38116 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

authorization relative to the best 

available population abundance is less 

than 1 percent for all stocks (Table 7). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that only 

small numbers of marine mammals 

would be taken relative to the 

population size of the affected species 

or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

NMFS OPR is proposing to authorize 

take of four species of marine mammals 

which are listed under the ESA, 

including the North Atlantic right, fin, 

sei, and sperm whale, and has 

determined that this activity falls within 

the scope of activities analyzed in 

NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office’s (GARFO) 

programmatic consultation regarding 

geophysical surveys along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic 

Renewable Energy Regions (completed 

June 29, 2021; revised September 2021). 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Attentive Energy for 

conducting marine site characterization 

surveys off the coast of New York and 

New Jersey from August 1, 2022 to July 

31, 2023, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

A draft of the proposed IHA can be 

found at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed marine site 

characterization surveys. We also 

request comment on the potential 

renewal of this proposed IHA as 

described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, 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 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice would not be completed by the 

time the IHA expires and a renewal 

would allow for completion of the 

activities beyond that described in the 

Dates and Duration section of this 

notice, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond 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). 

(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: June 21, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13667 Filed 6–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC074] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Tillamook 

South Jetty Repairs in Tillamook Bay, 

Oregon 

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 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE)—Portland District (Corps) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to 2 years of activity 

associated with Tillamook South Jetty 

Repairs in Tillamook Bay, Oregon. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue two one-year incidental 

harassment authorizations (IHAs) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS is 

also requesting comments on a possible 

one-time, one-year renewal 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 

notice. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

submitted via email to 

ITP.renytysonmoore@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38117 

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: 

Reny Tyson Moore, 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/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. 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 IHA 

is provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

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 actions (i.e., the issuance of 

two IHAs) with respect to potential 

impacts on the human environment. 

These actions are 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 notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

requests. 

Summary of Request 

On February 11, 2022, NMFS received 

a request from the Corps for two oneyear IHAs to take marine mammals 

incidental to repairs of the Tillamook 

South Jetty in Tillamook Bay, Oregon. 

The application was deemed adequate 

and complete on May 23, 2022. The 

Corps’ request is for take of five species 

of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment and, for a subset of these 

species (i.e., harbor seals (Phoca vitulina 

richardii), northern elephant seals 

(Mirounga angustriostris), and harbor 

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)), take 

by Level A harassment. Neither the 

Corps nor NMFS expect serious injury 

or mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, IHAs are appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The Corps constructed, and continues 

to maintain, two jetties at the entrance 

of Tillamook Bay, Oregon to provide 

reliable navigation into and out of the 

bay. A Major Maintenance Report 

(MMR) was completed in 2003 to 

evaluate wave damage to the jetties and 

provide design for necessary repairs. 

Some repairs to the North Jetty were 

completed in 2010, and further repairs 

to the North Jetty root and trunk began 

in January 2022. The Tillamook South 

Jetty Repairs Project (i.e., the ‘‘proposed 

activities’’) would complete critical 

repairs to the South Jetty, as described 

in the MMR, with a focus on rebuilding 

the South Jetty head. Work would 

consist of repairs to the existing 

structures within the original jetty 

footprints (i.e., trunk repairs and the 

construction of a 100-foot cap to repair 

the South Jetty Head), with options to 

facilitate land- and water-based stone 

transport, storage, and placement 

operations. A temporary material 

offload facility (MOF), which would be 

approximately 15 meters (m) (50 feet 

(ft)) by 30 m (100 ft), would be 

constructed to transfer jetty rock from 

barges to shore at the South Jetty. 

The two IHAs requested by the Corps 

would be associated with the 

construction (Year 1 IHA) and removal 

(Year 2 IHA) of the temporary MOF. 

Construction of the MOF would involve 

vibratory (preferred) and/or impact pile 

driving of up to 10 12-inch H piles, 24 

24-inch timber or steel pipe piles, and 

250 24-inch steel sheets (type NZ, AZ, 

PZ, or SCZ), and is anticipated to occur 

during the first year of the project 

(November 1, 2022 through October 31, 

2023). Removal of the MOF would 

involve vibratory extraction of all 

installed piles and sheets and is 

anticipated to occur between November 

1, 2024 and October 31, 2025. The Corps 

proposed work windows are between 

November and February and between 

July and August each year to adhere to 

terms and conditions outlined in the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

Biological Opinion (BiOp) to minimize 

potential take of the Western snowy 

plover (WSP), currently listed as 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Sounds resulting 

from pile installation and removal from 

these proposed activities may result in 

the incidental take of marine mammals 

by Level A and Level B harassment. 

Dates and Duration 

Completion of the South Jetty repairs 

is anticipated to take multiple 

construction seasons. The primary inwater sound effects would be associated 

with construction (Year 1 IHA) and 

deconstruction (Year 2 IHA) of a MOF 

at Kincheloe Point. MOF construction/ 

deconstruction would only occur during 

the aforementioned work windows and 

when weather conditions would not 

restrict watercraft operations or 

compromise crew safety. The Corps 

anticipates commencing work in the 

autumn of 2022. Construction of the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38118 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

MOF is anticipated to take 20 to 23 days 

and to occur between November 1, 2022 

and February 15, 2023 or between July 

1, 2023 and August 31, 2023. 

Deconstruction of the MOF is estimated 

to take 13 days and is anticipated to 

occur between November 1, 2024 and 

February 15, 2025 or between July 1, 

2025 and August 31, 2025. The Corps 

plans to conduct pile driving only 

during daylight hours (from sunrise to 

sunset). 

Specific Geographic Region 

Tillamook Bay is located on the 

Oregon Coast near the city of Garibaldi 

in Tillamook County, Oregon (Figure 1). 

The Bay is protected from the open 

ocean by shoals and a sandbar called the 

Bayocean Peninsula. It is generally very 

shallow, with depths ranging from 0.3 to 

2.1 m (1 to 7 ft) throughout most of the 

Bay, but reaching depths of up to 10 m 

(32 ft) in the South, Main, and Bay City 

Channels. The sediment in Tillamook 

Bay consists primarily of sand or mud, 

and there are several sea grass beds 

present in the region. Tillamook Bay 

provides a safe harbor for the waterdependent economies of local and state 

entities. It is the third largest bay in 

Oregon and sustains significant 

biological and economic resources. The 

proposed activities would be located on 

the Bayocean Split, Tillamook County, 

Oregon (Tillamook Bay, River Mile 1; 

Section 18, 19, and 20 of Township 1N, 

Range 10W; Latitude: 45.565500, 

Longitude: ¥123.948983). 

The Port of Garibaldi is located 

approximately 3.2 kilometers (km) (2 

miles (mi)) east of the entrance to 

Tillamook Bay and contains a lumber 

mill, seafood processing plants, marine 

repair shops, a commercial and charter 

fishing marina, and a public boat 

launch. The United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) Station Tillamook Bay is also 

located at the Port of Garibaldi; 

operations include towing vessels and 

assisting recreational and commercial 

boaters throughout the year with five 

search and rescue boats. The U.S. 

Highway 101 corridor is adjacent to 

Tillamook Bay, passing through the 

coastal cities of Bay City, Garibaldi, and 

Barview closest to the South Jetty (see 

Figure 1–1 in the Corps’ application). 

The nearest residences to the proposed 

activity area are located in Barview, 

approximately 610 m (2,000 ft) away on 

the opposite side of the entrance 

channel. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The purpose of the proposed activities 

is to protect the structural integrity of 

the Tillamook South Jetty and to 

improve navigation conditions at the 

channel entrance through major 

maintenance repair activities. As with 

most jetties along the Oregon coast, the 

Tillamook South Jetty was constructed 

to facilitate safe navigation and support 

a more stable entrance channel at the 

mouth of Tillamook Bay. It was 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN27JN22.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38119 

constructed in phases between 1969 and 

1979 to a final length of 2,046 m (8,025 

ft). The South Jetty currently has a total 

length that is approximately 320 m 

(1,050 ft) shorter than the authorized 

footprint, and the head is severely 

damaged with an estimated recession 

rate of approximately 8.5 m (28 ft) per 

year. As with the Tillamook North Jetty, 

there has also been erosion of the jetty 

trunk. No repairs have occurred since 

the original construction. The 2003 

MMR report and subsequent 2014 Corps 

inspection recommended several repair 

actions that are the basis for the 

proposed construction activities. Repair 

activities would consist of two main 

components at the South Jetty: trunk 

repairs and construction of a 30 m (100- 

ft) cap to repair the South Jetty head. 

In addition to stone placement at the 

South Jetty head and trunk, related 

construction activities associated with 

these repairs, specifically the delivery 

and storage of new stone, include the 

construction of a temporary MOF near 

Kincheloe Point; channel dredging to 

maintain access to MOF; roadway 

improvements and possible turnouts 

along Bayocean Dike Road; and 

utilization of two upland staging and 

stockpiling areas: one primary staging 

area adjacent to the South Jetty trunk 

and a smaller staging area near the 

MOF. The Contractor will ultimately 

decide on the means and methods for 

construction, within these constraints 

and the conditions outlined in the 

proposed IHAs. Given uncertainty about 

which features will be implemented to 

facilitate site access, the Corps’ 

application assumes a temporary MOF, 

which requires pile driving, would be 

constructed to accommodate barge 

operations. The proposed activities also 

include removal and site restoration for 

each of the temporary construction 

features upon project completion. As 

discussed in further detail below, NMFS 

assumes that take of marine mammals is 

likely to result only from pile driving 

activities conducted as part of the MOF 

construction/removal and not from 

activities related to the delivery, storage, 

or placement of jetty stone. 

Construction Staging Areas 

Jetty repairs and associated 

construction elements require areas for 

equipment and supply staging and 

storage, parking areas, access roads, 

scales, general yard requirements, and 

jetty stone stockpile areas. There would 

be one primary staging area adjacent to 

the South Jetty trunk and a smaller 

staging area near the MOF (Figure 1). 

Temporary erosion controls would be 

put in place before any alteration of the 

sites. An Erosion and Sediment Control 

Plan (ESCP) would outline facilities and 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) that 

would be implemented and installed 

prior to any ground-disturbing activities 

on the project site, including 

mobilization. These erosion controls 

would prevent pollution caused by 

surveying or construction operations 

and ensure sediment-laden water do not 

leave the project site, enter Tillamook 

Bay, or impact aquatic and terrestrial 

wildlife. 

Ocean barging is anticipated to be the 

primary method of material and 

equipment transport; however, 

Bayocean Dike Road (Figure 1) would be 

used to access the staging areas and 

work sites. Prior to construction, the 

road would be improved to facilitate the 

necessary level of construction traffic. 

Specific details and locations of road 

improvement actions would depend on 

the condition of the road at the start of 

construction, however any 

improvements or alterations would 

avoid wetlands and waters of the U.S. 

to the maximum extent practicable. 

Roadway improvements would also 

avoid any locations identified as having 

significant cultural resources. 

There are no known pinnipeds haulouts on the sites proposed for these 

staging areas or near the proposed 

access roads (see Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities). Therefore, upland activities 

related to the development of the 

staging areas and access roads are not 

anticipated to impact any marine 

mammal species, and are not considered 

further in our analysis. 

Temporary Material Offloading Facility 

A temporary MOF is needed to 

transfer jetty rock from barges to shore 

at the South Jetty. The MOF would 

provide moorage for barges and a 

structure for crane support. The 

preferred location of the MOF is on the 

south side of Kincheloe Point, on the 

site of a former staging area (Figure 1). 

Detailed design of the MOF would be 

completed closer to the time of 

construction. The discussion below is 

based on general assumptions about 

likely design elements. These 

assumptions represent a conservative 

scenario for purposes of analysis. 

