency cetaceans, 

and otariids. The proposed mitigation 

and monitoring measures are expected 

to minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4855 

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 basic factors 

can contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of 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 estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—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 (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

BNSF’s proposed activity includes the 

use of continuous (vibratory pile driving 

and removal, oscillator rotator 

equipment, wire saw cutting, clipping) 

and impulsive (impact pile driving) 

equipment, and therefore both the 120- 

and 160-dB re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). BNSF’s proposed activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 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 will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The following pile sizes and 

installation/extraction methods were 

analyzed: 

• 36-inch steel pipe pile, impact 

installation, with 5 dB bubble curtain 

source level reduction under two 

installation scenarios (1 pile driver or 2 

concurrent pile drivers); 

• 48-inch steel pipe pile, oscillator 

installation (drilled shaft); 

• 48-inch steel pipe pile, diamond 

wire saw cutting; 

• 14-inch steel H-pile, vibratory 

installation/extraction; 

• 12-inch timber pile, vibratory 

installation/extraction; and 

• 12-inch timber pile, pile clipper 

extraction. 

Impact pile driver installation of 36- 

inch steel pipe piles analyzed a worstcase scenario consisting of two crews 

driving 36-inch steel pipe piles 

simultaneously (Scenario 2) in order to 

provide maximum flexibility should 

multiple crews become necessary 

during construction. It is likely, 

however, that only one crew will 

operate at one time (Scenario 1). Based 

on NMFS guidance, decibel addition is 

not considered in the 36-inch steel pipe 

pile impact analysis since during impact 

hammering or other impulsive sources, 

it is unlikely that the two hammers 

would strike at the same exact instant 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4856 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

(or within the 0.1 second average pulse 

duration). Therefore, the sound source 

levels will not be adjusted regardless of 

the distance between the hammers and 

each source will be analyzed separately. 

Vibratory pile driving of 14-inch Hpiles, and vibratory and pile clipper 

extraction of 12-inch timber piles 

(residential structures demolition) were 

analyzed in the event these methods 

become necessary (if, for instance, crane 

weight alone cannot seat the 14-inch Hpiles for the turbidity screen installation 

or crane torque alone cannot extract 

timber piles by direct pulling/twisting). 

This analysis uses in-water source 

sound levels for vibratory and impact 

pile driving from Washington State 

Department of Transportation Biological 

Assessment Manual (WDSOT 2020), and 

California Department of Transportation 

Division (Caltrans 2015). Analysis of 

drilled shaft installation used sound 

source data came from (HDR, 2011. 

Diamond wire saw cutting and 

hydraulic pile clipper cutting came from 

the Navy (2019). Source sound levels for 

each analysis were measured at 10m 

from the source and based on other 

projects with the same pile type and 

size, installation/extraction technique, 

and similar substrate if no project sitespecific information is available. 

In cases where multiple sources were 

provided from the above references, the 

following methodology was used to 

select in-water source sound levels to 

generate a proxy: 

1. Select first by corresponding pile 

size and type; 

2. Eliminate those that do not have 

substrates similar to the project site 

substrate (i.e. sandy silt intermixed with 

gravels and riprap); and 

3. Of the remaining, select highest 

source sound level to be conservative. 

All piles driven and/or proofed with 

an impact hammer would use a bubble 

curtain. It is estimated that use of a 

bubble curtain would result in a 

minimum of a 5-dB reduction in 

underwater sound levels during 36-inch 

pipe pile driving, and this reduction has 

been included in the estimate to account 

for a reasonably achievable reduction in 

sound during underwater construction 

activity. Source sound levels are 

summarized in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—IN-WATER SOUND SOURCE LEVELS

Pile size 

(inch) Pile type Source Construction method dB peak dB RMS 

dB singlestrike 

SEL 

36 ............... Steel pipe ......................... Caltrans, 2015. 36-inch steel pipe pile Table I.2–1 ......... Impact .............................. 208 190 180 

14 ............... H-pile ................................ Caltrans, 2015. 12-inch steel H-pile proxy Table I.2–2 ... Vibratory ........................... ................ 150 ................

12 ............... Timber Pile ....................... Greenbusch Group, 2018. 12-inch timber pile ................. Vibratory ........................... ................ 152 ................

12 ............... Timber Pile ....................... NAVFAC SW 2020 Compendium. 13-inch round 

polycarbonate pile.

Hydraulic Pile Clipper ...... ................ 154 ................

48 ............... Steel Shaft ....................... HDR Alaska, Inc., 2011. 144-inch steel shaft proxy ........ Oscillator .......................... ................ 143.8 ................

48 ............... Steel-encased Concrete 

Shaft.

NAVFAC SW 2020 Compendium. 66-inch steel encased 

concrete- filled caisson proxy.

Diamond bladed wire saw ................ 161.5 ................

Transmission loss (TL), expressed as 

decibels, is the reduction in a specified 

level between two specified points R1, 

R2 that are within an underwater 

acoustic field. By convention, R1 is 

chosen to be closer to the source of 

sound than R2, such that transmission 

loss is usually a positive quantity. 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 (R2/R1), 

where 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient 

R1 = distance from source to distance at 

which the level is estimated (typically 

10-m for pile driving) 

R2 = distance from source to the isopleth 

associated with the applicable acoustic 

threshold 

Absent site-specific acoustical 

monitoring with differing measured 

transmission loss, a practical spreading 

value of 15 is used as the transmission 

loss coefficient in the above formula. 

Site-specific transmission loss data for 

BNSF bridge site is not available, 

therefore the default coefficient of 15 is 

used to determine the distances to the 

Level A and Level B harassment 

thresholds. 

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which may result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment 

take. However, these tools offer the best 

way to predict appropriate isopleths 

when more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources, NMFS User Spreadsheet 

predicts the distance at which, if a 

marine mammal remained at that 

distance the whole duration of the 

activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet are shown 

in Table 6 and the resulting isopleths 

are reported below in Table 7. 

TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

36-inch steel 

(scenario 1) 

36-inch steel-2 

concurrent 

(scenario 2) 

14-inch steel 

H-pile vibratory 

install 

12-inch timber 

vibratory extraction 

48-inch steel 

oscillator 

48-inch Wire saw 

cutting 

12-inch timber 

clipper cutting 

Spreadsheet Tab 

Used.

(E.1) Impact pile 

driving.

(E.1) Impact pile 

driving.