The offloading platform could require 

the use of an anchor line moorage or 

dolphins. The platform would be 

approximately 15 m (50 ft) by 30 m (100 

ft) and would be constructed using a 

sheet pile perimeter wall, installed 

using a vibratory hammer. A maximum 

of 24, 24-inch timber or steel piles 

would be installed as mooring dolphins, 

up to 10, 12-inch steel H-piles will be 

installed for support, and up to 250, 24- 

inch steel sheets (type NZ, AZ, PZ, or 

SCZ) would be driven for the perimeter 

wall. The maximum pile diameter 

would be 24 inches, and caps (or other 

deterrence devices) would be installed 

on each pile to discourage birds from 

perching. The platform would be 

constructed within the confines of the 

perimeter wall by filling in the area with 

backfill. The H-piles would be 

shoreward of installed sheets and most 

likely driven into the fill material with 

very little water, if any. A contractor 

would be limited by these general 

constraints, but the final MOF design 

would be per their discretion, largely 

based on site conditions, material 

availability, and cost. The MOF would 

be sited to avoid direct impacts to 

eelgrass during construction. In-water 

noise incidental to vibratory and impact 

pile driving of the MOF is anticipated 

to result in Level A harassment and/or 

Level B harassment. 

Vibratory hammers are the preferred 

method of pile installation. However, 

impact driving may be required for steel 

pipe piles if vibratory means prove 

infeasible (impact pile driving would 

not be required for any other pile type). 

For any impact driving of steel piles, a 

confined bubble curtain will be used to 

reduce in-water sound. Pile driving to 

construct the MOF is anticipated to take 

20 (vibratory installation methods only) 

to 23 (vibratory and impact installation 

methods) days over the course of a 

month (Table 1) and would occur under 

the first IHA (Year 1). Multiple piles 

would not be driven concurrently. 

Vibratory hammers would be used to 

remove the temporary MOF and is 

anticipated to take an additional 13 days 

over the course of a month (Table 1). 

Deconstruction would occur under the 

second IHA (Year 2). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38120 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILE DETAILS AND ESTIMATED EFFORT REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND

DECONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPORARY MOF 

Pile type Size 

Number 

of sheets/ 

piles 

Vibratory 

installation 

duration 

per pile/ 

sheet 

(minutes) 

Vibratory 

removal 

duration 

per pile/ 

sheet 

(minutes) 

Potential 

impact 

strikes 

per pile, if 

needed 

Production rate 

(piles/day) 

Range of installation 

days anticipated 1 Range of 

vibratory 

removal 

days 

anticipated 1

Installation 

(vibratory) 

Installation 

(impact) 

Removal 

(vibratory) 

Vibratory 

only 

Vibratory 

and impact 

AZ Steel Sheet 2 .. 24-inch 250 10 ............. 3 ............... ................ 25 .................... 50 10–12 10–12 5–7 

Timber or Steel 

Pile.

24-inch 24 15 ............. 5 ............... 533 8 4 12 3–6 6–9 2–4 

H-Pile ................... 12-inch 10 10 ............. 3 ............... ................ 10 .................... 10 1–2 1–2 1–2 

Project totals 284 49.83 

hours.

16.17 

hours.

................ .................... .................... .................... 14–20 17–23 8–13 

1The minimum days of installation and removal are based on the expected production rates. The maximum days of installation and removal are estimated assuming built in contingency days, which have been added into the construction schedule, are needed. 2Or comparable. 

Dredging 

In order to allow fully loaded barges 

to access the MOF, dredging would 

occur prior to the construction of the 

platform. Based on the conditions at the 

preferred MOF location, it is 

conservatively estimated that no more 

than 5,000 cubic yards of material 

would be dredged. The barge route from 

the main channel to the MOF will be 

sited to avoid potential adverse effects 

to eelgrass to the maximum extent 

practicable. The area dredged would 

include the area adjacent to the shore 

where the barge would be moored (see 

Figure 1–4 in the Corps’ application). 

Sandy dredged material removed to 

facilitate barge access would be placed 

in the Primary Staging Area as indicated 

in Figure 1–3 in the Corps’ application 

and used to fill depressions and create 

better habitat for WSP post construction. 

The scope and duration of dredging 

would be limited to the minimum area 

and amount of time needed to achieve 

project purposes. Initial MOF dredging 

would take approximately one week to 

complete, and will occur between July 

15 and March 15 to avoid the peak 

timing for juvenile coho salmon 

outmigration. Ongoing maintenance will 

occur as needed. Only mechanical 

dredging would be permissible, and 

dredges would be operated to limit 

dredge spillover. 

The Corps will work to meet state 

water quality standards. To minimize 

water turbidity and the potential for 

entrainment of organisms during 

dredging for the MOF, the clamshell 

bucket or head of the dredge would 

remain on the bottom to the greatest 

extent possible and only be raised 1 m 

(3 ft) off the bottom when necessary for 

dredge operations. Turbidity levels will 

be monitored via visual observations to 

identify any adverse detectable change 

in water quality. A hand-held turbidity 

meter will be deployed and used during 

MOF dredging and fill activities. No 

more than 10 percent cumulative 

increase in natural stream turbidities 

may be allowed, as measured relative to 

a control point immediately upstream of 

the turbidity causing activity. However, 

limited duration activities necessary to 

address an emergency or to 

accommodate essential dredging, 

construction, or other legitimate 

activities and which cause the standard 

to be exceeded may occur provided all 

practicable turbidity control techniques 

have been applied. See Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR) 340–041– 

0036. 

While dredging may produce 

underwater noise above the relevant 

harassment threshold (i.e., between 150 

and 180 dB; Clark et al., 2002; Miles et 

al., 1986), the noise produced by 

dredging is similar to other common onand in-water industrial activities 

typically occurring in the area. 

Additionally, dredging will only occur 

in a relatively small and confined area 

of Tillamook Bay over a short duration 

of time (i.e., 5 days), limiting the 

potential for impacts. Therefore, 

incidental takes of marine mammals are 

not anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for dredging activities, and 

this activity is not considered further in 

our analysis. 

South Jetty Maintenance and Repairs 

Significant repairs are proposed along 

the South Jetty, where the majority of 

work would occur from STA 70+00 

westward. These stations are 

enumerated in 30 m (100-ft) increments 

such that STA 71+00 would be 30 m 

(100 ft) seaward from STA 70+00. 

Additional repairs to the jetty trunk 

between Stations 43+00 and 49+00 are 

also planned. The jetty cap will be from 

STA 77+00 to 77+75 to elevation + 5.5 

m (18 ft) relative to North American 

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). From 

the final head station centerline, the end 

of the jetty will be built out in a 6 m 

(20 ft) radius to elevation + 5.5 m (18 

ft) NAVD88. The crest width of the jetty 

cap would be 12 m (40 ft). The crest 

width of the jetty trunk would be 9 m 

(30 ft) with a target crest elevation of + 

5.5 m (18 ft) NAVD88. The average 

stone density would be approximately 

180 pounds (lbs)/ft3, and the total 

quantity of stone required for the 

proposed activities is estimated at 

31,000 cubic yards (∼76,000 tons). Stone 

placement at the South Jetty would take 

just under 150 working days. 

While placement of jetty stone could 

produce noise, NMFS has determined 

that sounds produced from this action 

would not exceed marine mammal 

thresholds beyond 10 m (33 ft) from the 

source in the water and beyond 100 m 

(328 ft) from the source in the air (86 FR 

22151; April 27, 2021). There are no 

known pinniped haul-outs or other 

known important marine mammal 

habitats within the vicinity of the South 

Jetty (see Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of Specified 

Activities) limiting the potential for 

impacts from stone placement. 

Therefore, incidental takes of marine 

mammals are not anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for jetty stone 

placement, and are not considered 

further in our analysis. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, 

incorporated here by reference, instead 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38121 

of reprinting the information. 

Additional information regarding 

population trends and threats may be 

found in NMFS’ Stock Assessment 

Reports (SARs; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for these activities, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. PBR is defined by 

the MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or 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’ 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’ U.S. Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta 

et al. 2021) or Alaska SARs (e.g., Muto 

et al. 2020). All values presented in 

Table 2 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication and are available 

in the 2020 SARs (Carretta et al. 2021, 

Muto et al., 2020) and draft 2021 SARs 

(available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). 

TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name MMPA stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance Nbest, (CV, 

Nmin, most recent abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor Porpoise ................. Phocoena phocoena ................. Northern OR/WA Coast .. -,-, N 21,487 (0.44; 15,123; 2011) ..... 151 ≥3.0 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California sea lion ............... Zalophus californianus .............. U.S. ................................. -,-, N 257,606 (N/A.; 233,515; 2014) 14,011 >320 

Steller sea lion .................... Eumetopias jubatus .................. Eastern ........................... -,-, N 43,201 (N/A; 43,201; 2017) ...... 2,592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vitulina richardii .............. OR/CA Coastal ............... -, N 24,732 (0.12; N/A; 1999) .......... UND 10.6 

Northern elephant seal ....... Mirounga angustirostris ............ California Breeding ......... -,-, N 187,386 (N/A; 85,369; 2013) .... 5,122 5.3 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N.A.). 3These 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 M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

As indicated above, all 5 species (with 

5 managed stocks) in Table 2 temporally 

and spatially co-occur with the activity 

to the degree that take is reasonably 

likely to occur. All species (26 marine 

mammal species and 27 marine 

mammal stocks) that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas are 

included in Table 3–3 of the Corps’ 

application. The majority of the species 

listed in the Corps’ table are unlikely to 

occur in the project vicinity. For 

example, numerous cetaceans (i.e., sei 

whale, Balaenoptera borealis borealis; 

fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus 

physalus; Risso’s dolphin, Grampus 

griseus; common bottlenose dolphin, 

Tursiops truncatus truncatus; striped 

dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba; 

common dolphin, Delphinus delphis; 

short-finned pilot whale, Globicephala 

macrorhynchus; Baird’s beaked whale, 

Berardius bairdii; Mesoplodont beaked 

whale, Mesoplodon spp.; Cuvier’s 

beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris; 

pygmy sperm whale, Kogia breviceps; 

dwarf sperm whale, Kogia sima; sperm 

whale, Physeter macrocephalus) are 

only encountered at the continental 

slope (>20 km/12 mi offshore) or in 

deeper waters offshore and would not 

be affected by construction activities. 

Other species may occur closer 

nearshore but are rare or infrequent 

seasonal inhabitants off the Oregon 

coast (i.e., minke whale, Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata scammoni; Pacific whitesided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens; Northern right-whale 

dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis; killer 

whale, Orcinus orca (‘‘Eastern North 

Pacific Southern Resident Stock’’); 

Dall’s porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli 

dalli). Given these considerations, the 

temporary duration of potential pile 

driving, and noise isopleths that would 

not extend beyond the bay entrance 

(please see Estimated Take), there is no 

reasonable expectation for the proposed 

activities to affect the above species and 

they will not be addressed further. 

While ten marine mammal species 

could occur in the vicinity of the 

proposed project activities (i.e., harbor 

seals; Northern elephant seal; Steller sea 

lion; California sea lion; humpback 

whales, Megaptera novaeangliae; fin 

whales, Balaenoptera physalus 

physalus; gray whales, Eschrichtius 

robustus; blue whales, Balaenoptera 

musculus musculus; killer whales, 

Orcinus orca; and harbor porpoises), 

Tillamook Bay is relatively shallow and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38122 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

noise resulting from the construction/ 

deconstruction of the MOF would be 

limited to the interior waters of the bay 

and would not extend to coastal waters. 

Larger whales (e.g., humpback whales, 

fin whales, gray whales, blue whales, 

killer whales) may transit the waters 

near the coastline but are unlikely 

inhabitants of Tillamook Bay itself. In 

reviewing OBIS–SEAMAP (2022) and 

records for all marine mammals 

recorded within a 16 km (10 mi) radius 

of Tillamook Bay, only humpback 

whales, gray whales, harbor porpoises, 

California sea lions, Steller sea lions, 

and harbor seals were commonly 

reported. Killer whales have only been 

seen on rare occasions (TinyFishTV, 

2014; rempeetube, 2016; Corey.c, 2017), 

and Dall’s porpoise (and northern right 

whale dolphins have been reported a bit 

further offshore (Halpin et al., 2009; 

OBIS–SEAMAP, 2022). Gray whales and 

humpback whales have been observed 

in the vicinity of Tillamook Bay, 

however, they are highly unlikely to 

enter the relatively shallow waters of 

Tillamook Bay and be subject to pile 

driving noise disturbance. Given these 

considerations, take of these species 

(i.e., humpback whales, fin whales, gray 

whales, blue whales, killer whales) is 

not expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the Pacific Ocean, harbor porpoise 

are found in coastal and inland waters 

from Point Conception, California to 

Alaska and across to Kamchatka and 

Japan (Gaskin, 1984). Six harbor 

porpoise stocks have been designated 

off California/Oregon/Washington, 

based on genetic analyses and density 

discontinuities identified from aerial 

surveys. While harbor porpoise are rare 

within Tillamook Bay, if present, 

animals likely belong to the Northern 

Oregon/Washington Coast stock, which 

is delimited from Cape Flattery, 

Washington (located approximately 320 

km (198 mi) north of Tillamook Bay), to 

Lincoln City, Oregon (located 

approximately 68 km (42 mi) south of 

Tillamook Bay) (Carretta et al., 2022). 

Entanglement is the primary cause of 

human-related injury and death for 

harbor porpoises, however, estimated 

fishery mortality and serious injury 

rates are well below PBR. Harbor 

porpoises are sensitive to disturbance by 

a variety of anthropogenic sound 

sources, and the limited range of several 

U.S. West Coast harbor porpoise stocks 

makes them particularly vulnerable to 

potential impacts (see overview in 

Forney et al., 2017). 

Harbor porpoises on the Pacific 

Northwest coast of the United States are 

typically found in waters roughly 100– 

200 m (328–656 ft) deep (NOAA, 2013a; 

Holdman et al. 2018). They occur along 

the Oregon coast year-around and may 

be slightly more abundant in summer 

and exhibit diel or tidal movement 

patterns related to prey availability 

(Holdman et al., 2018). Harbor 

porpoises have been detected within a 

16 km (10 mi) radius of the Tillamook 

Bay entrance channel (Halpin et al., 

2009; OBIS–SEAMAP, 2022), and they 

could potentially occur in the project 

vicinity during the proposed activities. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions are distributed 

along the North Pacific waters from 

central Mexico to southeast Alaska, with 

breeding areas restricted primarily to 

island areas off southern California (the 

Channel Islands), Baja California, and in 

the Gulf of California (Carretta et al., 

2021). There are five genetically distinct 

geographic populations. The population 

seen in Oregon is the Pacific Temperate 

population (which comprises the U.S. 

stock managed by NMFS), which are 

commonly seen in Oregon from 

September through May (ODFW, 2015). 

The occurrence of the California sea 

lion along the Oregon coast is seasonal 

with lowest abundance in Oregon in the 

summer months, from May to 

September, as they migrate south to the 

Channel Islands in California to breed. 

They are commonly found in Oregon 

haul-out sites from September to May 

and during this period, adult and 

subadult males have been observed in 

bays, estuaries, and offshore rocks along 

the Oregon coast. In fact, a few males 

have been reported in Oregon waters 

throughout the year (Mate, 1973). The 

population breeds in the California 

Channel Islands and most females and 

young pups remain in that region yeararound (Mate, 1973). 

The California sea lion stock has been 

growing steadily since the 1970s. The 

stock is estimated to be approximately 

40 percent above its maximum net 

productivity level (MNPL = 183,481 

animals), and it is therefore considered 

within the range of its optimum 

sustainable population (OSP) size 

(Laake et al., 2018). The stock is also 

near its estimated carrying capacity of 

275,298 animals (Laake et al., 2018). 

However, there remain many threats to 

California sea lions including 

entanglement, intentional kills, harmful 

algal blooms, and climate change. For 

example, for each 1 degree Celsius 

increase in sea surface temperature 

(SST), the estimated odds of survival 

declined by 50 perfect for pups and 

yearlings, while negative SST anomalies 

resulted in higher survival estimates 

(DeLong et al., 2017). Such declines in 

survival are related to warm 

oceanographic conditions (e.g., El Nin ̃ o) 

that limit prey availability to pregnant 

and lactating females (DeLong et al., 

2017). Changes in prey abundance and 

distribution have been linked to warmwater anomalies in the California 

Current that have impacted a wide range 

of marine taxa (Cavole et al., 2016), 

including California sea lions. For 

example, between 2013 and 2017, 

NOAA declared an unusual mortality 

event (UME) for California sea lions as 

high mortality of pup and juvenile age 

classes were documented during this 

time. NOAA identified changes in the 

availability of sea lion prey species, 

particularly sardines, as a contributing 

factor. 

California sea lions may occur in the 

project vicinity, but there have been no 

confirmed sightings in Tillamook Bay 

(Halpin et al., 2009; OBIS–SEAMAP, 

2022). The closest known haul out site 

is at Three Arch Rock, which is 

approximately 23 km (14 mi) south of 

the proposed site of the MOF. 

Steller Sea lion 

The Steller sea lion range extends 

along the Pacific Rim, from northern 

Japan to central California. For 

management purposes, Steller sea lions 

inhabiting U.S. waters have been 

divided into two DPS: the Western U.S. 

and the Eastern U.S. Steller sea lions 

encountered off the Oregon coast are 

part of the Eastern U.S. Stock, with 

rookeries in California, Oregon, 

Washington, Southeast Alaska, and 

British Columbia (Muto et al., 2021). 

The Western U.S. stock of Steller sea 

lions are listed as endangered under the 

ESA and depleted and strategic under 

the MMPA. The Eastern U.S. stock 

(including those living in Oregon) was 

de-listed in 2013 following a population 

growth from 18,040 in 1979 to 70,174 in 

2010 (an estimated annual growth of 

4.18 percent) (NMFS, 2013). A 

population growth model indicates the 

eastern stock of Steller sea lions 

increased at a rate of 4.25 percent per 

year (95 percent confidence intervals of 

3.77–4.72 percent) between 1987 and 

2017 based on an analysis of pup counts 

in California, Oregon, British Columbia, 

and Southeast Alaska (Muto et al., 

2021). This stock is likely within its 

OSP; however, no determination of its 

status relative to OSP has been made 

(Muto et al., 2021). 

Off the Oregon coast, Steller sea lions 

have been observed ashore from the 

Columbia River south to Rogue Reef and 

typically inhabit offshore rocks and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38123 

islands. There are seven major haul-out 

sites noted in Oregon during the 

breeding season, however, there are no 

known rookery sites near Tillamook Bay 

(Pitcher et al., 2007). The closest known 

haul out site is at Three Arch Rock, 

which is approximately 23 km (14 mi) 

south of the proposed site of the MOF. 

Steller sea lions have been detected in 

Tillamook Bay during marine mammal 

surveys (Pearson and Verts, 1970; 

Halpin et al., 2009; Ford et al., 2013) 

and may occur in the vicinity of the 

project. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters off Baja California, 

north along the western coasts of the 

continental U.S., British Columbia, and 

Southeast Alaska, west through the Gulf 

of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, and in 

the Bering Sea north to Cape Newenham 

and the Pribilof Islands (Caretta et al., 

2021). Within U.S. west coast waters, 

five stocks of harbor seals are 

recognized: (1) Southern Puget Sound 

(south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge); 

(2) Washington Northern Inland Waters 

(including Puget Sound north of the 

Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the San Juan 

Islands, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca); 

(3) Hood Canal; (4) Oregon/Washington 

Coast; and (5) California. Seals 

potentially affected by this activity 

would be part of the Oregon/ 

Washington Coast stock. 

Harbor seals generally are nonmigratory, with local movements 

associated with tides, weather, season, 

food availability, and reproduction 

(Scheffer and Slipp, 1944; Fisher, 1952; 

Bigg 1969, 1981). Harbor seals do not 

make extensive pelagic migrations, 

though some long distance movement of 

tagged animals in Alaska (900 km, 559 

mi) and along the U.S. west coast (up to 

550 km, 342 mi) have been recorded 

(Brown and Mate, 1983; Herder, 1986; 

Womble, 2012). Harbor seals have 

displayed strong fidelity to haulout sites 

(Pitcher and Calkins, 1979; Pitcher and 

McAllister, 1981). 

Harbor seals were historically hunted 

in Oregon as a nuisance to fishermen, 

however, their numbers have steadily 

increased since the passage of the 

MMPA in 1972 (Harvey, 1987; Brown et 

al., 2005). While harbor seals are still 

subject to incidental take from 

commercial fisheries in the region, 

overall mortality is relatively low. 

However, the most recent abundance 

estimate available for this stock dates to 

1999 (Carretta et al., 2021). 

Harbor seals are one of the most 

abundant pinnipeds in Oregon and can 

typically be found in coastal marine and 

estuarine waters of the Oregon coast 

throughout the year. On land, they can 

be found on offshore rocks and islands, 

along shore, and on exposed flats in the 

estuary (Harvey, 1987). There is one 

haul-out site roughly 1.5 km (0.9 mi) 

east of the proposed MOF that has been 

historically noted in Tillamook Bay. 

This haul-out is located on an intertidal 

sand flat in the middle of the bay (See 

Figure 4–1 in the Corps’ application) 

and highest utilization has been 

observed during the May/June 

reproductive season (B.E. Wright, 

personal communication, February 12, 

2021; ODFW, 2022). This is consistent 

with other findings noting harbor seals 

being more abundant in Tillamook Bay 

during the summer pupping season 

(Brown and Mate, 1983). There is also 

evidence that animals may move 

between Netarts Bay, a prominent 

feeding site located approximately 15 

km (9 mi) south of Tillamook Bay, and 

Tillamook Bay in the non-pupping 

season (Brown and Mate, 1983). 

Therefore, harbor seals are expected to 

occur in the vicinity of the project. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

The California Breeding Stock of 

Northern elephant seals breeds and 

gives birth in California and makes 

extended foraging trips to areas 

including coastal Oregon biannually 

during the fall and spring (Le Boeuf et 

al., 2000). While both males and females 

may transit areas off the Oregon coast, 

males seem to have focal forage areas 

near the continental shelf break while 

females typically move further offshore 

and feed opportunistically at numerous 

sites while in route (Le Beouf et al., 

2000). 

Populations of northern elephant 

seals in the U.S. and Mexico have 

recovered after being nearly hunted to 

extinction (Stewart et al., 1994). 

Northern elephant seals underwent a 

severe population bottleneck and loss of 

genetic diversity when the population 

was reduced to an estimated 10–30 

individuals (Hoelzel et al., 2002). 

Although movement and genetic 

exchange continues between rookeries, 

most elephant seals return to natal 

rookeries when they start breeding 

(Huber et al., 1991). The California 

breeding population is now 

demographically isolated from the Baja 

California population. No international 

agreements exist for the joint 

management of this species by the U.S. 

and Mexico. The California breeding 

population is considered to be a 

separate stock (Carretta et al., 2022). 

The population is currently 

susceptible to incidental take and injury 

from gillnet and trawl fisheries 

operating offshore, however, the humancaused mortality is still well below the 

estimated PBR level. 

There have been no recorded 

sightings of northern elephant seals in 

the immediate vicinity of Tillamook 

Bay, however, there have been sightings 

toward Netarts Bay, located 

approximately 14 km (9 mi) south of the 

Tillamook South Jetty, and further 

offshore (Halpin et al., 2009; OBIS– 

SEAMAP, 2022). Therefore, northern 

elephant seals could transit the area. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok 

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38124 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

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. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a 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 whether 

those impacts are reasonably expected 

to, or reasonably likely to, adversely 

affect the species or stock through 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activity can occur 

from impact and vibratory pile driving. 

The effects of underwater noise from the 

Corps’ proposed activities have the 

potential to result in Level A and Level 

B harassment of marine mammals in the 

action area. 

Description of Sound Sources 

This section contains a brief technical 

background on sound, on the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used in this proposal 

inasmuch as the information is relevant 

to the specified activity and to a 

discussion of the potential effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

found later in this document. For 

general information on sound and its 

interaction with the marine 

environment, please see, e.g., Au and 

Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. 