(A.1) Vibratory 

pile driving.

(A.1) Vibratory 

pile driving.

(A) stationary 

source (non-impulsive, continuous).

(A) stationary 

source (non-impulsive, continuous).

(A) stationary 

source (non-impulsive, continuous) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4857 

TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS— 

Continued 

36-inch steel 

(scenario 1) 

36-inch steel-2 

concurrent 

(scenario 2) 

14-inch steel 

H-pile vibratory 

install 

12-inch timber 

vibratory extraction 

48-inch steel 

oscillator 

48-inch Wire saw 

cutting 

12-inch timber 

clipper cutting 

Source Level (Single Strike/shot 

SEL) and Peak 

or RMS.

175 SEL/203 

Peak.

175 SEL/203 

Peak.

150 RMS ............. 152 RMS ............. 143.8 RMS .......... 161.5 RMS .......... 154 RMS 

Weighting Factor 

Adjustment (kHz).

2 .......................... 2 .......................... 2.5 ....................... 2.5 ....................... 2.5 ....................... 2.5 ....................... 2.5 

(a) Number of 

strikes per pile.

1000 .................... 1000 .................... .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

Number piles or 

shafts per day.

6 .......................... 12 ........................ 8 .......................... 10 ........................ 0.25 ..................... 4 .......................... 20 

Duration for single 

pile (min).

.............................. .............................. 30 ........................ 15 ........................ 1920 .................... 60 ........................ 4 

Note: Transmission loss coefficient for all sources is 15 and all source level values quoted are at 10m distance. 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Pile type, size, and pile driving method 

Level A zone 

(meters) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(meters) LF 

cetacean 

MF 

cetacean 

HF 

cetacean Phocid Otariid 

Scenario 1. 36-inch Steel Pipe Impact Drive (Year 1) .... 966 34 1,150 517 38 464 

Scenario 2. 36-inch Steel Pipe Impact Drive (Year 1) .... 1,533 55 1,826 820 60 464 

14-inch H-Pile Vibratory (Year 1, Year 2) ....................... 3 1 5 2 1 1,000 

12-inch Timber Vibratory (Year 1) ................................... 3 1 5 2 1 1,359 

48-inch Drilled Shaft Oscillatory Installation (Year 1) ...... 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0 386 

48-inch Concrete-lined Steel Shaft Diamond Wire Saw 

Removal Year 2) .......................................................... 1.9 0.2 2.7 1.1 0.1 5,843 

12-inch Timber Pile Clipper Year 1) ................................ 0.6 0 0.6 0.3 0 1,848 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

and how it is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

Take estimates were calculated using 

a combination of best available data. 

Best available density data was for the 

most part from the U.S. Department of 

the Navy’s Marine Species Density 

Database Phase III for the Northwest 

Training and Testing Study Area (Navy 

2019) which includes seasonal density 

estimates: Winter (Dec–Feb), Spring 

(Mar–May), Summer (Jun–Aug), Fall 

(Sep–Nov). The project will not work inwater in the Spring as that season is 

outside the July 16–February 15 inwater work season. The most 

conservative (highest density) seasonal 

estimate from the remaining three 

seasons was used where seasonal 

overlap exists and densities differ across 

seasons. Estimated take was calculated 

using density estimates multiplied by 

the area of each Level B harassment 

zone for each pile type multiplied by 

the number of days of in-water activity 

for each pile type. In some instances 

and where noted, observation-based 

data from WSDOT’s Seattle Multimodal 

Project at Colman Dock Season Three 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Report 

(WSDOT 2020a) or other observational 

data was used instead of U.S. Navy data 

when Navy density data was zero or 

extremely low. 

BNSF proposes to work in-water for 

113 days in Year 1 and 9 days in Year 

2, or approximately 5.5 months 

assuming a 5-day work week for 23 

weeks in Year 1 and a half a month 

assuming a 5-day work week for 2 

weeks in Year 2. 

Minke Whale 

The estimated take was calculated as 

described above using the Navy’s 

density data which resulted in zero 

takes of minke whale for both Year 1 

and Year 2 as shown in Table 8. 

Therefore, as described above, we 

looked at other observational data. The 

WSDOT Seattle Multimodal Project at 

Colman Dock Year 3 IHA Monitoring 

Report observed minke whale presence 

indicates sightings of a single minke 

whale over 7 months (WSDOT 2020a). 

Given this information, BNSF and 

NMFS conservatively assumed that up 

to one whale per month could be taken 

by harassment. 

A shutdown zone at the full distance 

of the level A harassment isopleths (≤ 

1533 m) will be applied to avoid take by 

Level A harassment. 

The 113 days of work in Year 1 and 

9 days in Year 2, equates to 5.5 months 

× 1 minke whale/month = 6 encounters 

with minke whales in Year 1 and 0.5 

months × 1 Minke whale/month = 1 

whale in Year 2. Therefore, BNSF has 

requested and NMFS proposes 6 takes 

by Level B harassment in Year 1 and 1 

take by Level B harassment in year in 

Year 2. 

TABLE 8—CALCULATED TAKE OF MINKE WHALE

Activity 

Species 

density 

(animals/ 

km2) 

Level A 

area 

(km2) 

Level B 

area 

(km2) 

Length of activity 

(days) 

Year 1 

estimated 

take A 

Year 1 

estimated 

take B 

Year 2 

estimated 

take A 

Year 2 

estimated 

take B 

Impact 36-inch Steel Pipe Pile (2 Concurrent Drivers) .. 0.0000054 0.376 0.183 10 (Yr 1) ............... 0 0 ................ ................


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I I I I 
4858 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 8—CALCULATED TAKE OF MINKE WHALE—Continued 

Activity 

Species 

density 

(animals/ 

km2) 

Level A 

area 

(km2) 

Level B 

area 

(km2) 

Length of activity 

(days) 

Year 1 

estimated 

take A 

Year 1 

estimated 

take B 

Year 2 

estimated 

take A 

Year 2 

estimated 

take B 

Vibratory 14-inch H-Pile ................................................. 0.0000054 0.005 0.235 6 (3 Yr 1, 3 Yr 2) .. 0 0 0 0 

Vibratory 12-inch Timber Pile ......................................... 0.0000054 0.005 0.286 8 (Yr 1) ................. 0 0 ................ ................

Oscillator Install of 4-foot Drilled Shaft .......................... 0.0000054 0.000 0.169 88 (Yr 1) ............... 0 0 ................ ................