(1995); Urick (1983). 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz 

(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is 

the distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the dB. A 

sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is 

described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure (for underwater sound, this is 

1 microPascal (mPa)), and is a 

logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude; therefore, a 

relatively small change in dB 

corresponds to large changes in sound 

pressure. The source level represents 

the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m 

from the source (referenced to 1 mPa), 

while the received level is the SPL at 

the listener’s position (referenced to 1 

mPa). 

Root mean square (RMS) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. RMS is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick, 1983). RMS accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB referenced to 1 

micropascal squared per second (re 1 

mPa2-s)) represents the total energy in a 

stated frequency band over a stated time 

interval or event, and considers both 

intensity and duration of exposure. The 

per-pulse SEL is calculated over the 

time window containing the entire 

pulse (i.e., 100 percent of the acoustic 

energy). SEL is a cumulative metric; it 

can be accumulated over a single pulse, 

or calculated over periods containing 

multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 

(SELcum) represents the total energy 

accumulated by a receiver over a 

defined time window or during an 

event. Peak sound pressure (also 

referred to as zero-to-peak sound 

pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum 

instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified 

distance from the source, and is 

represented in the same units as the 

RMS sound pressure. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in a manner similar 

to ripples on the surface of a pond and 

may be either directed in a beam or 

beams or may radiate in all directions 

(omnidirectional sources), as is the case 

for sound produced by the pile driving 

activity considered here. The 

compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38125 

ambient sound, which 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 

(ANSI, 1995). The sound level of a 

region is defined by the total acoustical 

energy being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

include physical (e.g., wind and waves, 

earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), 

biological (e.g., sounds produced by 

marine mammals, fish, and 

invertebrates), and anthropogenic (e.g., 

vessels, dredging, construction) sound. 

A number of sources contribute to 

ambient sound, including wind and 

waves, which are a main source of 

naturally occurring ambient sound for 

frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 

kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson, 1995). In 

general, ambient sound levels tend to 

increase with increasing wind speed 

and wave height. Precipitation can 

become an important component of total 

sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. Marine mammals can contribute 

significantly to ambient sound levels, as 

can some fish and snapping shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient 

sound related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels), 

dredging and construction, oil and gas 

drilling and production, geophysical 

surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel 

noise typically dominates the total 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

20 and 300 Hz. In general, the 

frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are 

below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency 

sound levels are created, they attenuate 

rapidly. 

A recent study of ambient ocean 

sound for Oregon’s nearshore 

environment observed maximum and 

minimum levels of 136 dB re 1 mPa and 

95 dB re 1 mPa, respectively, with an 

average level of 113 dB re 1 mPa over a 

period of one year (Haxel et al., 2011). 

This level could vary given the presence 

of different recreational and commercial 

vessels (e.g., up to 150 dB for small 

fishing vessels (Hildebrand, 2005), up to 

186 dB for large vessels, 81 to 166 dB 

for empty tugs and barges and up to 170 

dB for loaded tugs and barges 

(Richardson et al., 1995) within the 

frequencies between 20 and 5000 Hz), or 

other factors (e.g., wind and waves, 

traffic noise along adjacent roadways, 

aquatic animals, currents, etc.) as 

described above. No direct data on 

ambient noise levels within Tillamook 

Bay are available; however, in-water 

ambient noise levels are considered 

comparable to similar bays. 

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 may include 

impact pile driving, and vibratory pile 

driving and removal. The sounds 

produced by these activities fall into 

one of two general sound types: 

impulsive and non-impulsive. 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile 

driving) are typically transient, brief 

(less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure 

with rapid rise time and rapid decay 

(ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 

2018). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g., 

aircraft, machinery operations such as 

drilling or dredging, vibratory pile 

driving, and active sonar systems) can 

be broadband, narrowband or tonal, 

brief or prolonged (continuous or 

intermittent), and typically do not have 

the high peak sound pressure with rapid 

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 hammers would be used 

on this project: impact and vibratory. 

Impact hammers operate by repeatedly 

dropping and/or pushing 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 SPLs 

may be 180 dB or greater, but are 

generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs 

generated during impact pile driving of 

the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 

2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the 

probability and severity of injury, and 

sound energy is distributed over a 

greater amount of time (Nedwell and 

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

The likely or possible impacts of the 

Corps’ proposed activities 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, 

given there are no known pinniped 

haul-out sites in the vicinity of the 

proposed site of the MOF construction/ 

deconstruction, visual and other nonacoustic stressors would be limited, and 

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 is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from the Corps’ specified 

activities. 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, 2019). In 

general, exposure to pile driving 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 pile driving noise on marine 

mammals are dependent on several 

factors, including, but not limited to, 

sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. nonimpulsive), 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) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38126 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

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 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). When 

analyzing the auditory effects of noise 

exposure, it is often helpful to broadly 

categorize sound as either impulsive or 

non-impulsive. When considering 

auditory effects, vibratory pile driving is 

considered a non-impulsive source 

while impact pile driving is treated as 

an impulsive source. 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2018). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (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)—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-tosession 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 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. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, and there is no PTS 

data for cetaceans, but such 

relationships are assumed to be similar 

to those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several decibels 

above (a 40-dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et 

al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing 

mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift 

approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Based on data from 

terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 

assumption is that the PTS thresholds 

for impulse sounds (such as impact pile 

driving pulses as received close to the 

source) are at least 6 dB higher than the 

TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis 

and PTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher 

than TTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). 

Given the higher level of sound or 

longer exposure duration necessary to 

cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is 

considerably less likely that PTS could 

occur. 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be at a higher 

level in order to be heard. In terrestrial 

and marine mammals, TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to days (in cases of 

strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. 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). 

Construction and deconstruction of 

the MOF, which is required to repair the 

Tillamook South Jetty, requires a 

combination of impact pile driving and 

vibratory pile driving. During this 

project, these activities will not occur at 

the same time and there will be pauses 

in activities producing the sound during 

each day. Given these pauses and that 

many marine mammals are likely 

moving through the project area and not 

remaining for extended periods of time, 

the potential for TTS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal also 

has the potential to behaviorally disturb 

marine mammals. Behavioral 

disturbance may include a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38127 

of an area or changes in vocalizations), 

more conspicuous changes in similar 

behavioral activities, and more 

sustained and/or potentially severe 

reactions, such as displacement from or 

abandonment of high-quality habitat. 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

changing direction and/or speed; 

reducing/increasing vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); eliciting a visible startle 

response or aggressive behavior (such as 

tail/fin slapping or jaw clapping); 

avoidance of areas where sound sources 

are located. Pinnipeds may increase 

their haul out time, possibly to avoid inwater 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; Archer et al., 2010). 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 and C of 

Southall et al. (2007) and Gomez et al. 

(2016) for reviews of studies involving 

marine mammal behavioral responses to 

sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted above, behavioral state may 

affect the type of response. For example, 

animals that are resting may show 

greater behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic airguns or 

acoustic harassment devices) have been 

varied but often consist of avoidance 

behavior or other behavioral changes 

suggesting discomfort (Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et 

al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). However, there are broad 

categories of potential response, which 

we describe in greater detail here, that 

include alteration of dive behavior, 

alteration of foraging behavior, effects to 

breathing, interference with or alteration 

of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 

al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). 

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be 

of little biological significance. The 

impact of an alteration to dive behavior 

resulting from an acoustic exposure 

depends on what the animal is doing at 

the time of the exposure and the type 

and magnitude of the response. 

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. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 

2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007). 

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; 

Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), 

while right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

have been observed to shift the 

frequency content of their calls upward 

while reducing the rate of calling in 

areas of increased anthropogenic noise 

(Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, 

animals may cease sound production 

during production of aversive signals 

(Bowles et al., 1994). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38128 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). For example, 

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 

from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Avoidance may be short-term, 

with animals returning to the area once 

the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 

1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; 

Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et 

al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is 

possible, however, which may lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the affected species in the 

affected region if habituation to the 

presence of the sound does not occur 

(e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996, Bowers et al., 2018). 

The result of a flight response could 

range from brief, temporary exertion and 

displacement from the area where the 

signal provokes flight to, in extreme 

cases, marine mammal strandings 

(Evans and England, 2001). However, it 

should be noted that response to a 

perceived predator does not necessarily 

invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), 

and whether individuals are solitary or 

in groups may influence the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan 

et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). 

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that 

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

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 

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 construction projects. 

Auditory Masking—Since many 

marine mammals rely on sound to find 

prey, moderate social interactions, and 

facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise 

from anthropogenic sound sources can 

interfere with these functions, but only 

if the noise spectrum overlaps with the 

hearing sensitivity of the marine 

mammal (Southall et al., 2007; Clark et 

al., 2009; Hatch et al., 2012). Chronic 

exposure to excessive, though not highintensity, noise could cause masking at 

particular frequencies for marine 

mammals that utilize sound for vital 

biological functions (Clark et al., 2009). 

Acoustic masking is when other noises 

such as from human sources interfere 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38129 

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; Erbe et al., 

2016). Therefore, under certain 

circumstances, marine mammals whose 

acoustical sensors or environment are 

being severely masked could also be 

impaired from maximizing their 

performance fitness in survival and 

reproduction. The ability of a noise 

source to mask biologically important 

sounds depends on the characteristics of 

both the noise source and the signal of 

interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, 

temporal variability, direction), in 

relation to each other and to an animal’s 

hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, 

frequency range, critical ratios, 

frequency discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

man-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 

2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild 

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et 

al., 2013). 

Marine mammals in Tillamook Bay 

are exposed to anthropogenic noise 

which may lead to some habituation, 

but is also a source of masking. 

Vocalization changes may result from a 

need to compete with an increase in 

background noise and include 

increasing the source level, modifying 

the frequency, increasing the call 

repetition rate of vocalizations, or 

ceasing to vocalize in the presence of 

increased noise (Hotchkin and Parks, 

2013). 

Masking is more likely to occur in the 

presence of broadband, relatively 

continuous noise sources. Energy 

distribution of pile driving covers a 

broad frequency spectrum, and sound 

from pile driving would be within the 

audible range of pinnipeds and 

cetaceans present in the proposed action 

area. While some pile driving during the 

Corps’ activities may mask some 

acoustic signals that are relevant to the 

daily behavior of marine mammals, the 

short-term duration and limited areas 

affected make it very unlikely that 

survival would be affected. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with pile driving and removal that have 

the potential to cause behavioral 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from these activities. 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 elevated above the 

acoustic criteria. However, given that 

the closest known haul outs are 

approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi) away for 

harbor seals and approximately 23 km 

(14 mi) or greater for California sea 

lions, Steller sea lions, and northern 

elephant seals, the likelihood of 

pinnipeds being exposed to airborne 

noise over the short duration of 

intermittent pile driving and removal is 

low. 

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. Thus, the behavioral 

harassment of these animals is already 

accounted for in these estimates of 

potential take. Therefore, we do not 

believe that authorization of incidental 

take resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

The Corps’ proposed activities would 

not result in permanent negative 

impacts to habitats used directly by 

marine mammals, but may have 

potential short-term impacts to food 

sources such as forage fish and may 

affect acoustic habitat (see masking 

discussion above). There are no known 

foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom 

structure of significant biological 

importance to marine mammals present 

in the marine waters of the project area. 

The Corps’ proposed activities in 

Tillamook Bay could have localized, 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat and their prey by increasing inwater sound pressure levels and slightly 

decreasing water quality. During impact 

pile driving and vibratory pile driving 

or removal, elevated levels of 

underwater noise would ensonify a 

portion of Tillamook Bay where both 

fishes and mammals 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. The 

proposed construction activities are of 

short duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

and airborne sound. 

Pile installation/removal may 

temporarily increase turbidity resulting 

from suspended sediments. Any 

increases would be temporary, 

localized, and minimal. In general, 

turbidity associated with pile 

installation is localized to about a 7.6 m 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38130 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

(25 ft) radius around the pile (Everitt et 

al., 1980). Cetaceans and pinnipeds in 

Tillamook Bay are not expected to be 

close enough to the project pile driving 

areas to experience effects of turbidity; 

however, if they were they could avoid 

localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, 

the impact from increased turbidity 

levels is expected to minimal for marine 

mammals. Furthermore, pile driving 

and removal at the project site would 

not obstruct movements or migration of 

marine mammals. 

Potential Pile Driving Effects on 

Prey—Sound from pile driving may 

affect marine mammals through impacts 

on the abundance, behavior, or 

distribution of prey species (e.g., 

crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, 

zooplankton). 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 and Mann, 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 that are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds. Short duration, 

sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle 

changes in fish behavior and local 

distribution. 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; 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). 

More commonly, though, the impacts of 

noise on fish are temporary. 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality (summarized in Popper et al., 

2014). 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 

pile driving and removal activities at the 

project area would be temporary 

behavioral avoidance of the area. The 

duration of fish avoidance of this area 

after pile driving stops is unknown, but 

a rapid return to normal recruitment, 

distribution, and behavior is 

anticipated. In general, impacts to 

marine mammal prey species are 

expected to be minor and temporary due 

to the short timeframe of the project. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving and the small 

area being affected relative to available 

nearby habitat, pile driving activities 

associated with the proposed action are 

not likely to have a permanent, adverse 

effect on any fish habitat, or populations 

of fish species or other prey. 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. Thus, we conclude that 

impacts of the specified activity are not 

likely to have more than short-term 

adverse effects on any prey habitat or 

populations of prey species. Further, 

any impacts to marine mammal habitat 

are not expected to result in significant 

or long-term consequences for 

individual marine mammals, or to 

contribute to adverse impacts on their 

populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through these IHAs, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 

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 (i.e., pile driving and 

removal) has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result, primarily 

for high frequency cetaceans and/or 

phocids because predicted auditory 

injury zones are larger than for otariids. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 

otariids. The proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

proposed take numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, generally 

speaking, we estimate take by 

considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimates. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38131 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry, other noises in the area, 

predators in the area), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, life stage, 

depth) and can be difficult to predict 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison 

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a metric that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

typically uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS generally predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 

above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. 

The Corps’ proposed activity includes 

the use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving/removal) and impulsive (impact 

pile driving) sources, and therefore the 

RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB 

re 1 mPa are applicable. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The Corps’ proposed 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

(impact pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving/removal) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS Onset Thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lp,0-pk,flat: 219 dB; LE,p, LF,24h: 1183 dB .............. Cell 2: LE,p, LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lp,0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,p, MF,24h: 1185 dB .............. Cell 4: LE,p, MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lp,0-pk,flat: 202 dB; LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB ................. Cell 6: LE,p, HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lp,0-pk.flat: 218 dB; LE,p,PW,24h: 1185 dB .............. Cell 8: LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lp,0-pk,flat: 232 dB; LE,p,OW,24h: 203 dB ................ Cell 10: LE,p,OW,24h: 219 

dB. 

* Dual metric 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 are recommended 

for consideration. 

Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to be more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized 

hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). 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 weighted 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 

thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., impact pile driving, 

vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile 

removal). 

Sound Source Levels of Proposed 

Activities—The intensity of pile driving 

sounds is greatly influenced by factors 

such as the type of piles, hammers, and 

the physical environment in which the 

activity takes place. In order to calculate 

distances to the Level A harassment and 

Level B harassment sound thresholds 

for the methods and piles being used in 

this project, NMFS used empirical data 

from sound source verification (SSV) 

studies reported in Navy (2015) and 

CALTRANS (2020), to develop source 

levels for the various pile types, sizes 

and methods (Table 5). These proxies 

were chosen as they were obtained from 

SSV studies on piles of comparable 

types and sizes and/or in comparable 

environments (e.g., they had comparable 

water depths). Note that these source 

levels represents the SPL referenced at 

a distance of 10 m from the source. It 

is conservatively assumed that the 

Corps will use steel instead of timber for 

the 24-inch pipe piles as the estimated 

proxy values for steel are louder than 

timber (e.g., Greenbusch Group, 2018; 

84 FR 61026, November 12, 2019). It is 

also conservatively assumed that 

vibratory removal will produce 

comparable levels of in-water noise as 

vibratory installation. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38132 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATES OF UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE INSTALLATION, 

AND VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL

Pile driving method Pile description Source level 

(dB peak) 

Source level 

(dB RMS) 

Source level 

(dB SEL) Reference 

Impact (attenuated 1) ......................... 24-inch steel pipe pile ...................... 198 184 173 CALTRANS (2020). 

Vibratory (installation and removal; 

unattenuated).

24-inch steel pipe pile ......................

24-inch AZ steel sheets ...................

177 

....................

161 

163 

....................

163 

Navy (2015). 

CALTRANS (2020). 

12-inch steel H-piles ........................ 165 150 147 CALTRANS (2020). 

1The estimated SPLs for 24-inch steel pipes assume a 5 dB reduction resulting from the use of a confined bubble curtain system. 

Level B Harassment Zones— 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * log10 (R1/R2), 

Where: 

B = transmission loss coefficient (assumed to 

be 15) 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. The recommended TL 

coefficient for most nearshore 

environments is the practical spreading 

value of 15. This value results in an 

expected propagation environment that 

would lie between spherical and 

cylindrical spreading loss conditions, 

which is the most appropriate 

assumption for the Corps’ proposed 

construction activities in the absence of 

specific modelling. All Level B 

harassment isopleths are reported in 

Table 7 considering RMS SSLs for 

impact and vibratory pile driving, 

respectively. 

Level A Harassment Zones—The 

ensonified area associated with Level A 

harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. For stationary 

sources, such as vibratory and impact 

pile driving, the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at 

which, if a marine mammal remained at 

that distance for the duration of the 

activity, it would be expected to incur 

PTS. Inputs used in the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting 

estimated isopleths, are reported in 

Table 6. 

TABLE 6—NMFS USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS

Impact pile driving 

installation 

Vibratory pile driving 

24-inch steel pipe 

pile 

Installation Removal 

24-inch steel pipe 

pile 

24-inch AZ steel 

sheets 

12-inch steel Hpiles 24-inch steel pipe 

pile 

24-inch AZ steel 

sheets 

12-inch steel Hpiles 

Spreadsheet Tab 

Used.

E.1) Impact pile 

driving.

A.1) Non-Impul, 

Stat, Cont.

A.1) Non-Impul, 

Stat, Cont.

A.1) Non-Impul, 

Stat, Cont.

A.1) Non-Impul, 

Stat, Cont.

A.1) Non-Impul, 

Stat, Cont.

A.1) Non-Impul, 

Stat, Cont. 

Source Level 

(SPL).

173 dB SEL ......... 161 dB RMS ........ 163 dB RMS ........ 150 dB RMS ........ 161 dB RMS ........ 163 dB RMS ........ 150 dB RMS. 

Transmission Loss 

Coefficient.

15 ........................ 15 ........................ 15 ........................ 15 ........................ 15 ........................ 15 ........................ 15. 

Weighting Factor 

Adjustment (kHz).

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

Number of strikes 

per pile.

533.

Time to install/remove single pile 

(minutes).

.............................. 15 ........................ 10 ........................ 10 ........................ 5 .......................... 3 .......................... 3. 

Piles per day ......... 4 .......................... 8 .......................... 25 ........................ 10 ........................ 12 ........................ 50 ........................ 10. 

TABLE 7—DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT, BY HEARING GROUP, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS PER

PILE TYPE AND PILE DRIVING METHOD

Activity Pile description Piles per 

day 

Level A harassment distance (m) Level A 

harassment 

areas (km2) 

for all 

hearing 

groups 

Level B 

harassment 

distance (m) 

all hearing 

groups 1

Level B 

harassment 

areas (km2) 

for all 

hearing 

groups 1

HF PW OW 

Impact Installation (attenuated) 2 ... 24-inch steel pipe pile ................... 4 424.5 190.7 13.8 <0.5 399 0.39 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38133 

TABLE 7—DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT, BY HEARING GROUP, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS PER

PILE TYPE AND PILE DRIVING METHOD—Continued 

Activity Pile description Piles per 

day 

Level A harassment distance (m) Level A 

harassment 

areas (km2) 

for all 

hearing 

groups 

Level B 

harassment 

distance (m) 

all hearing 

groups 1

Level B 

harassment 

areas (km2) 

for all 

hearing 

groups 1

HF PW OW 

Vibratory Installation ...................... 24-inch steel pipe pile ................... 8 16.0 6.6 0.5 <0.1 5,412 20.14 

24-inch AZ steel sheets ................ 14 35.5 14.6 1.0 <0.1 7,357 27.01 

12-inch steel H-piles ..................... 10 2.6 1.1 0.1 <0.1 1,000 1.84 

Vibratory Removal ......................... 24-inch steel pipe pile ................... 12 10.1 4.2 0.3 <0.1 5,412 20.14 

24-inch AZ steel sheets ................ 50 25.3 10.4 0.7 <0.1 7,357 27.01 

12-inch steel H-piles ..................... 10 1.2 0.5 0.0 <0.1 1,000 1.84 

1 Harassment areas have been truncated where appropriate to account for land masses. 

2 Distances to Level A harassment, by hearing group, for impact pile driving were calculated based on SEL source levels as they resulted in larger, thus more conservative, isopleths for calculating PTS onset than Peak source levels. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information, that will inform 

the take calculations. We also describe 

how the information provided above is 

synthesized to produce a quantitative 

estimate of the take that is reasonably 

likely to occur and proposed for 

authorization. 

In most cases, recent marine mammal 

counts, density estimates, or abundance 

estimates were not available for 

Tillamook Bay. Thus, information 

regarding marine mammal occurrence 

from proximal data obtained from 

nearshore sightings and haul-out sites 

(e.g., Three Arch Rock) is used to 

approximate local abundance in 

Tillamook Bay. When proximal count 

estimates were available (i.e., for harbor 

seals, Steller sea lions, and California 

sea lions), the Corps derived density 

estimates with an assumption that 

surveys accounted for animals present 

in the entirety of Tillamook Bay, an area 

roughly 37 km2 (Oregon Coastal Atlas, 

2022). The Corps multiplied marine 

mammal densities by isopleth areas to 

estimate potential take associated with 

pile driving. Given that marine mammal 

densities are likely not uniform in 

Tillamook Bay, NMFS instead estimates 

potential take associated with pile 

driving for these and the other marine 

mammal species assuming maximum 

daily occurrence rates (based on the 

abovementioned nearby proximal count 

estimates) multiplied by the total 

number of action days estimated per 

activity. There may be 20 (vibratory pile 

driving only) to 23 (vibratory and 

impact pile driving) total days of noise 

exposure from pile driving during the 

Corps’ proposed activities in Year 1 and 

13 (vibratory removal only) total days of 

noise exposure from pile driving during 

the Corps’ proposed activities in Year 2. 

Takes for Year one for all species except 

harbor porpoises (see below) are 

estimated assuming that both vibratory 

and impact pile driving will be 

necessary and thus the maximum 

number of days of action days are 

required (i.e., 23 days). Takes for Year 

two assume that 13 total action days are 

required. A summary of take proposed 

for authorization is available in Tables 

8 and 9. 

Harbor Porpoises 

There were multiple occurrences of 

1–2 harbor porpoises detected in the 

coastal waters just north of the 

Tillamook Bay entrance during June and 

July of 1990 (Halpin et al., 2009; Ford 

et al., 2013). More recently, aerial 

surveys have detected single animals 

near the Tillamook Bay entrance in 

October 2011 and September 2012 

(Adams et al., 2014). Although there 

were no recorded harbor porpoise 

observations within Tillamook Bay 

itself, the species is somewhat cryptic 

and there is potentially low detection 

during aerial surveys. Thus, NMFS 

estimates the daily harbor porpoise 

abundance within Tillamook Bay to be 

1 individual. 