Diamond Wire Saw Removal of 48-inch Drilled Shaft ... 0.0000054 0.000 2.290 6 (Yr 2) ................. ................ ................ 0 0 

24-inch Pile Clipper Removal of 12-inch Timber Pile .... 0.0000054 0.000 0.381 4 (Yr 1) ................. 0 0 ................ ................

Common Bottlenose Dolphin 

Estimated take using the Navy’s 

density estimates for common 

bottlenose dolphins as described above 

resulted in zero take in both Year 1 and 

Year 2 as shown in Table 9. Therefore, 

as described above, we looked at other 

observational data. Common bottlenose 

dolphins have been rare visitors to 

Puget Sound. However, the WSDOT 

Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman 

Dock Year 3 IHA monitoring report 

observed common bottlenose dolphin at 

a rate of 6 per month (WSDOT 2020a). 

In-water work will occur for 113 days in 

Year 1 and 9 days in Year 2, which 

would equate to 33 dolphin takes in 

Year 1 (5.5 months × 6 dolphins/month) 

and 3 dolphin takes in Year 2 (0.5 

months × 3 dolphins/month). A 

shutdown zone at the full distance of 

the level A harassment isopleths (≤ 

55m) can be effectively applied to avoid 

Level A take. Therefore, BNSF has 

requested and NMFS proposes to 

authorize 33 takes by Level B 

harassment in Year 1 and 3 takes by 

Level B harassment in year in Year 2. 

TABLE 9—CALCULATED TAKE OF BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN

Activity 

Species 

density 

(animals/ 

km2) 

Level A 

area 

(km2) 

Level B 

area 

(km2) 

Length of activity 

(days) 

Year 1 

estimated 

take A 

Year 1 

estimated 

take B 

Year 2 

estimated 

take A 

Year 2 

estimated 

take B 

Impact 36-inch Steel Pipe Pile (2 Concurrent Drivers) .. 0.0000054 0.376 0.183 10 (Yr 1) ............... 0 0 ................ ................

Vibratory 14-inch H-Pile ................................................. 0.0000054 0.005 0.235 6 (3 Yr 1, 3 Yr 2) .. 0 0 0 0 

Vibratory 12-inch Timber Pile ......................................... 0.0000054 0.005 0.286 8 (Yr 1) ................. 0 0 ................ ................

Oscillator Install of 4-foot Drilled Shaft .......................... 0.0000054 0.000 0.169 88 (Yr 1) ............... 0 0 ................ ................

Diamond Wire Saw Removal of 48-inch Drilled Shaft ... 0.0000054 0.000 2.290 6 (Yr 2) ................. ................ ................ 0 0 

24-inch Pile Clipper Removal of 12-inch Timber Pile .... 0.0000054 0.000 0.381 4 (Yr 1) ................. 0 0 ................ ................

Total ........................................................................ .................... ................ ................ 122 ....................... 0 0 0 0 

Long-Beaked Common Dolphin 

Using the Navy’s density data, which 

was zero, estimated take of common 

dolphins was calculated to be zero in 

Year 1 and Year 2. Therefore, as 

described above, we looked at other 

observational data. Sightings of live 

dolphins throughout inside waters and 

Southern Puget Sound have been 

recorded in 2003, 2011–12, and 2016 

–17. Group size ranged from 2 (in 2003 

and 2011–12) to 5–12 (in 2016–2017) 

(Shuster et al. 2017). Since June 2016, 

several common dolphins have 

remained in Puget Sound, group sizes of 

5–20 individuals are often reported and 

some of these groups stayed in the 

region for several months. Sightings of 

these animals mostly began in summer 

and early fall sometimes extending into 

winter months. (Shuster et al., 2018). 

We conservatively predict that a group 

of 20 individuals will be taken on a 

monthly basis. The Level A harassment 

shutdown zone for mid-frequency 

hearing group will be implemented to 

minimize the severity of any Level A 

harassment that could occur. The inwater work would occur for 113 days in 

Year 1 and 9 days in Year 2, which 

would result in 110 takes (5.5 months × 

20 dolphins/month) in Year 1 and 20 

takes (1 month × 20 dolphins/month) in 

Year 2 by Level B harassment. BNSF has 

requested and NMFS proposes to 

authorize 110 takes of long-beaked 

common dolphin by Level B harassment 

in Year 1 and 10 takes by Level B 

harassment in year in Year 2. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoise density estimates 

based on the Navy’s data were used to 

calculate requested and proposed take 

as shown in Table 10. Analysis of the 

size of the level A harassment zones 

multiplied by density associated with 

harbor porpoise predicted that two 

porpoises could be taken by Level A 

harassment during the 10 days that 

concurrent driving of 36-in steel piles 

occurs during year 1. However, take by 

Level A harassment is unlikely given 

that the threshold and associated PTS 

isopleth is based on the acoustic energy 

accrued over a specified time period 

and it is unlikely that a highly mobile 

animal such as the harbor porpoise 

would spend the that amount if time in 

the Level A harassment zone. However, 

given the larger size of the zone and the 

cryptic nature of harbor porpoises, we 

have precautionarily proposed to 

authorize 2 takes by Level A harassment 

for Year 1. The Level A harassment shut 

down zone for high frequency hearing 

group will be implemented to minimize 

severity of any Level A harassment takes 

that do occur. Since there will be no 

impact driving during Year 2, the size 

of the Level A harassment zone will not 

exceed 5 m and, therefore, no take by 

Level A harassment was requested and 

none has been proposed. BNSF has 

requested and NMFS proposes to 

authorize 12 takes of harbor porpoise by 

Level B harassment in Year 1 and 8 

takes by Level B harassment in year in 

Year 2. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4859 

TABLE 10—CALCULATED TAKE OF HARBOR PORPOISE

Activity 

Species 

density 

(animals/ 

km2) 

Level A 

area 

(km2) 

Level B 

area 

(km2) 

Length of activity 

(days) 

Year 1 

estimated 

take A 

Year 1 

estimated 

take B 

Year 2 

estimated 

take A 

Year 2 

estimated 

take B 

Impact 36-inch Steel Pipe Pile (2 Concurrent Drivers) .. 0.54 0.376 0.183 10 (Yr 1) ............... 2 1 ................ ................