During Year 1, if impact pile driving 

is necessary for driving steel piles, the 

Level A harassment distance for this 

activity for harbor porpoises is larger 

than the Level B harassment distance 

(Table 7) and the proposed shutdown 

zone (see the Proposed Mitigation 

section). Therefore, the Corps proposed 

that all harbor porpoises in Tillamook 

Bay on days when impact pile driving 

occurs would be taken by Level A 

harassment. NMFS concurs with this 

estimate and proposes to authorize 9 

instances of take by Level A harassment 

for harbor porpoises in Year 1 during 

construction of the MOF (1 harbor 

porpoise per day × 9 days of impact pile 

driving = 9 takes by Level A 

harassment). 

During Year 1, if vibratory and impact 

pile driving is required, the Corps 

estimated that there could be 14 takes of 

harbor porpoises by Level B harassment 

(1 harbor porpoise per day × 12 days 

vibratory installing steel sheets = 12 

takes by Level B harassment, and 1 

harbor porpoise per day × 2 days 

vibratory installing H piles = 2 takes by 

Level B harassment, for a total of 14 

takes by Level B harassment; Table 1). 

If only vibratory pile driving is required, 

the Corps estimated that 20 harbor 

porpoises may be taken by Level B 

harassment (1 harbor porpoise per day 

× 20 total action days; Table 1). 

Therefore, to be conservative, NMFS 

proposes to authorize 20 instances of 

take by Level B harassment for harbor 

porpoises (the maximum estimate of 

animals that may be taken by Level B 

harassment based on the two likely 

scenarios) in Year 1 during construction 

of the MOF. 

During Year 2, the Corps requested 

and NMFS proposes to authorize 13 

instances of take by Level B harassment 

for harbor porpoises during vibratory 

removal of the MOF (1 harbor porpoise 

per day × 13 total action days; Table 1). 

No Level A harassment is anticipated to 

occur or proposed to be authorized. 

Considering the small Level A 

harassment zones (Table 7) in 

comparison to the required shutdown 

zones (see the Proposed Mitigation 

section) it is unlikely that a harbor 

porpoise will enter and remain within 

the area between the Level A 

harassment zone and the shutdown 

zone for a duration long enough to be 

taken by Level A harassment. 

California Sea Lions 

The estimate for daily California sea 

lion abundance (n = 11) is based on 

coastal surveys conducted between 2002 

and 2005 (Scordino, 2006). While pile 

driving will occur in winter or summer, 

the maximum number of animals 

detected during any month (i.e., 11 sea 

lions in April) at the Three Arch Rock 

haul out site, located approximately 23 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38134 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

km (14 mi) from the proposed site of the 

MOF, was used to estimate daily 

occurrence by the Corps. Given the 

distance of this haul out site from the 

proposed activities, the fact that pile 

driving is not expected to occur in April 

due to timing constrictions, and the low 

likelihood that all animals present at the 

Three Arch Rock would leave and enter 

Tillamook Bay on a single day; the 

Corps’ estimated that approximately 

half of the individuals present at Three 

Arch Rock (6 California sea lions) could 

potentially enter Tillamook Bay during 

pile driving and be subject to acoustic 

harassment. NMFS concurs and 

estimates, based on the best available 

science, the daily California sea lion 

abundance within Tillamook Bay to be 

6 individuals. 

During Year 1, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 138 instances of take by Level 

B harassment for California sea lions 

during the construction of the MOF (6 

California sea lions per day × 23 total 

action days required for impact and 

vibratory pile driving; Table 1). During 

Year 2, NMFS proposes to authorize 78 

instances of take by Level B harassment 

for California sea lions during vibratory 

removal of the MOF (6 California sea 

lions per day × 13 total action days; 

Table 1). Under either scenario, Level A 

harassment is not anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for Year 1 or 

Year 2. Considering the small Level A 

harassment zones (Table 1) in 

comparison to the required shutdown 

zones (see the Proposed Mitigation 

section) it is unlikely that a California 

sea lion will enter and remain within 

the area between the Level A 

harassment zone and the shutdown 

zone for a duration long enough to be 

taken by Level A harassment. 

Steller Sea Lions 

The Corps and NMFS are unaware of 

any recent data regarding Steller sea 

lion abundance near Tillamook Bay. 

Therefore, seasonal Steller sea lion 

abundance was estimated based on the 

maximum number of animals detected 

(n = 38 for between November and 

February, and n = 58 between July and 

August) at the Three Arch Rock haul out 

site during coastal surveys between 

2002 and 2005 (Scordino, 2006). Given 

that this haul out site is roughly 23 km 

(14 mi) away from the proposed MOF, 

the Corps conservatively estimated that 

half of the individuals present at Three 

Arch Rock (19 Steller sea lions between 

November and February, and 29 Steller 

sea lions between July and August) 

could potentially disperse throughout 

Tillamook Bay during pile driving and 

be subject to harassment from the 

proposed activities. For the purposes of 

our take estimation, NMFS 

conservatively assumes that the daily 

Steller sea lion abundance in Tillamook 

Bay is equivalent to the largest seasonal 

abundance that the Corps estimated 

would be present (i.e., we assume that 

29 individual Steller sea lions would be 

present each day in Tillamook Bay). 

During Year 1, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 667 instances of take by Level 

B harassment for Steller sea lions during 

the construction of the MOF (29 Steller 

sea lions per day × 23 total action days 

required for impact and vibratory pile 

driving; Table 1). During Year 2, NMFS 

proposes to authorize 377 instances of 

take by Level B harassment for Steller 

sea lions during vibratory removal of the 

MOF (6 Steller sea lions per day × 13 

total action days; Table 1). Under either 

scenario, Level A harassment is not 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 

for Year 1 or Year 2. The Level A 

harassment zones (Table 1) are smaller 

than the required shutdown zones (see 

the Proposed Mitigation section), 

therefore it is unlikely that a Steller sea 

lion will enter and remain within the 

area between the Level A harassment 

zone and the shutdown zone for a 

duration long enough to be taken by 

Level A harassment. 

Harbor Seals 

The latest (May 2014) pinniped aerial 

surveys conducted by the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW, 2022) estimated 220 harbor 

seals (pups and non-pups combined) 

within Tillamook Bay (B.E. Wright, 

personal communication, February 12, 

2021). After applying the Huber et al. 

(2001) correction factor of 1.53, used to 

account for likely imperfect detection 

during surveys, the adjusted number of 

harbor seals that may have been present 

Tillamook Bay during the 2014 surveys 

is approximately 337 individuals. 

However, that estimate likely 

overestimates the number of harbor 

seals present in the non-pupping 

season. Therefore, the Corps used 

calculations from monthly surveys of 

Tillamook Bay haul out sites between 

1978 and 1981 carried out by Brown 

and Mate (1983) to estimate the average 

proportion of animals present during 

the Nov—Feb and Jul—Aug proposed 

construction windows (relative to 

counts observed in May). Accounting 

for these proportions (0.67 and 1.2, 

respectively), the Corps estimated that 

the 337 harbor seals likely present in 

May 2014 would have equated to an 

average abundance of 226 harbor seals 

between November and February and 

404 harbor seals between July and 

August. For the purposes of our take 

estimation, NMFS conservatively 

assumes that the daily harbor seal 

abundance in Tillamook Bay is 

equivalent to the largest seasonal 

abundance that the Corps estimated 

would be present (i.e., we assume that 

404 individual harbor seals would be 

present each day in Tillamook Bay). 

During Year 1, NMFS estimates that 

9,292 total instances of take for harbor 

seals would occur during the 

construction of the MOF (404 harbor 

seals per day × 23 total action days 

required for impact and vibratory pile 

driving; Table 1). NMFS estimates that 

3,636 of these instances of take would 

be attributed to impact pile driving (404 

harbor seals per day × 9 days impact 

pile driving) and the remaining 5,656 

instances of take would be attributed to 

vibratory pile driving (404 harbor seals 

per day × 14 days vibratory pile 

driving). During impact pile driving, 

while a 100 m shutdown zone would be 

implemented for harbor seals (see Table 

10 in the Proposed Mitigation section), 

an area of approximately 0.07 km2

would still be ensonified above the 

Level A harassment threshold for 

phocids (Table 7). Given this remaining 

Level A harassment area for phocids is 

17.95 percent of the Level B harassment 

area (0.39 km2), NMFS proposes to 

authorize 653 (17.95 percent) of the total 

instances of take attributed to impact 

pile driving (i.e., 17.95 percent of 3,636 

instances of take), as instances of take 

by Level A harassment. NMFS proposes 

to authorize the remaining 8,639 

instances of take by Level B harassment. 

During Year 2, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 5,252 instances of take by 

Level B harassment for harbor seals 

during vibratory removal of the MOF 

(404 harbor seals per day × 13 total 

action days; Table 1). No take by Level 

A harassment is anticipated to occur or 

proposed to be authorized. The Level A 

harassment zones (Table 1) are smaller 

than the required shutdown zones (see 

the Proposed Mitigation section), 

therefore it is unlikely that a harbor seal 

will enter and remain within the area 

between the Level A harassment zone 

and the shutdown zone for a duration 

long enough to be taken by Level A 

harassment during MOF deconstruction. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

There were no recorded sightings of 

elephant seals within 16 km (10 mi) of 

Tillamook Bay within the OBIS– 

SEAMAP database (Halpin et al., 2009; 

OBIS–SEAMAP, 2022) nor were any 

animals detected at the closest haul out 

site (i.e., Three Arch Rock) during 

pinniped surveys between 2002 and 

2005 (Scordino, 2006). In fact, the 

closest haul out site with Northern 

elephant seal observations during 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38135 

surveys was Cape Arago (Scordino 

2006), roughly 6 km (4 mi) south of 

Coos Bay and 256 km (159 mi) south of 

Tillamook Bay. Given the low 

likelihood of occurrence within the 

project vicinity and the lack of reported 

sightings within the bay (Halpin et al., 

2009; OBIS–SEAMAP, 2022), the Corps 

conservatively estimated, and NMFS 

assumes, elephant seal abundance 

within Tillamook Bay at 1 individual 

every other day. 

During Year 1, the Corps estimated 

that 12 northern elephant seals may be 

taken during the construction of the 

MOF (1 elephant seal every other day × 

23 total action days; Table 1). If impact 

pile driving is necessary for driving 

steel piles, the Corps estimated that the 

total take during the 9 days of impact 

pile driving would be 5 individuals (1 

elephant seal every other day × 9 total 

action days; Table 1). While a 100 m 

shutdown zone would be implemented 

for northern elephant seals during 

impact pile driving (see Table 10 in the 

Proposed Mitigation section), an area of 

approximately 0.07 km2 would still be 

ensonified above the Level A 

harassment threshold for phocids 

during this activity (Table 7). Given this 

remaining Level A harassment area for 

phocids (0.07 km2) is 17.95 percent of 

the Level B harassment area (0.39 km2), 

NMFS proposes to authorize 17.95 

percent, or 1, instance of take by Level 

A harassment for northern elephant 

seals during impact pile driving (17.95 

percent of the 12 total instances of take). 

We propose that the remaining 11 

instances of take be by Level B 

harassment. 

During Year 2, the Corps requested 

and we propose 7 instances of Level B 

harassment take for northern elephant 

seals during vibratory removal of the 

MOF (1 elephant seal every other day × 

13 total action days; Table 1). Level A 

harassment is not anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized. The Level A 

harassment zones (Table 1) are smaller 

than the required shutdown zones (see 

the Proposed Mitigation section), 

therefore it is unlikely that a northern 

elephant seal will enter and remain 

within the area between the Level A 

harassment zone and the shutdown 

zone for a duration long enough to be 

taken by Level A harassment during 

deconstruction of the MOF. 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKING IN YEAR 1 

Species Stock Level A Level B Total Percent of 

stock 

Harbor porpoise ................................ Northern OR/WA Coast ................... 9 20 29 0.14 

California sea lion ............................. U.S. .................................................. 0 138 138 0.05 

Steller sea lion .................................. Eastern ............................................. 0 667 667 1.54 

Harbor seal ....................................... OR/CA Coastal ................................. 653 8,639 9,292 37.57 

Northern elephant seal ..................... California Breeding ........................... 1 11 12 0.01 

TABLE 9—PROPOSED AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKING IN YEAR 2 

Species Stock Level A Level B Total Percent of 

stock 

Harbor porpoise ................................ Northern OR/WA Coast ................... 0 13 13 0.06 

California sea lion ............................. U.S. .................................................. 0 78 78 0.03 

Steller sea lion .................................. Eastern ............................................. 0 337 337 0.78 

Harbor seal ....................................... OR/CA Coastal ................................. 0 5,252 5,252 21.24 

Northern elephant seal ..................... California Breeding ........................... 0 7 7 <0.01 

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, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, and 

impact on operations. 

The Corps must employ the following 

standard mitigation measures, as 

included in their application and the 

proposed IHAs: 

• The Corps must conduct briefings 

between construction supervisors and 

crews and the marine mammal 

monitoring team prior to the start of all 

pile driving activity, and when new 

personnel join the work, to ensure that 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocols, and operational procedures 

are clearly understood; 

• For in-water work other than pile 

driving/removal (e.g., stone placement, 

use of barge-mounted excavators, or 

dredging), if a marine mammal comes 

within 10 m (33 ft), operations shall 

cease. Should a marine mammal come 

within 10 m (33ft) of a vessel in transit, 

the boat operator would reduce vessel 

speed to the minimum level required to 

maintain steerage and safe working 

conditions. If human safety is at risk, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38136 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

the in-water activity will be allowed to 

continue until it is safe to stop; 

• In-water work activities may only 

occur when PSOs can effectively 

visually monitor for the presence of 

marine mammals, and when the entire 

shutdown zone and adjacent waters are 

visible (e.g., including during daylight 

hours and when monitoring 

effectiveness is not reduced due to rain, 

fog, snow, etc.). 

• For all pile driving/removal 

activities, the Corps must establish a 

minimum 15 m (49 ft) shutdown zone. 

The purpose of a shutdown zone is 

generally to define an area within which 

shutdown of activity would occur upon 

sighting of a marine mammal (or in 

anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Shutdown zones will vary 

based on the type of driving/removal 

activity type and by marine mammal 

hearing group (see Table 10). Here, 

shutdown zones are larger than the 

calculated Level A harassment isopleth 

shown in Table 7, except for harbor 

porpoises, harbor seals, and northern 

elephant seals during impact driving of 

24-inch steel piles when a 100-m 

shutdown zone will be visually 

monitored; 

TABLE 10—SHUTDOWN ZONES DURING PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Activity Pile description 

Distance 

(m) 

HF PW OW 

Impact Installation (attenuated) ...................... 24-inch steel pipe pile .................................... 100 100 15 

Vibratory Installation ....................................... 24-inch steel pipe pile .................................... 50 15 15 

24-inch AZ steel sheets ................................. 50 15 15 

12-inch steel H-piles ...................................... 15 15 15 

Vibratory Removal .......................................... 24-inch steel pipe pile .................................... 15 15 15 

24-inch AZ steel sheets ................................. 50 15 15 

12-inch steel H-piles ...................................... 15 15 15 

• The Corps must delay or shutdown 

all pile driving activities should an 

animal approach or enter the 

appropriate shutdown zone. The Corps 

may resume activities after one of the 

following conditions have been met: (1) 

the animal is observed exiting the 

shutdown zone; (2) the animal is 

thought to have exited the shutdown 

zone based on a determination of its 

course, speed, and movement relative to 

the pile driving location; or (3) the 

shutdown zone has been clear from any 

additional sightings for 15 minutes; 

• The Corps will employ PSOs 

trained in marine mammal 

identification and behaviors to monitor 

marine mammal presence in the action 

area, and must establish the following 

monitoring locations: during vibratory 

driving, at least one PSO must be 

stationed on the shoreline near the Port 

of Garibaldi to monitor as much of the 

Level B harassment zone as possible, 

and another PSO must be stationed on 

the shoreline adjacent to the proposed 

MOF site to monitor the shutdown zone; 

during impact pile driving, two PSOs 

must be stationed on the shoreline 

adjacent to the proposed MOF site to 

monitor the shutdown zone. The Corps 

must monitor the project area to the 

maximum extent possible based on the 

required number of PSOs, required 

monitoring locations, and 

environmental conditions. For all pile 

driving and removal at least two PSOs 

must be used; 

• The placement of the PSOs during 

all pile driving and removal activities 

will ensure that the entire Level A 

harassment and shutdown zones are 

visible during pile installation and 

removal; 

• Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving (i.e., pre-clearance monitoring) 

through 30 minutes post-completion of 

pile driving; 

• If in-water work ceases for more 

than 30 minutes, the Corps will conduct 

pre-clearance monitoring of both the 

Level B harassment zone and shutdown 

zone; 

• Pre-start clearance monitoring must 

be conducted during periods of 

visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to 

determine that the shutdown zones 

indicated in Table 10 are clear of marine 

mammals. Pile driving may commence 

following 30 minutes of observation 

when the determination is made that the 

shutdown zones are clear of marine 

mammals; 

• Marine mammals observed 

anywhere within visual range of the 

PSO will be tracked relative to 

construction activities. If a marine 

mammal is observed entering or within 

the shutdown zones indicated in Table 

10, pile driving must be delayed or 

halted. If pile driving is delayed or 

halted due to the presence of a marine 

mammal, the activity may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily exited and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone (Table 10), or 15 

minutes have passed without redetection of the animal; 

• Vibratory hammers are the 

preferred method for installing piles at 

the MOF. If impact hammers are 

required to install steel piles, a confined 

bubble curtain must be used to 

minimize noise levels. The bubble 

curtain must adhere by the following 

restrictions: 

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; 

• The Corps must use soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors to provide 

an initial set of three strikes at reduced 

energy, followed by a thirty-second 

waiting period, then two subsequent 

reduced energy strike sets. A soft start 

must 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 thirty minutes or 

longer. Soft starts will not be used for 

vibratory pile installation and removal. 

PSOs shall begin observing for marine 

mammals 30 minutes before ‘‘soft start’’ 

or in-water pile installation or removal 

begins; 

• 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38137 

number of takes has been met, entering 

or within the harassment zone; 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

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 

Monitoring must be conducted by 

qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in 

accordance with the following: 

• PSOs must be independent (i.e., not 

construction personnel) and have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. At least one PSO must have 

prior experience performing the duties 

of a PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued IHA. 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 

IHA. PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 

these IHAs; and 

• PSOs would be placed at two 

vantage points as aforementioned in the 

Proposed Mitigation section (see Figure 

1–3 of the Corps’ IHA Application) to 

monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown/delay procedures 

when applicable by calling for the 

shutdown to the hammer operator; 

• PSOs would use a hand-held GPS 

device or rangefinder to verify the 

required monitoring distance from the 

project site; 

• PSOs would scan the waters within 

the Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment zones using binoculars 

(10x42 or similar) or spotting scopes 

(20–60 zoom or equivalent) and make 

visual observations of marine mammals 

present; and 

• PSOs must record all observations 

of marine mammals, regardless of 

distance from the pile being driven. 

PSOs shall document any behavioral 

reactions in concert with distance from 

piles being driven or removed. 

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; 

Additionally, the Corps will have 

PSOs conduct one pinniped monitoring 

count a week prior to construction and 

report the number of marine mammals 

present within 500 m (1640 ft) of the 

Tillamook South Jetty or MOF. Upon 

completion of jetty repairs, PSOs would 

conduct two post-construction 

monitoring events, with one 

approximately 4 weeks after 

construction, and another at 8 weeks 

post construction. These postconstruction marine mammal surveys 

would help to determine whether 

marine mammal detections postconstruction were comparable to 

surveys conducted prior to construction. 

Reporting 

Draft marine mammal monitoring 

reports would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving (Year 1 IHA) and removal 

activities (Year 2 IHA), or 60 days prior 

to a requested date of issuance of any 

future IHAs for projects at the same 

location, whichever comes first. The 

reports would include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the reports must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including the number and type of piles 

driven or removed and by what method 

(i.e., impact or vibratory) and the total 

equipment duration for vibratory 

installation and removal for each pile or 

total number of strikes for each pile 

(impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; Time of sighting; Identification 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38138 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, 

lowest possible taxonomic level, or 

unidentified), PSO confidence in 

identification, and the composition of 

the group if there is a mix of species; 

Distance and bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); Estimated number of animals 

(min/max/best estimate); Estimated 

number of animals by cohort (adults, 

juveniles, neonates, group composition, 

sex class, 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 

and shutdown zones, by species; 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any; 

• Description of other human activity 

within each monitoring period; 

• Description of any deviation from 

initial proposal in pile numbers, pile 

types, average driving times, etc.; 

• Brief description of any 

impediments to obtaining reliable 

observations during construction 

period; and 

• Description of any impediments to 

complying with these mitigation 

measures. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

reports would constitute the final 

reports. If comments are received, a 

final report addressing NMFS comments 

must be submitted within 30 days after 

receipt of comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

IHA-holder must immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) (PR.ITP.Monitoring 

Reports@noaa.gov), NMFS and to the 

West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the 

death or injury was clearly caused by 

the specified activity, the Corps 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 IHAs. 

The Corps must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• 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 impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the discussion of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in Table 2, given that the 

anticipated effects of this activity on 

these different marine mammal stocks 

are expected to be similar. There is little 

information about the nature or severity 

of the impacts, or the size, status, or 

structure of any of these species or 

stocks that would lead to a different 

analysis for this activity. 

Pile driving activities associated with 

the Corps’ proposed construction 

activities, as outlined previously, have 

the potential to disturb or displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

specified activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level B harassment 

(behavioral disturbance), and for some 

species, Level A harassment incidental 

to underwater sounds generated from 

pile driving. Potential takes could occur 

if individuals are present in zones 

ensonified above the thresholds for 

Level B harassment and Level A 

harassment, identified above, while 

activities are underway. 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality would occur as a 

result of the Corps’ planned activity 

given the nature of the activity, even in 

the absence of required mitigation. For 

all species and stocks, take would occur 

within a limited, confined area (adjacent 

to the project site) of the stock’s range. 

Required mitigation is expected to 

minimize the duration and intensity of 

the authorized taking by Level A and 

Level B harassment. Further, the 

amount of take proposed to be 

authorized is extremely small for 4 of 

the 5 species when compared to stock 

abundance. 

The primary method of installation 

will be vibratory pile driving. Vibratory 

pile driving produces lower SPLs than 

impact pile driving. The rise time of the 

sound produced by vibratory pile 

driving is slower, reducing the 

probability and severity of injury. 

Impact pile driving produces short, 

sharp pulses with higher peak levels 

and much sharper rise time to reach 

those peaks. If impact pile driving is 

used, implementation of soft start 

measures, a bubble curtain, and 

shutdown zones will significantly 

reduce any possibility of injury. Given 

sufficient notice through use of soft 

starts (for impact driving), marine 

mammals are expected to move away 

from a sound source prior to it 

becoming potentially injurious. The 

Corps will use two PSOs stationed 

strategically to increase detectability of 

marine mammals during pile 

installation and removal, enabling a 

high rate of success in implementation 

of shutdowns to avoid injury for most 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38139 

species. If an animal was exposed to 

accumulated sound energy, the resulting 

PTS would likely be small (e.g., PTS 

onset) at lower frequencies where pile 

driving energy is concentrated, and 

unlikely to result in impacts to 

individual fitness, reproduction, or 

survival. 

Additionally, and as noted 

previously, some subset of the 

individuals that are behaviorally 

harassed could also simultaneously 

incur some small degree of TTS for a 

short duration of time. Because of the 

small degree anticipated, though, any 

TTS potentially incurred here would 

not be expected to adversely impact 

individual fitness, let alone annual rates 

of recruitment or survival. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile driving and removal in 

Tillamook Bay are expected to be mild, 

short term, and temporary. Marine 

mammals within the Level B 

harassment zones may not show any 

visual cues they are disturbed by 

activities or they could become alert, 

avoid the area, leave the area, or display 

other mild responses that are not 

observable such as changes in 

vocalization patterns or increased haul 

out time (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). 