Vibratory 14-inch H-Pile ................................................. 0.54 0.005 0.235 6 (3 Yr 1, 3 Yr 2) .. 0 1 0 1 

Vibratory 12-inch Timber Pile ......................................... 0.54 0.005 0.286 8 (Yr 1) ................. 0 1 ................ ................

Oscillator Install of 4-foot Drilled Shaft .......................... 0.54 0.000 0.169 88 (Yr 1) ............... 0 8 ................ ................

Diamond Wire Saw Removal of 48-inch Drilled Shaft ... 0.54 0.000 2.290 6 (Yr 2) ................. ................ ................ 0 7 

24-inch Pile Clipper Removal of 12-inch Timber Pile .... 0.54 0.000 0.381 4 (Yr 1) ................. 0 1 ................ ................

Total ........................................................................ .................... ................ ................ 122 ....................... 2 12 0 8 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seal density estimates based 

on data from the Navy were initially 

used to calculate requested and 

proposed take (Table 11). These 

estimates, however, do not account for 

numerous seals feeding on migrating 

salmonids at Ballard Locks, especially 

during summer (June–September) 

months. A new acoustic deterrent 

device was tested over two years to keep 

seals away from the Locks (Bogaard, 

Pers. Comm, 2022). A study report is 

currently being developed for 

publication. Study observers were 

primarily focused on behavioral effects 

of the deterrent on seals and monitored 

seal behavioral reactions during 30 

minute observation periods up to eight 

times per day. Actual seal abundance 

was not recorded. However, observers 

noted that groups of 5–6 harbor seals 

were very common from late June 

through September during the salmon 

run, although smaller numbers were 

present throughout the year. It is likely 

that many of the same animals were 

observed multiple times across daily 

observation periods. The in-water work 

window runs from July 16, 2022 

through February 15, 2023. Given this 

information, NMFS assumed for Year 1 

that during the 54 in-water work days 

between July 16, 2022 and September 

30, 2022, 5 harbor seals would be taken 

per day (270 takes). For the remaining 

59 in-water work days between October 

1, 2022 and February 15, 2023, a single 

harbor seal would be taken per day (59) 

for a total of 329 takes. There are 10 inwater work days that include concurrent 

impact driving of 36-inch piles when 

the Level A harassment isopleth is 

relatively large (1,826 m) (and also 

exceeds the Level B harassment isopleth 

(464 m)) so it is possible that Level A 

harassment could occur in some 

animals. Also, note that the constrained 

design of the lock system means that 

seals would likely spend extended 

periods in the confined area while 

feeding. NMFS conservatively assumes 

that all of these 10 in-water work days 

would occur during salmon migration 

(February 15–Sept 30) and that up to 

one-third of seals taken per day (2) 

could be exposed to sound energy levels 

resulting in some degree of Level A 

harassment (20). The estimated takes by 

Level A harassment is subtracted from 

the Level B harassment take to avoid 

double-counting. Since a smaller 

number of seals expected to be present 

during non-migratory period and the 

seals would have little incentive to 

congregate near the locks in the absence 

of salmon, NMFS does not expect any 

Level A harassment of seals to occur. 

Therefore, NMFS is proposing during 

Year 1 to authorize 20 takes by Level A 

harassment and 309 takes by Level B 

harassment (329–20). 

For Year 2, NMFS assumed that all 9 

in-water work days would occur during 

salmon migration between July 16, 2023 

and September 30, 2024 with up to 6 

harbor seals taken per day (54). No 

Level A take harassment is proposed 

during Year 2 since the largest Level A 

isopleth for all planned activities is 2 m. 

However, the density-based estimate 

was 57 takes as shown in Table 11. 

Therefore, NMFS is proposing 57 takes 

of harbor seal by Level B harassment 

during Year 2. 

TABLE 11—CALCULATED TAKE OF HARBOR SEAL

Activity 

Species 

density 

(animals/ 

km2) 

Level A 

area 

(km2) 

Level B 

area 

(km2) 

Length of activity 

(days) 

Year 1 

estimated 

take A 

Year 1 

estimated 

take B 

Year 2 

estimated 

take A 

Year 2 

estimated 

take B 

Impact 36-inch Steel Pipe Pile (2 Concurrent Drivers) .. 3.91 0.215 0.183 10 (Yr 1) ............... 8 7 ................ ................

Vibratory 14-inch H-Pile ................................................. 3.91 0.005 0.235 6 (3 Yr 1, 3 Yr 2) .. 0 3 0 3 

Vibratory 12-inch Timber Pile ......................................... 3.91 0.005 0.286 8 (Yr 1) ................. 0 9 ................ ................

Oscillator Install of 4-foot Drilled Shaft .......................... 3.91 0.005 0.169 88 (Yr 1) ............... 0 58 ................ ................

Diamond Wire Saw Removal of 48-inch Drilled Shaft ... 3.91 0.005 2.290 6 (Yr 2) ................. ................ ................ 0 54 

24-inch Pile Clipper Removal of 12-inch Timber Pile .... 3.91 0.005 0.381 4 (Yr 1) ................. 0 6 ................ ................

Total ........................................................................ .................... ................ ................ 122 ....................... 8 83 0 57 

California Sea Lion 

BNSF initially considered California 

sea lion density estimates to calculate 

requested take, which resulted in 

relatively low estimates (4 takes in Year 

1 and 3 takes in Year 2 by Level B 

harassment) as shown in Table 12. 

However, California sea lions are known 

to frequent the Ballard Locks to feed on 

migrating salmon (KUOW, 2020). While 

no formal research studies have 

recorded individual numbers of 

California sea lions at Ballard Locks, 

news articles reported accounts of 

California sea lion sightings which 

ranged from a few to many more (Hakai 

Magazine, 2018; King 5 News, 2021). 

Observers associated with the acoustic 

deterrent device study described above, 

reported that California sea lions were 

less numerous than harbor seals, having 

been seen at a rate of 2–3 per day during 

peak salmonid migration (Bogaard, Pers. 

Comm. 2022). They were less common 

during non-migratory seasons. Given 

this information, NMFS assumed for 

Year 1 that during the 54 in-water work 

days between July 16, 2022 and 

September 30, 2022, 2 California sea 

lions would be taken per day (108). For 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4860 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

the remaining 59 in-water work days 

between October 1, 2022 and February 

15, 2023, a single California sea lion 

would be taken very third day (20). Take 

by Level A harassment is possible, but 

unlikely, given that the largest Level A 

harassment isopleth is 60 m (with a 10 

m shutdown zone for otariids) but only 

during 10 in-water work days which 

would include impact driving during 

Year 1. The Level A harassment zone 

during all other in-water work days in 

both Year 1 and Year 2 is 1 m or less. 