Given that pile driving and removal 

would occur intermittently for only a 

short duration (20–23 days in Year 1 

and 13 days in Year 2), often on 

nonconsecutive days, any harassment 

occurring would be temporary. 

Additionally, many of the species 

present in the region would only be 

present temporarily based on seasonal 

patterns or during transit between other 

habitats. These temporarily present 

species would be exposed to even 

smaller periods of noise-generating 

activity, further decreasing the impacts. 

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 be limited to reactions such 

as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were occurring) 

(e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Most 

likely, individuals will simply move 

away from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving, although even this reaction 

has been observed primarily only in 

association with impact pile driving, 

which will only be used if necessary. 

The pile driving activities analyzed here 

are similar to, or less impactful than, 

other construction activities conducted 

in Oregon, which have taken place with 

no known long-term adverse 

consequences from behavioral 

harassment. Level B harassment will be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact through use of 

mitigation measures described herein 

and, if sound produced by project 

activities is sufficiently disturbing, 

animals are likely to simply avoid the 

area while the activity is occurring. 

The Corps’ proposed activities are 

limited in scope spatially. While precise 

impacts would not be known until the 

MOF has been designed, based on an 

MOF built for a similar project (The 

Coos Bay North Jetty Maintenance 

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

action/incidental-take-authorization-usarmy-corps-engineers-north-jettymaintenance-and-repairs), it is 

estimated that temporary impacts below 

the high tide line (HTL) would be 

limited to 0.14 acres or less. The full 

extent of the MOF and associated access 

dredging would be approximately 3.6 

acres, with an additional 3.7 acres of 

upland disturbance associated with the 

MOF staging area. For all species, there 

are no known habitat areas of particular 

importance (e.g., Biologically Important 

Areas (BIAs), critical habitat, primary 

foraging or calving habitat) in the 

project area that would be impacted by 

the Corps’ proposed activities. While 

takes may occur during important 

feeding or breeding times, the project 

area represents a small portion of 

available foraging and breeding habitat 

and impacts on marine mammal feeding 

and breeding for all species should be 

minimal. In general, cetaceans and 

pinnipeds are infrequent visitors near 

the site of the proposed construction 

activities due to shallow waters in this 

region further reducing the likelihood 

that cetaceans and pinnipeds will 

approach and be present within the 

ensonified areas. Further, none of the 

harassment isopleths block the entrance 

out of Tillamook Bay (see Figures 6–1 

and 6–2 in the Corps’ application), thus 

marine mammals could leave the bay 

and engage in foraging, social behavior 

or other activities without being subject 

to Level A or Level B harassment. 

The impact of harassment on harbor 

seals is difficult to assess given the most 

recent abundance estimate available for 

this stock is from 1999 (Table 2). We are 

aware that there is one haul-out site 

located approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi) 

east of the proposed construction site on 

an intertidal sand flat in the middle of 

the bay (see Figure 4–1 in the Corps’ 

application) that has been historically 

noted in Tillamook Bay. Given the Level 

B harassment distances for vibratory 

installation and removal of 24-inch steel 

pipe piles and 24-inch AZ steel sheets 

are larger than 1.5 km (0.9 mi) (see 

Table 7), we can presume that some 

harbor seals will be repeatedly taken. In 

addition, while no there are no known 

pinniped haul outs on Bayocean split, 

harbor seals and other pinnipeds may be 

resting or hauled out on land near the 

site of the MOF construction, jetty 

rocks, or nearby beaches. Repeated, 

sequential exposure to pile driving 

noise over a long duration could result 

in more severe impacts to individuals 

that could affect a population; however, 

the limited number of non-consecutive 

pile driving days for this project means 

that these types of impacts are not 

anticipated. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammal habitat. The 

project activities would not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. Any impacts 

on marine mammal prey that would 

occur during the Corps’ planned activity 

would have, at most, short-term effects 

on foraging of individual marine 

mammals, and likely no effect on the 

populations of marine mammals as a 

whole. The activities may cause some 

fish to leave the area of disturbance, 

thus temporarily impacting marine 

mammal foraging opportunities in a 

limited portion of the foraging range. 

However, because of the short duration 

of the activities and the small area of the 

habitat that may be affected, the impacts 

to marine mammal habitat are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm negative consequences. Indirect 

effects on marine mammal prey during 

the construction are expected to be 

minor, and these effects are unlikely to 

cause substantial effects on marine 

mammals at the individual level, with 

no expected effect on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. 

In addition, it is unlikely that minor 

noise effects in a small, localized area of 

habitat would have any effect on the 

stocks’ annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. In combination, we believe 

that these factors, as well as the 

available body of evidence from other 

similar activities, demonstrate that the 

potential effects of the specified 

activities would have only minor, shortterm effects on individuals. The 

specified activities are not expected to 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

and would, therefore, not result in 

population-level impacts. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect any of 

the species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38140 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

• The number of total takes (by Level 

A and Level B harassment) are less than 

2 percent of the best available 

abundance estimates for all but one 

stock; 

• The Corps would implement 

mitigation measures including softstarts and shutdown zones to minimize 

the numbers of marine mammals 

exposed to injurious levels of sound, 

and to ensure that take by Level A 

harassment is, at most, a small degree of 

PTS; 

• Take would not occur in places 

and/or times where take would be more 

likely to accrue to impacts on 

reproduction or survival, such as within 

BIAs, or other habitats critical to 

recruitment or survival (e.g., rookery); 

• Take would occur over a short 

timeframe (i.e., intermittently over up to 

23 and 13 non-consecutive days in Year 

1 and Year 2, respectively). This short 

timeframe minimizes the probability of 

multiple exposures on individuals, and 

any repeated exposures that do occur 

are not expected to occur on sequential 

days, decreasing the likelihood of 

physiological impacts caused by chronic 

stress or sustained energetic impacts 

that might affect survival or 

reproductive success; 

• Any impacts to marine mammal 

habitat from pile driving (including to 

prey sources as well as acoustic habitat, 

e.g., from masking) are expected to be 

temporary and minimal; and 

• Take would only occur within a 

small portion of Tillamook Bay—a 

limited, confined area of any given 

stock’s home range. 

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, 

specific to both the Year 1 and Year 2 

proposed IHAs, that the total marine 

mammal take from the proposed activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted 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 but 

one species (in fact, take of individuals 

is less than 2 percent of the abundance 

of the 4 of the 5 affected stocks, see 

Tables 8 and 9). This is likely a 

conservative estimate because we 

assume all takes are of different 

individual animals, which is likely not 

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. 

There is no current estimate of 

abundance available for this harbor 

seals (Carretta et al., 2021). In 1999, 

aerial surveys of harbor seals in Oregon 

and Washington were conducted by the 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

(NMLL) and the Oregon and 

Washington Departments of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW and WDFD) during the 

pupping season. After applying a 

correction factor to account for seals 

missed during aerial surveys (Huber et 

al., 2001), they estimated that the 

population size of the Oregon/ 

Washington Coast Stock of harbor seals 

was 24,732 (CV = 0.12) in 1999. 

Historical and current trends of harbor 

seal abundance in Oregon and 

Washington are unknown. Based on the 

analyses of Jeffries et al. (2003) and 

Brown et al. (2005), both the 

Washington and Oregon portions of this 

stock were reported as reaching carrying 

capacity. While the proposed authorized 

take for harbor seals is 37.57 percent of 

the 1999 abundance estimate in Year 1 

and 21.24 percent of this abundance in 

Year 2, harbor seals are not known to 

make extensive migrations and are 

known to display strong fidelity to haul 

out sites (Pitcher and Calkins, 1979; 

Pitcher and McAllister, 1981). 

Therefore, we presume that some of the 

harbor seals present in the action area 

will be repeatedly taken and actual 

number of individuals exposed to Level 

A and Level B harassment will be much 

lower. Further, we calculated proposed 

take estimates of harbor seals assuming 

the maximum seasonal abundance of 

individuals were present in Tillamook 

Bay during each action day; however, 

work may occur during other times of 

the year when harbor seal abundance is 

estimated to be lower, and thus the 

actual number of individuals exposed to 

Level A and Level B harassment would 

be lower. Lastly, take would occur in a 

small portion of Tillamook Bay and it is 

unlikely that a third of the stock would 

be in these waters during the short 

duration of the proposed activities. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds, specific to 

both the Year 1 and Year 2 proposed 

IHAs, that small numbers of marine 

mammals would be taken relative to the 

population size of the affected species 

or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from these activities. 

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 IHAs to the Corps incidental to 

conducting repairs of the Tillamook 

South Jetty in Tillamook Bay, Oregon 

from November 1, 2022 to October 31, 

2023 (Year 1 IHA) and from November 

1, 2024 to October 31, 2025 (Year 2 

IHA), 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/national/marine-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-construction-activities. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38141 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorizations, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHAs for the proposed construction 

activities. We also request comment on 

the potential renewal of these 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 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice would not be completed by the 

time the IHA expires and a renewal 

would allow for completion of the 

activities beyond that described in the 

Dates and Duration section of this 

notice, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond 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). 

(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: June 21, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13605 Filed 6–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

Notice of Intent To Grant Partially 

Exclusive Patent License 

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, 

Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act 

and implementing regulations, the 

Department of the Air Force hereby 

gives notice of its intent to grant a 

partially exclusive patent license to 

Smart Response Technologies, Inc., a C 

Corporation, having a place of business 

at 726 East Main Street, Suite F117, 

Lebanon, Ohio 45036. 

DATES: Written objections must be filed 

no later than fifteen (15) calendar days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to 

Mr. John Schutte, 711th Human 

Performance Wing, 2510 Fifth Street, 

840, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433; 

or Email: john.schutte.3@us.af.mil. 

Include Docket No. ARH–220505C–PLA 

in the subject line of the message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Schutte, 711th Human 

Performance Wing, 2510 Fifth Street, 

840, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433; 

Telephone: 937–938–3038 or Email: 

john.schutte.3@us.af.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of the Air Force may grant 

the prospective license unless a timely 

objection is received that sufficiently 

shows the grant of the license would be 

inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or 

implementing regulations. A competing 

application for a patent license 

agreement, completed in compliance 

with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the 

Air Force within the period for timely 

objections, will be treated as an 

objection and may be considered as an 

alternative to the proposed license. 

Abstract of Patent Application(s) 

A multi-modal communications 

system integrates multiple different 

communications channels and 

modalities into a single user interface 

that enables operators to monitor and 

respond to multiple audio and text 

communications. 

Intellectual Property 

U.S. Patent No. 9,230,549, issued 

January 5, 2016, and entitled MultiModal Communications. The 

Department of the Air Force may grant 

the prospective license unless a timely 

objection is received that sufficiently 

shows the grant of the license would be 

inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or 

implementing regulations. A competing 

application for a patent license 

agreement, completed in compliance 

with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the 

Air Force within the period for timely 

objections, will be treated as an 

objection and may be considered as an 

alternative to the proposed license. 

Adriane Paris, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13576 Filed 6–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Rescindment of multiple system 

of records notices. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of 

Defense (DoD) is providing notification 

of the rescindment of 52 Privacy Act 

system of records notices (SORNs). A 

description of these systems can be 

found in the table below. Additionally, 

the DoD is issuing a Direct Final Rule, 

published elsewhere in today’s issue of 

the Federal Register, to amend its 

regulation and remove the Privacy Act 

exemption rules for five SORNs [items 

jj) through nn), below] rescinded in this 

notice. 

DATES: The rescindment of these SORNs 

are effective June 27, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rahwa Keleta, Privacy and Civil 

Liberties Division, Directorate for 

Privacy, Civil Liberties and Freedom of 

Information, Office of the Assistant to 

the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, 

Civil Liberties, and Transparency, 

Department of Defense, 4800 Mark 

Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–1700, 

OSD.DPCLTD@mail.mil, (703) 571– 

0070. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 

as part of its ongoing integration and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1