A California sea lion would not be 

expected to remain within the injury 

zone long enough (5.4 hours) to accrue 

the amount energy that would result in 

take Level A harassment. As such, 

NMFS is proposing during Year 1 to 

authorize 128 takes by Level B 

harassment. No takes by Level A 

harassment are proposed. 

For Year 2, NMFS assumed that all 9 

in-water work days would occur during 

peak salmon migration between July 16, 

2023 and September 30, 2024 with up 

to 2 California sea lions taken per day 

(18). NMFS is proposing to authorize 18 

takes of California sea lion by Level B 

harassment. No Level A take harassment 

is proposed. 

TABLE 12—CALCULATED TAKE OF CALIFORNIA SEA LIONS BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Activity 

Species 

density 

(animals/ 

km2) 

Level A 

area 

(km2) 

Level B 

area 

(km2) 

Length of activity 

(days) 

Year 1 

estimated 

take A 

Year 1 

estimated 

take B 

Year 2 

estimated 

take A 

Year 2 

estimated 

take B 

Impact 36-inch Steel Pipe Pile (2 Concurrent Drivers) .. 0.2211 0.023 0.183 10 (Yr 1) ............... 0 0 ................ ................

Vibratory 14-inch H-Pile ................................................. 0.2211 0.004 0.235 6 (3 Yr 1, 3 Yr 2) .. 0 0 0 0 

Vibratory 12-inch Timber Pile ......................................... 0.2211 0.004 0.286 8 (Yr 1) ................. 0 1 ................ ................

Oscillator Install of 4-foot Drilled Shaft .......................... 0.2211 0.000 0.169 88 (Yr 1) ............... 0 3 ................ ................

Diamond Wire Saw Removal of 48-inch Drilled Shaft ... 0.2211 0.000 2.290 6 (Yr 2) ................. ................ ................ 0 3

24-inch Pile Clipper Removal of 12-inch Timber Pile .... 0.2211 0.000 0.381 4 (Yr 1) ................. 0 0 ................ ................

Total ........................................................................ .................... ................ ................ ............................... ................ 4 ................ 3 

Stellar Sea Lion 

Stellar sea lion density estimates were 

initially used to calculate requested take 

as shown in Table 13. Based on the 

density data, BNSF has requested a 

single take for both Year 1 and Year 2. 

Given the large number of in-water work 

days in Year 1, NMFS has 

precautionarily increased the proposed 

Level B harassment to 5 takes while 

maintaining the 1 proposed take by 

Level B harassment as calculated by 

density estimates in Year 2. Monitors 

with the acoustic deterrent study did 

not observe any Steller sea lions during 

the two years that the study was 

underway (Bogaard, Pers. Comm, 2022). 

TABLE 13—CALCULATED TAKE OF STELLER SEA LIONS BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT

Activity 

Species 

density 

(animals/ 

km2) 

Level A 

area 

(km2) 

Level B 

area 

(km2) 

Length of activity 

(days) 

Year 1 

estimated 

take A 

Year 1 

estimated 

take B 

Year 2 

estimated 

take A 

Year 2 

estimated 

take B 

Impact 36-inch Steel Pipe Pile (2 Concurrent Drivers) .. 0.0478 0.023 0.183 10 (Yr 1) ............... 0 0 ................ ................

Vibratory 14-inch H-Pile ................................................. 0.0478 0.004 0.235 6 (3 Yr 1, 3 Yr 2) .. 0 0 0 1 

Vibratory 12-inch Timber Pile ......................................... 0.0478 0.004 0.286 8 (Yr 1) ................. 0 0 ................ ................

Oscillator Install of 4-foot Drilled Shaft .......................... 0.0478 0.000 0.169 88 (Yr 1) ............... 0 1 ................ ................

Diamond Wire Saw Removal of 48-inch Drilled Shaft ... 0.0478 0.000 2.290 6 (Yr 2) ................. ................ ................ 0 0

24-inch Pile Clipper Removal of 12-inch Timber Pile .... 0.0478 0.000 0.381 4 (Yr 1) ................. 0 0 ................ ................

Total ........................................................................ .................... ................ ................ ............................... ................ 1 ................ 1 

The estimated take by Level A and 

Level B harassment for all authorized 

species and stocks by year, and 

percentage take by stock is shown in 

Table 14. 

TABLE 14—ESTIMATED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES, STOCK AND YEAR, AND PERCENTAGE

TAKE BY STOCK

Common name Stock Abundance 

IHA Year 1 Total take as 

percentage of 

stock 

IHA Year 2 Total take as 

percentage of 

stock Take A 

request 

Take B 

request 

Take A 

request 

Take B 

request 

Minke Whale ............................. California/Oregon/Washington .. 915 ................ 6 0.66 ................ 1 0.11 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin .... California/Oregon/Washington 

offshore.

3,477 ................ 33 0.95 ................ 3 0.09 

Long-beaked Common Dolphin California ................................... 83,379 ................ 110 0.13 ................ 20 0.01

Harbor Porpoise ........................ Washington Inland Waters ........ 11,233 ................ 12 0.11 ................ 8 0.07 

Harbor Seal ............................... Washington Northern Inland 

Waters.

1,088 20 309 32.6 ................ 57 5.2 

California Sea Lion .................... United States ............................. 257,606 ................ 108 0.04 ................ 20 <0.01 

Stellar Sea Lion ......................... Eastern U.S ............................... 43,201 ................ 5 0.01 ................ 1 <0.01 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4861 

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 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider 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, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

In addition to the measures described 

later in this section, BNSF will employ 

the following mitigation measures: 

• BNSF must ensure that construction 

supervisors and crews, the monitoring 

team, and relevant BNSF staff are 

trained prior to the start of activities 

subject to these IHAs, so that 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood. New personnel joining 

during the project must be trained prior 

to commencing work; 

• Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activity (i.e., pre-start clearance 

monitoring) through 30 minutes postcompletion of pile driving activity; 

• If a marine mammal is observed 

entering or within the shutdown zones 

indicated in Table 14, pile driving 

activity must be delayed or halted; 

• Pile driving activity must be halted 

upon observation of either a species for 

which incidental take is not authorized 

or a species for which incidental take 

has been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met, entering 

or within the harassment zone (as 

shown in Table 14); and 

• BNSF, construction supervisors and 

crews, PSOs, and relevant BNSF staff 

must avoid direct physical interaction 

with marine mammals during 

construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 meters of 

such activity, operations must cease and 

vessels must reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions, as 

necessary to avoid direct physical 

interaction. 

The following mitigation measures 

apply to BNSF’s in-water construction 

activities: 

• Establishment of Shutdown 

Zones—BNSF will establish shutdown 

zones for all pile driving and removal 

activities. The purpose of a shutdown 

zone is generally to define an area 

within which shutdown of the activity 

would occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area). Shutdown 

zones will vary based on the activity 

type and marine mammal hearing 

group. In addition to the shutdown 

zones listed in Table 15, BNSF will shut 

down construction activity if a 

humpback or southern resident killer 

whale is observed approaching or 

within the specified Level B harassment 

zone. 

• Protected Species Observers—The 

placement of Protected Species 

Observers (PSOs) during all pile driving 

and removal activities (described in 

detail in the Proposed Monitoring and 

Reporting section) will ensure that the 

entire shutdown zone is visible during 

pile driving and removal. Should 

environmental conditions deteriorate 

such that marine mammals within the 

entire shutdown zone would not be 

visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), drilling, 

cutting, clipping, pile driving and 

removal must be delayed until the PSO 

is confident marine mammals within 

the shutdown zone could be detected. 

TABLE 15—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR EACH HEARING GROUP AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES DURING PILE

INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

[Meters] 

Pile type, size, and pile driving method LF MF HF Phocid Otariid 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

Scenario 1. Single 36-inch Pipe ...................................... 1,000 40 1,200 10 10 500 

Scenario 2. 2 Concurrent 36-inch Pipe ........................... 1,600 60 1,900 10 10 500 

14-inch H-Pile .................................................................. 10 10 10 10 10 1,000 

12-inch Timber Vibratory ................................................. 10 10 10 10 10 1,400 

48-inch Drilled Shaft Oscillatory Installation .................... 10 10 10 10 10 400 

48-inch Concrete-lined Steel Shaft Diamond Wire Saw 

Removal ....................................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 5,900 

12-inch Timber Pile Clipper ............................................. 10 10 10 10 10 1,900 

• Monitoring for Level A and Level B 

Harassment—BNSF will monitor the 

Level B harassment zones to the extent 

practicable and the entire Level A 

harassment zones. Monitoring zones 

provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project area 

outside the shutdown zone and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. At least three PSOs 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4862 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

would monitor harassment zones during 

all in-water construction activities. PSO 

monitoring stations are described below 

in the Proposed Monitoring and 

Reporting section. 

• Pre-activity Monitoring—Prior to 

the start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in drilling, 

clipping, cutting, pile driving/removal 

of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs 

will observe the shutdown and 

monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes. The shutdown zone will be 

considered cleared when a marine 

mammal has not been observed within 

the zone for that 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot 

proceed until the animal has left the 

zone or has not been observed for 15 

minutes. When a marine mammal for 

which Level B harassment take is 

authorized is present in the Level B 

harassment zone, activities may begin 

and Level B harassment take will be 

recorded. If the entire Level B 

harassment zone is not visible at the 

start of construction, pile driving 

activities can begin. If work ceases for 

more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity 

monitoring of the shutdown zones will 

commence. 

• Soft Start—Soft-start procedures are 

believed to provide additional 

protection to marine mammals by 

providing warning and/or giving marine 

mammals a chance to leave the area 

prior to the hammer operating at full 

capacity. For impact pile driving, 

contractors will be required to provide 

an initial set of three strikes from the 

hammer at reduced energy, followed by 

a 30-second waiting period. This 

procedure will be conducted three times 

before impact pile driving begins. Soft 

start will be implemented at the start of 

each day’s impact pile driving and at 

any time following cessation of impact 

pile driving for a period of 30 minutes 

or longer. 

• Bubble Curtain—BNSF will use a 

marine pile-driving energy attenuator 

(i.e., air bubble curtain system) during 

impact pile driving. The use of sound 

attenuation will reduce SPLs and the 

size of the zones of influence for Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment. 

Bubble curtains will meet the following 

requirements: 

Æ The bubble curtain must distribute 

air bubbles around 100 percent of the 

piling circumference for the full depth 

of the water column; 

Æ The lowest bubble ring must be in 

contact with the substrate for the full 

circumference of the ring, and the 

weights attached to the bottom ring 

shall ensure 100 percent substrate 

contact. No parts of the ring or other 

objects shall prevent full substrate 

contact; and 

Æ Air flow to the bubblers must be 

balanced around the circumference of 

the pile. 

Based on our evaluation of BNSF’s 

proposed measures, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means 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 in the proposed action area. 

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 

action; 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 

Marine mammal monitoring must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan found 

in Appendix E in the application. 

Marine mammal monitoring during 

drilling, clipping, cutting, pile driving 

and removal must be conducted by 

NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner 

consistent with the following: 

• Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) who have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods must be used; 

• 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; 

• 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; and 

• PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 

this IHA. 

PSOs must have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); 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; 

A minimum of three PSOs located at 

positions designated in Figure 1 and 

Figure 2 of the Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan found in Appendix E of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4863 

the Application must monitor 

harassment zones during all in-water 

construction activities. One PSO would 

be stationed in close proximity to the 

construction site. A second PSO would 

be stationed at Bay Terrace Road which 

is located east of the Bridge 6.3 on the 

southern side of the Ship Canal. This 

location would provide views of 

ensonified areas radiating into Shilshole 

Bay as well as waters east of the mouth 

of the Ship Canal. A third PSO would 

be located on the north side of the Ship 

Canal at the Northwest 60th Street 

Viewpoint west of Bridge 6.3. This 

location provides views westward 

towards the mouth of the Ship Canal. A 

fourth PSO must be on a boat positioned 

in Puget Sound when a wire saw is 

being utilized to monitor the extended 

Level B harassment zone associated 

with this equipment. A wire saw would 

be employed on approximately 6 inwater work days. If hydroacoustic 

monitoring results of diamond wire saw 

cutting activities show that the entirety 

of the Level B harassment zone may be 

viewed by from land-based PSOs, then 

the PSO on the boat may not be 

deployed. All results from 

hydroacoustic monitoring, described in 

the next section, must be submitted to 

NMFS. NMFS must approve the 

removal of the boat-based PSO and 

modification of the new harassment 

isopleth. 

Monitoring will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after drilling, clipping, cutting, pile 

driving/removal activities. In addition, 

observers shall record all incidents of 

marine mammal occurrence, regardless 

of distance from activity, and shall 

document any behavioral reactions in 

concert with distance from piles being 

driven or removed. Drilling, clipping, 

cutting, 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 drilling, 

clipping, cutting, pile driving 

equipment is no more than 30 minutes. 

Hydroacoustic Monitoring 

Hydroacoustic monitoring will be 

conducted during in-water pile-driving 

and wire saw activities and recorded 

source levels will be compared to the 

reported sound levels employed as part 

of this application to determine 

harassment isopleths modeled in this 

application. Information about methods, 

data collection, and reporting are 

described in the Acoustic Monitoring 

Plan in Appendix F of the Application. 

The following representative subsets 

will be measured: 

• A minimum of 15, 36-inch impact 

driven piles for the Project in the 

following subsets: 

1. A minimum of 5 piles towards the 

beginning of pile driving activity; 

2. A minimum of 5 piles towards the 

middle of pile driving activity; 

3. A minimum of 5 piles towards the 

latter pile driving activity. 

• A minimum of 4, 48-inch drilled 

shafts oscillated for the Project in the 

following subsets: 

1. A minimum of 2 drilled shafts 

towards the beginning of the activity; 

2. A minimum of 2 drilled shafts 

towards the end of the activity. 

• A minimum of 2 48-inch drilled 

shafts will be monitored when cut with 

a wire saw. 

Reporting 

BNSF must submit its draft reports on 

all monitoring conducted under the 

IHAs within 90 calendar days of the 

completion of monitoring or 60 calendar 

days prior to the requested issuance of 

any subsequent IHA for construction 

activity at the same location, whichever 

comes first. A final report must be 

prepared and submitted within 30 

calendar days following receipt of any 

NMFS comments on the draft report. If 

no comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 calendar days of receipt of the 

draft report, the report shall be 

considered. The report will 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 how many and what type of 

piles were driven or removed and by 

what method: Drilling, cutting, clipping, 

impact driving, and vibratory driving 

and removal; duration of driving time 

for each pile (vibratory) and number of 

strikes per pile (impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• 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 location of each 

observed marine mammal relative to the 

pile being driven for each sighting; 

• Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best estimate); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.); 

• Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity (e.g., no response or changes 

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specific actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

The acoustic monitoring report must 

contain the informational elements 

described in the Acoustic Monitoring 

Plan and, at minimum, must include: 

• Hydrophone equipment and 

methods: Recording device, sampling 

rate, distance (m) from the pile where 

recordings were made; depth of water 

and recording device(s); 

• Type and size of pile being driven 

or cut, substrate type, method of driving 

or cutting during recordings (e.g., 

hammer model and energy), and total 

pile driving or cutting duration; 

• Whether a sound attenuation device 

is used and, if so, a detailed description 

of the device used and the duration of 

its use per pile; 

• For impact pile driving (per pile): 

Number of strikes; depth of substrate to 

penetrate; pulse duration and mean, 

median, and maximum sound levels (dB 

re: 1 mPa): Root mean square sound 

pressure level (SPLrms); cumulative 

sound exposure level (SELcum), peak 

sound pressure level (SPLpeak), and 

single-strike sound exposure level 

(SELs-s); 

• For wire saw cutting (per pile): 

Duration of driving per pile; mean, 

median, and maximum sound levels (dB 

re: 1 mPa): Root mean square sound 

pressure level (SPLrms), cumulative 

sound exposure level (SELcum) (and 

timeframe over which the sound is 

averaged); and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4864 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

• One-third octave band spectrum 

and power spectral density plot. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

IHA-holder shall report the incident to 

the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

(301–427–8401), NMFS and to the West 

Coast Region Stranding Hotline (866– 

767–6114) as soon as feasible. If the 

death or injury was clearly caused by 

the specified activity, the IHA-holder 

must immediately cease the specified 

activities until NMFS is able to review 

the circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of the IHA. 

The IHA-holder must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

i. Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

ii. Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

iii. Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

iv. Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

v. If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

vi. General circumstances under 

which the animal was discovered. 

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 responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), 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’s 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 environmental 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, this introductory 

discussion of our analyses applies to all 

of the species listed in Table 14, 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 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, 

such as for the potential repeated and 

prolonged exposure of habituated 

harbor seals that feed on salmonids 

traversing through the lock system. The 

analysis below applies to both the Year 

1 and Year 2 proposed IHAs, except 

where noted otherwise. 

Drilling, clipping, cutting, Pile driving 

and removal activities associated with 

the project, as outlined previously, have 

the potential to disturb or displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

specified activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level A harassment and 

Level B harassment from underwater 

sounds generated by drilling, clipping, 

cutting, pile driving and removal. 

Potential takes could occur if marine 

mammals are present in zones 

ensonified above the thresholds for 

Level A or Level B harassment, 

identified above, while activities are 

underway. 

The nature of the drilling, clipping, 

cutting, pile driving project precludes 

the likelihood of serious injury or 

mortality. The mitigation is expected to 

ensure that no Level A harassment 

occurs to any species except harbor seal. 

The nature of the estimated takes 

anticipated to occur are similar among 

all species and similar in Year 1 and 

Year 2, other than the potential Level A 

harassment take of harbor seal in Year 

1, described further below and the likely 

comparatively higher number of 

repeated takes of some small number of 

harbor seals by Level B harassment 

during both Year 1 and Year 2 

For all species other than harbor seal, 

take would be limited to Level B 

harassment (behavioral disturbance and 

TTS) only. Effects on individuals that 

are taken by Level B harassment, on the 

basis of reports in the literature as well 

as monitoring from other similar 

activities, will likely include reactions 

such as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were 

occurring). Marine mammals present in 

the vicinity of the action area and taken 

by Level B harassment are most likely 

to move away from and avoid the area 

of elevated noise levels during in-water 

construction activities. The project site 

itself is located along a highly 

developed waterfront with high 

amounts of vessel traffic and, therefore, 

we expect that most animals disturbed 

by project sound would simply avoid 

the area and use more-preferred 

habitats. These short-term behavioral 

effects are not expected to affect marine 

mammals’ fitness, survival, and 

reproduction due to the limited 

geographic area that would be affected 

in comparison to the much larger 

habitat for marine mammals in the 

Puget Sound. Harbor seals that are 

habituated to in-water construction 

noise could be exposed for 5.4 hours per 

day for up to 10 consecutive days 

during impact driving activities in Year 

1 only. These animals would likely 

remain in close proximity to the locks 

and may be exposed to enough 

accumulated energy to result in TTS or 

PTS (described below). Longer duration 

exposure could result in TTS in some 

cases if exposures occur within the 

Level B TTS zone. As discussed earlier 

in this document, TTS is a temporary 

loss of hearing sensitivity when exposed 

to loud sound, and the hearing 

threshold is expected to recover 

completely within minutes to hours. 

Any behavioral effects of repeated or 

long duration exposures are not 

expected to negatively impact survival 

or reproductive success of any 

individuals. Similarly, given that the 

exposure to these individuals is not 

expected to exceed 10 consecutive days 

for 5.4 or fewer hours at a time for any 

individual, any limited energetic 

impacts from the interruption of 

foraging or other important behaviors 

are not expected to affect the 

reproductive success of any individual 

harbor seals. 

In addition to the expected effects 

resulting from proposed Level B 

harassment, we anticipate that a limited 

number of habituated harbor seals (20) 

may sustain some Level A harassment 

in the form of auditory injury during 10 

days of impact driving proposed for 

Year 1 only. However, any animals that 

experience PTS would likely only 

receive slight PTS, i.e. minor 

degradation of hearing capabilities 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4865 

within regions of hearing that align most 

completely with the frequency range of 

the energy produced by pile driving 

(i.e., the low-frequency region below 

2kHz), not severe hearing impairment or 

impairment in the reigns of greatest 

hearing sensitivity. If hearing 

impairment does occur, it is most likely 

that the affected animal would lose a 

few dBs in its hearing sensitivity, which 

in most cases, is not likely to 

meaningfully affect its ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics. 

These takes by Level A harassment (i.e., 

a small degree of PTS) of habituated 

harbor seals are not expected to accrue 

in a manner that would affect the 

reproductive success or survival of any 

individuals, much less result in adverse 

impacts on the species or stock. As 

described above, we expect that marine 

mammals would be likely to move away 

from a sound source that represents an 

aversive stimulus, especially at levels 

that would be expected to result in PTS, 

given sufficient notice through use of 

soft start. 

The project is also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitats. The 

project activities will not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

Portions of the southern resident 

killer whale range are within the 

proposed project area and the entire 

Puget Sound is designated as critical 

habitat for these whales under the ESA. 

However, BNSF would be required to 

shut down and suspend pile driving or 

pile removal activities when this stock 

is detected in the vicinity of the project 

area. We anticipate that take of southern 

resident killer whale would be avoided. 

There are no other known important 

areas for other marine mammals, such 

as feeding or pupping, areas. 

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 the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized. 

• For all species except harbor seal 

and only during Year 1, no Level A 

harassment is anticipated or proposed 

for authorization. 

• The Level A harassment exposures 

to habituated harbor seals in Year 1 only 

are anticipated to result in slight PTS, 

within the lower frequencies associated 

with impact pile driving. 

• Though a small number of 

habituated harbor seals will accrue 

Level B harassment in the form of TTS 

from repeated days of exposure, hearing 

thresholds are expected to completely 

recover within minutes to hours. 

• Anticipated effects of Level B 

harassment in the form of behavioral 

modification would be temporary. 

• Although a small portion of the 

southern resident killer whale critical 

habitat is within the project area, strict 

mitigation measures such as 

implementing shutdown measures and 

suspending pile driving are expected to 

avoid take of this stock. No other 

important habitat for marine mammals 

exist in the vicinity of the project area. 

• We do not expect significant or 

long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat. 

Year 1 IHA—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 BNSF’s construction 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on all affected marine mammal species 

or stocks. 

Year 2 IHA—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 BNSF’s construction 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on all affected marine mammal species 

or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take 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. 

The amount of take NMFS proposes to 

authorize is below one third of the 

estimated stock abundance for all 

species during both Year 1 and Year 2. 

The proposed take of individuals during 

Year 1 is less than 32.6 percent for 

harbor seals and less than 1 percent for 

all other authorized species. During year 

2 the proposed take of individuals is 

less than 5.2 percent of the abundance 

of the affected species or stock as shown 

in Table 14. Note that harbor seal take 

during Year 1 likely includes multiple 

repeated takes of some small group of 

individuals. Similarly, for all other 

authorized species, the proposed take 

numbers probably represent 

conservative estimates because they 

assume all takes are of different 

individual animals, which is unlikely to 

be the case. Some individuals may 

return multiple times in a day, but PSOs 

would count them as separate takes if 

they cannot be individually identified. 

Year 1 IHA—Based on the analysis 

contained herein of the activity 

(including the mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks in Year 1 

of the project. 

Year 2 IHA—Based on the analysis 

contained herein of the activity 

(including the mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks in Year 2 

of the project. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4866 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

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 

two consecutive IHA’s to BNSF for 

conducting maintenance of Bridge 6.3 in 

Kings County, WA from July 16, 2022 to 

July, 15, 2023 (Year 1) and July 16, 2023 

to July 15, 2024 (Year 2), provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. Drafts of the proposed 

IHAs can be found at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notification of 

proposed IHAs for the proposed action. 

We also request at this time comment on 

the potential Renewal of the proposed 

IHAs 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 these IHAs 

or a subsequent Renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-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 Activities section of this 

notification is planned or (2) the 

activities as described in the Description 

of Proposed Activities section of this 

notification 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 

notification, 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 one 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. 

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: January 25, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01833 Filed 1–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB742] 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys 

Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the 

Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of letter of 

authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended, its implementing 

regulations, and NMFS’ MMPA 

Regulations for Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Geophysical 

Surveys Related to Oil and Gas 

Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, 

notification is hereby given that a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) has been issued 

to TotalEnergies E&P USA, Inc. 

(TotalEnergies) for the take of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: The LOA is effective from April 

20, 2022, through April 19, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and 

supporting documentation are available 

online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

action/incidental-take-authorization-oiland-gas-industry-geophysical-surveyactivity-gulf-mexico. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce 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 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 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. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, 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). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES