Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39481 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our action 

(i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with 

respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for 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 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the United 

States Coast Guard for the potential 

harassment of small numbers of ten 

marine mammal species incidental to 

the floating dock extension construction 

project at Base Ketchikan, Alaska, that 

includes the previously explained 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

requirements. 

Dated: June 28, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14137 Filed 6–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XC102] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Sand Island Pile 

Dikes Repairs in the Columbia River 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorizations (IHAs); 

request for comments on proposed 

authorizations and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to the Sand Island 

Pile Dikes Repairs Project in the 

Columbia River. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is requesting comments on its proposal 

to issue two consecutive IHAs to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS is 

also requesting comments on possible 

one-time, one-year renewals for each 

IHA that could be issued under certain 

circumstances and if all requirements 

are met, as described in Request for 

Public Comments at the end of this 

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 August 1, 

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.Fowler@

noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Fowler, 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 

incidental harassment authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39482 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On March 4, 2022, NMFS received a 

request from the Corps for two IHAs to 

take marine mammals incidental to the 

Sand Island Pile Dikes Repairs Project 

in the Columbia River over the course 

of two years. The application was 

deemed adequate and complete on June 

9, 2022. The Corps’ request is for take 

of 7 species of marine mammals by 

Level B harassment and, for a subset of 

these species (harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina) and harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena)), Level A harassment. 

Neither the Corps nor NMFS expect 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

these activities and, therefore, IHAs are 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The Sand Island pile dikes are part of 

the Columbia River pile dike system and 

are comprised of 4 pile dikes, which are 

named according to river mile (RM) 

location, at RMs 4.01, 4.47, 5.15, and 

6.37. The purpose of the Sand Island 

Pile Dikes Repairs project is to perform 

needed repairs. The existing timber pile 

dikes at Sand Island consist of three 

rows of vertical timber pilings between 

12 and 20 inches (in) in diameter with 

two rows of horizontal spreaders, which 

provide structural stability of the 

vertical timber pilings. A cluster of piles 

with one or more taller piles, called an 

outer dolphin with king piles, is used to 

anchor and mark the end for 

navigational safety. There is rock apron 

at the base of the vertical piles and at 

the shore connection to protect against 

scour. The existing pile dikes have 

deteriorated greatly due to lack of 

maintenance. 

It was determined that at the channelward ends of the pile dikes, replacement 

of the existing, deteriorated piles with 

new piles is necessary but that in 

shallower water depths, it is possible to 

remove timber pilings completely and 

add rock for higher enrockment 

elevation to achieve equivalent 

hydraulic and sediment transport 

functions. The project design team also 

determined that steel piles can provide 

equivalent hydraulic function and do 

not require horizontal spreaders, thus 

reducing required construction 

materials. In addition it is feasible to 

cap steel piles with cones to discourage 

piscivorous bird perching. 

The major project elements proposed 

to be conducted under these IHAs 

include work at pile dikes 6.37 and 

5.15. The Corps proposes to remove 

existing timber piles, drive new steel 

pipe piles and place rock for multiple 

purposes including scour protection at 

the base of the new piles, enhanced 

enrockment segments, shore 

connections, and revetment along the 

western portion of the shoreline at East 

Sand Island. 

Dates and Duration 

The Sand Island Pile Dikes Repairs 

Project is planned to take a total of 3 or 

4 years to complete, with in-water work 

beginning in August 2023. The first IHA 

would be valid from August 1, 2023 to 

July 31, 2024, and the second would be 

valid August 1, 2024 through July 31, 

2025, but in-water work would only 

occur between August and November 

each year. The Corps would apply 

separately for the future IHA(s) to 

conduct similar work at pile dikes 4.01 

and 4.47. 

Specific Geographic Region 

One of the pile dikes is connected to 

West Sand Island (4.01), two of the pile 

dikes are connected to East Sand Island 

(4.47, 5.15), and the fourth pile dike 

(6.37) is in open water and runs parallel 

to the Chinook Federal Navigation 

Channel on the upstream side. The three 

pile dikes connected to West Sand 

Island and East Sand Island are located 

within Oregon, while the fourth pile 

dike in open water spans both Oregon 

and Washington. The Sand Island pile 

dikes are located in the downstream 

terminus of the Columbia River tidal 

estuary, which is dominated by 

freshwater inputs from the Columbia 

and Willamette rivers. This estuary 

stretches from the mouth upstream to 

Bonneville Dam at RM 146. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN01JY22.011</GPH>

Figure 1. Location of Sand Island Pile Dikes 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39483 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Hydraulic modeling of the Sand 

Island Pile Dike System demonstrated 

that existing timber piles would need to 

be removed because leaving them in 

place would affect the hydraulic 

function of the new design. Existing 

timber piles may be removed by pulling, 

cutting or snapping at the approximate 

level of the enrockment. Vibratory 

hammers will not be used for timber 

pile removal. Pile removal is expected 

to proceed incrementally as replacement 

repairs are made to ensure that overall 

function is maintained during 

construction. The original construction 

of the four pile dikes included 3,936 

timber piles. It is estimated that 20 

percent of those are now missing and 

that approximately 3,000 will be 

removed and disposed of. Take of 

marine mammals is not expected to 

occur from removal of timber piles, 

therefore the Corps has not calculated 

the precise number of piles to be 

removed and removal of timber piles 

will not be discussed further in this 

document. 

The proposed pile dike design is an 

offset of the existing pile dike 

alignment, with piles driven 

approximately 30 feet (ft; 9.1 meters 

(m)) downstream of existing centerline. 

The pile configuration needed to 

achieve hydraulic and sediment 

transport functions includes two rows of 

24’’ steel pipe piles, staggered and 

spaced 6.2 ft (1.9 m) on center. Each pile 

dike would be 80 ft (24.4 m) long. 

The Corps estimates a total of 376 24- 

in steel pipe piles would be installed at 

the two pile dike locations (pile dikes 

6.37 and 5.15) and 18 24-in steel pipe 

piles will be installed as marker piles 

along the enrockment at these two pile 

dikes (Tables 1 and 2). The expected 

minimum embedment depths for each 

pile are between approximately 30 and 

40 ft (9.1 to 12.2 m). 

The contractor may use bargemounted cranes equipped with survey 

grade positioning software to ensure the 

piles are installed with precision. Piles 

are generally installed by a rig which 

supports the pile leads, raises the pile, 

and operates a hammer. The Corps 

anticipates that vibratory hammers 

would be used to start the pile driving 

and will drive them 50 percent of the 

way, and impact hammers would be 

used to complete the pile driving for the 

remaining 50 percent. In the event that 

unusually difficult driving conditions 

are encountered, the contractor would 

be allowed to temporarily excavate the 

minimum amount of existing scour 

protection rock needed in order to drive 

the new pile. The contractor would then 

reinstall the rock to provide scour 

protection for the new pile. 

Land based work would be necessary 

at pile dike 5.15 to remove some 

existing timber piles and improve the 

existing pile dike shore connections and 

sections of enhanced enrockment that 

are too shallow for barge-based 

equipment access. Construction of pile 

dike 6.37 would occur by over-water 

equipment only. Conceptual locations 

for a temporary material off-loading 

facility (MOF) and staging areas have 

been chosen based upon multiple 

constraints including cultural resources, 

avian presence, ordinary high water 

depths, and tidal currents, especially 

during ebb tide. Approaching and 

landing a barge may not be feasible or 

safe during some periods of the day 

during high tidal velocities. The MOF 

pilings supporting dolphins would be 

installed by barge using vibratory pile 

driving only. It is estimated that a 

maximum of 24 steel pipe piles with a 

maximum diameter of 24 inch and up 

to 100 (24-inch) AZ steel sheet piles 

would be required for the MOF. All 

piles installed to construct the MOF 

would be subsequently removed in the 

same year. 

TABLE 1—YEAR 1 PROPOSED PILE DRIVING

Project element Pile size and type Method Number of piles Maximum piles 

per day 

Duration or strikes 

per pile 

Estimated 

days of work 

Estimated month of 

work 

Pile dike 6.37 ........... 24-in steel pipe ...... Vibratory install ...... 171 a .................. b 14 15 minutes ............. 56 August–September. 

Pile dike 6.37 ........... 24-in steel pipe ...... Impact install 225 strikes.

MOF ......................... 24-in steel pipe ...... Vibratory install ...... Up to 24 c .......... 5 30 minutes ............. 5 October. 

MOF ......................... 24-in steel pipe ...... Vibratory removal 20 5 minutes ............... 1 October. 

MOF ......................... 24-in steel sheet .... Vibratory install ...... Up to 100 c ........ 25 10 minutes ............. 4 October. 

MOF ......................... 24-in steel sheet .... Vibratory removal 50 3 minutes ............... 1 October. 

Total days of work ..................................................................................................................................................................... 67 

aA total of 244 steel pipe piles will be installed at PD 6.37 over the two years, with approximately 70 percent installed in year 1 and the remaining 30 percent installed in year 2. These same 171 piles will be installed using both vibratory and impact hammers. bThe Corps estimates an average of 5 piles will be installed per day but could be up to 14 per day. 

cThe same MOF piles will be installed and subsequently removed. 

TABLE 2—YEAR 2 PROPOSED PILE DRIVING

Project element Pile size and type Method Number of piles Maximum piles 

per day 

Duration or strikes 

per pile 

Estimated 

days of work 

Estimated month of 

work 

Pile dike 6.37 ........... 24-in steel pipe ...... Vibratory install ...... 73 a .................... b 14 15 min .................... 24 August. 

Impact install 225 strikes. 

Pile dike 5.15 ........... 24-in steel pipe ...... Vibratory install ...... 150 .................... 14 15 min .................... 71 August–November. 

Impact install 225 strikes. 

Total days of work ..................................................................................................................................................................... 95 

aThese same 73 piles will be installed using both vibratory and impact hammers. 

bThe Corps estimates an average of 5 piles will be installed per day but could be up to 14 per day. 

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 

of reprinting the information. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39484 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

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 3 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this activity, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species 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 and Alaska SARs. 

All values presented in Table 3 are the 

most recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2020 SARs (Carretta et al., 2021; Muto 

et al., 2022) and draft 2021 SARs 

(available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

TABLE 3—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals): 

Humpback whale .................... Megaptera novaeangliae ... California/Oregon/Washington ...... E, D, Y 4,973 (0.05, 4,776, 2018) .. 28.7 ≥48.6 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer Whale ............................ Orcinus orca ...................... West Coast Transient ................... -,-, N 349 4 (N/A, 349, 2018) ....... 3.5 0.4 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor Porpoise ..................... Phocoena phocoena .......... Northern Oregon/Washington 

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 5 (see SAR, 43,201, 

2017).

2,592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor Seal ............................ Phoca vitulina .................... Oregon/Washington Coast ........... -,-, N 24,732 6 (UNK, UNK, 1999) UND 10.6 

Northern Elephant Seal .......... Mirounga angustirostris ..... California Breeding ....................... -,-, N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 

2013).

5,122 13.7 

1ESA 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-assessmentreports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 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 mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. 4Based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogues. Surveys for abundance estimates of these stocks are conducted infrequently. 

5Best estimate of pup and non-pup counts, which have not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance surveys. 

6The abundance estimate for this stock is greater than eight years old and is therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for this stock, as 

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

available information for use in this document. 

As indicated above, all 6 species (with 

6 managed stocks) in Table 3 temporally 

and spatially co-occur with the activity 

to the degree that take is reasonably 

likely to occur. All species that could 

potentially occur in the proposed 

project area are included in Table 4 of 

the IHA application. While gray whales 

(Eschrichtius robustus) and killer 

whales from the Southern Resident 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and 

stock have been reported near the 

mouth of the Columbia River, the 

temporal and/or spatial occurrence of 

these species is such that take is not 

expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. 

Gray whales have not been 

documented near the proposed project 

area although anecdotal evidence 

indicates they have been seen at the 

mouth of the Columbia River. However, 

they are not a common visitor as they 

mostly remain in the vicinity of the 

offshore shelf-break (Griffith 2015). 

They migrate along the Oregon coast in 

three discernible phases from early 

December through May (Herzing and 

Mate 1984). Therefore, they are unlikely 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39485 

to occur near the project area between 

August and November. Monitoring 

reports from recent IHAs issued to the 

Corps for similar construction work on 

the Columbia River Jetty System (e.g., 82 

FR 15046; March 23, 2017) reported no 

observations of gray whales. Given the 

size of gray whales, they could be 

readily identifiable at a considerable 

distance. If a gray whale were to 

approach the established Level B 

harassment isopleths, shutdown would 

be initiated to avoid take. The Corps 

would employ at least one vessel-based 

protected species observer (PSO) who 

would be able to adequately monitor 

these zones. Therefore, NMFS does 

expect take of gray whales to occur and 

no take is proposed to be authorized. 

Historically, killer whales were 

regular visitors in the vicinity of the 

estuary. However, they are much less 

common presently and are rarely seen 

in the interior of the Columbia River 

Jetty system (Wilson 2015). Southern 

Resident killer whales have been 

documented near the mouth of the 

Columbia River but these observations 

have most commonly been during the 

late-winter to early-spring months 

(NMFS 2021), outside of the proposed 

construction window for these projects. 

Monitoring reports from recent IHAs 

issued to the Corps for similar 

construction work on the Columbia 

River Jetty System (e.g., 82 FR 15046; 

March 23, 2017) reported no 

observations of killer whales. While it is 

possible that killer whales from the 

West Coast Transient stock may enter 

the project area (see Estimated Take 

section), it is unlikely that take of 

Southern Resident killer whales would 

occur, and no take is proposed to be 

authorized. 

Humpback Whale 

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. Following a 2015 

global status review (Bettridge et al., 

2015), NMFS delineated 14 distinct 

population segments (DPSs) with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

The DPSs that occur in U.S. waters do 

not necessarily equate to the existing 

stocks designated under the MMPA and 

shown in Table 1. Because MMPA 

stocks cannot be portioned, i.e., parts 

managed as ESA-listed while other parts 

managed as not ESA-listed, until such 

time as the MMPA stock delineations 

are reviewed in light of the DPS 

designations, NMFS considers the 

existing humpback whale stocks under 

the MMPA that overlap with 

endangered or threatened DPSs to be 

depleted for MMPA management 

purposes (e.g., selection of a recovery 

factor, stock status). All humpback 

whales in the project area would be 

from the California/Oregon/Washington 

stock (Carretta et al., 2019). These 

animals belong almost exclusively to the 

Mexican and Central American DPSs, 

which are listed as threatened and 

endangered under the ESA, 

respectively. According to Wade et al. 

(2021), the probability that humpback 

whales encountered in Oregon and 

California (i.e., south of the Columbia 

River) are as follows: Mexico DPS, 58 

percent; and Central America DPS, 42 

percent. In Washington and Southern 

British Columbia waters (i.e., north of 

the Columbia River) are as follows: 

Hawai’i DPS (unlisted), 69 percent; 

Mexico DPS, 25 percent; and Central 

America DPS, 6 percent (Wade et al., 

2021). Since the Columbia River is 

considered the dividing line between 

these two areas, the exact proportion of 

humpback whales taken incidental to 

the Corps’ activities from each of the 

three DPSs cannot be determined; 

however, we assume some of the 

humpback whales taken would be from 

a listed DPS. 

Humpback whales are primarily 

found on the continental shelf and slope 

(Adams et al., 2014). Humpback whales 

are typically seen off the Oregon coast 

from April to October, with peak 

numbers from June through August 

(Green et al., 1991). Humpback whale 

feeding groups have begun utilizing the 

mouth of the Columbia River as foraging 

ground, arriving in the lower Columbia 

estuary as early as mid-June, and have 

been observed as late as mid-November 

with a peak of abundance coinciding 

with the peak abundance of forage fish 

in mid-summer. Humpback whales were 

observed in the immediate vicinity of 

West and East Sand Islands in late 

summer and fall of 2015 and 2016 (The 

Columbian, 2016). They were also 

observed in the area in 2017 and 2019, 

but their presence was not documented 

there in 2018 (The Columbian, 2019). 

Most recently they were again seen 

earlier in the season than ever, at the 

beginning of April in 2020 (Chinook 

Observer, 2020). Based on this 

information, it is possible that 

humpback whales may pass through 

and may forage intermittently in the 

immediate project vicinity. 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales are found in waters 

throughout the North Pacific. Along the 

west coast of North America, ‘resident,’ 

transient,’ and ‘offshore’ ecotypes have 

overlapping distributions and multiple 

stocks are recognized within that 

broader classification scheme. The West 

Coast Transient stock includes animals 

that range from California to southern 

Alaska, and is genetically distinct from 

other transient populations in the region 

(i.e., Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, 

and Bering Sea transients and AT1 

transients) (Carretta et al., 2021; Muto et 

al., 2021). The main diet of transient 

killer whales consists of marine 

mammals. Along the Washington and 

Oregon coast, transient killer whales 

primarily hunt pinnipeds and 

porpoises, though some groups will 

occasionally target larger whales. The 

seasonal movements of transients are 

largely unpredictable, although there is 

a tendency to investigate harbor seal 

haulouts off Vancouver Island more 

frequently during the pupping season in 

August and September (Baird 1994; 

Ford 2014). While not regularly seen in 

the project area, transient killer whales 

have been observed near the mouth of 

the Columbia River in March and April 

and a pod of transient killer whales 

were detected near the Astoria Bridge in 

May of 2018 (Frankowicz 2018). 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, 

harbor porpoise are found in coastal and 

inland waters from Point Barrow, along 

the Alaskan coast, and down the west 

coast of North America to Point 

Conception, California. Harbor porpoise 

are known to occur year-round in the 

inland trans-boundary waters of 

Washington and British Columbia, 

Canada and along the Oregon/ 

Washington coast. The Northern 

Oregon/Washington Coast stock of 

harbor porpoises ranges from Lincoln 

City, OR, to Cape Flattery, WA (Carretta 

et al., 2019). 

Harbor porpoises are usually found in 

shallow water, most often nearshore, 

although they occasionally travel over 

deeper offshore waters (NOAA 2013a). 

West Coast populations have more 

restricted movements and do not 

migrate as much as East Coast 

populations (Halpin, OBIS–SEAMAP 

2019). Most harbor porpoise groups are 

small, generally consisting of less than 

five or six individuals, though for 

feeding or migration they may aggregate 

into large, loose groups of 50 to several 

hundred animals (Halpin, OBIS– 

SEAMAP 2019). Behavior tends to be 

inconspicuous, compared to most 

dolphins, and they feed by seizing prey 

which consists of wide variety of fish 

and cephalopods ranging from benthic 

or demersal (Halpern, OBIS–SEAMAP 

2019). Harbor porpoises are sighted year 

round near the mouth of the Columbia 

River (Griffith 2015). Their abundance 

peaks with the abundance of anchovy 

presence in the river and nearshore. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39486 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions are found along 

the west coast from the southern tip of 

Baja California to southeast Alaska. 

They breed mainly on offshore islands 

from Southern California’s Channel 

Islands south to Mexico. Non-breeding 

males often roam north in spring 

foraging for food. Since the mid-1980s, 

increasing numbers of California sea 

lions have been documented feeding on 

fish along the Washington coast and— 

more recently—in the Columbia River as 

far upstream as Bonneville Dam, 145 mi 

(233 km) from the river mouth. Large 

numbers of California sea lions use the 

nearby South Jetty for hauling out 

(Jeffries 2000). According to Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW 

2014) counts, most California sea lions 

are concentrated near the tip of the 

South Jetty. ODFW survey information 

(2007 and 2014) indicates that 

California sea lions are relatively less 

prevalent in the Pacific Northwest 

during June and July, though in the 

months just before and after their 

absence there can be several hundred 

using the South Jetty. More frequent 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW 2014) surveys indicate 

greater numbers in the summer, and use 

remains concentrated to fall and winter 

months. Nearly all California sea lions 

in the Pacific Northwest are sub-adult 

and adult males (females and young 

generally stay in California). 

Steller Sea Lion 

The range of the Steller sea lion 

includes the North Pacific Ocean rim 

from California to northern Japan. 

Steller sea lions forage in nearshore and 

pelagic waters where they are 

opportunistic predators. There are two 

separate stocks of Steller sea lions, the 

Eastern U.S. stock, which occurs east of 

Cape Suckling, Alaska (144° W), and the 

Western U.S. stock, which occurs west 

of that point. Only the Western stock of 

Steller sea lions, which is designated as 

the Western DPS of Steller sea lions, is 

listed as endangered under the ESA (78 

FR 66139; November 4, 2013). Unlike 

the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea 

lions, there has been a sustained and 

robust increase in abundance of the 

Eastern U.S. stock throughout its 

breeding range. The eastern stock of 

Steller sea lions has historically bred on 

rookeries located in Southeast Alaska, 

British Columbia, Oregon, and 

California. 

Large numbers of Steller sea lions use 

the nearby South Jetty for hauling out 

(Jeffries 2000) and are present, in 

varying abundances, all year. Use occurs 

chiefly at the concrete block structure at 

the terminus, or head of the jetty. 

According to ODFW (2014), during the 

summer months it is not uncommon to 

observe between 500–1,000 Steller sea 

lions present per day. Steller sea lions 

are most abundant in the vicinity during 

the winter months and tend to disperse 

elsewhere to rookeries during breeding 

season between May and July (Corps 

2007). All population age classes, and 

both males and females, use the South 

Jetty to haul out. 

While California sea lions also use 

this area and can intermingle with 

Steller sea lions, it appears that Steller 

out-compete California sea lions for the 

preferred haul out area. Previous 

monthly averages between 1995 and 

2004 for Steller sea lions hauled out at 

the South Jetty head ranged from about 

168 to 1,106 animals. ODFW data from 

2000–2014 reflects a lower frequency of 

surveys, and numbers ranged from zero 

animals to 606 Steller sea lions (ODFW 

2014). More frequent surveys by WDFW 

for the same time frame (2000–2014) put 

the monthly range at 177 to 1,663 

animals throughout the year. 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals range from Baja 

California, north along the western 

coasts of the United States, British 

Columbia and southeast Alaska, west 

through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince 

William Sound, and the Aleutian 

Islands, and north in the Bering Sea to 

Cape Newenham and the Pribilof 

Islands. They 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). In 2002, the 

estimated absolute abundance of harbor 

seals on the Oregon coast (excluding 

Hunters Island) was 10,087 (95 percent 

confidence interval: 8,445–12,046) 

animals (Brown et al., 2005). Harbor 

seals are known to use the Chinook 

Channel/Baker Bay area during low 

tides for hauling out (Jeffries 2000). 

They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, 

and drifting glacial ice and feed in 

marine, estuarine, and occasionally 

fresh waters. Harbor seals generally are 

non-migratory, with local movements 

associated with tides, weather, season, 

food availability, and reproduction. 

Harbor seals do not make extensive 

pelagic migrations (Carretta et al., 2019). 

The most recent estimated population of 

harbor seals in the Oregon/Washington 

Coast stock was 24,732 based on surveys 

conducted in 1999 (Carretta et al., 

2014). 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. However, in 

the absence of recent abundance 

estimates, the current population trend 

is unknown. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

The California Breeding Stock of 

Northern elephant seals (Mirounga 

angustirostris) breeds and gives birth in 

California, but makes extended foraging 

trips to areas including coastal Oregon 

biannually during the fall and spring (Le 

Boeuf et al., 2000). They spend about 90 

percent of their time at sea underwater, 

making sequential deep dives. 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). 

Prior to 1984, only two sightings of 

Northern elephant seals were recorded 

(Jeffries 1984). Since then, they have 

been seen infrequently near the mouth 

of the Columbia River. 

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 4. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39487 

TABLE 4—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 activities can occur 

from impact pile driving and vibratory 

driving and removal. The effects of 

underwater noise from the Corps’ 

proposed activities have the potential to 

result in Level A or Level B harassment 

of marine mammals in the action areas. 

Description of Sound Sources 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far (ANSI 1995). The sound level of an 

area is defined by the total acoustical 

energy being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

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

precipitation, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 decibels (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 

activities may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact 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, 

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). Nonimpulsive sounds (e.g., machinery 

operations such as drilling or dredging, 

vibratory pile driving, underwater 

chainsaws, and active sonar systems) 

can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, 

brief or prolonged (continuous or 

intermittent), and typically do not have 

the high peak sound pressure with raid 

rise/decay time that impulsive sounds 

do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 

2018). The distinction between these 

two sound types is important because 

they have differing potential to cause 

physical effects, particularly with regard 

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

et al., 2007). 

Two types of 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 considered impulsive. 

Vibratory hammers install piles by 

vibrating them and allowing the weight 

of the hammer to push them into the 

sediment. Vibratory hammers produce 

non-impulsive, continuous sounds. 

Vibratory hammering generally 

produces SPLs 10 to 20 dB lower than 

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 be generated from both 

non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors include 

the physical presence of the equipment, 

vessels, and personnel; however, we 

expect that any animals that approach 

the project site(s) close enough to be 

harassed due to the presence of 

equipment or personnel would be 

within the Level B harassment zones 

from pile driving and would already be 

subject to harassment from the in-water 

activities. Therefore, any impacts to 

marine mammals are expected to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39488 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

primarily be acoustic in nature. 

Acoustic stressors are generated by 

heavy equipment operation during pile 

installation and removal (i.e., impact 

and vibratory pile driving and removal). 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving equipment 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). 

Generally, exposure to pile driving and 

removal and other construction 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 as 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 and demolition noise on 

marine mammals are dependent on 

several factors, including, but not 

limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive 

vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and 

sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mother 

with calf), duration of exposure, the 

distance between the pile and the 

animal, received levels, behavior at time 

of exposure, and previous history with 

exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall 

et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. No 

physiological effects other than PTS are 

anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized, and therefore are not 

discussed further. 

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). 

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, because there are limited 

empirical data measuring PTS in marine 

mammals (e.g., Kastak et al., 2008), 

largely due to the fact that, for various 

ethical reasons, experiments involving 

anthropogenic noise exposure at levels 

inducing PTS are not typically pursued 

or authorized (NMFS, 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)— 

TTS is a temporary, reversible increase 

in the threshold of audibility at a 

specified frequency or portion of an 

individual’s hearing range above a 

previously established reference level 

(NMFS, 2018). Based on data from 

cetacean TTS measurements (see 

Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is 

considered the minimum threshold shift 

clearly larger than any day-to-day or 

session-to-session variation in a 

subject’s normal hearing ability 

(Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 

2000, 2002). As described in Finneran 

(2016), marine mammal studies have 

shown the amount of TTS increases 

with cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze 

finless porpoise (Neophocoena 

asiaeorientalis)) and five species of 

pinnipeds exposed to a limited number 

of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and 

octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 

(Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed 

in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and 

ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to 

impulsive noise at levels matching 

previous predictions of TTS onset 

(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, 

harbor seals and harbor porpoises have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 

2015). The potential for TTS from 

impact pile driving exists. After 

exposure to playbacks of impact pile 

driving sounds (rate 2,760 strikes/hour) 

in captivity, mean TTS increased from 

0 dB after 15 minute exposure to 5 dB 

after 360 minute exposure; recovery 

occurred within 60 minutes (Kastelein 

et al., 2016). Additionally, the existing 

marine mammal TTS data come from a 

limited number of individuals within 

these species. No data are available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes. Nonetheless, what we 

considered is the best available science. 

For summaries of data on TTS in marine 

mammals or for further discussion of 

TTS onset thresholds, please see 

Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and 

Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and 

Table 5 in NMFS (2018). 

Installing piles for this project 

requires impact pile driving. There 

would likely be pauses in activities 

producing the sound during each day. 

Given these pauses and the fact that 

many marine mammals are likely 

moving through the project areas and 

not remaining for extended periods of 

time, the potential for TS declines. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39489 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal also 

has the potential to behaviorally disturb 

marine mammals. Available studies 

show wide variation in response to 

underwater sound; therefore, it is 

difficult to predict specifically how any 

given sound in a particular instance 

might affect marine mammals 

perceiving the signal. If a marine 

mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); or 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., 2004; 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) for a review of 

studies involving marine mammal 

behavioral responses to sound. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

In 2016, the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF) documented observations 

of marine mammals during construction 

activities (i.e., pile driving) at the 

Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636, 

October 7, 2015). In the marine mammal 

monitoring report for that project (ABR 

2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were 

observed within the Level B disturbance 

zone during pile driving or drilling (i.e., 

documented as Level B harassment 

take). Of these, 19 individuals 

demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were 

fleeing, and 19 swam away from the 

project site. All other animals (98 

percent) were engaged in activities such 

as milling, foraging, or fighting and did 

not change their behavior. In addition, 

two sea lions approached within 20 m 

of active vibratory pile driving 

activities. Three harbor seals were 

observed within the disturbance zone 

during pile driving activities; none of 

them displayed disturbance behaviors. 

Fifteen killer whales and three harbor 

porpoise were also observed within the 

Level B harassment zone during pile 

driving. The killer whales were 

travelling or milling while all harbor 

porpoises were travelling. No signs of 

disturbance were noted for either of 

these species. Given the similarities in 

species, activities, and habitat (e.g., 

cool-temperate waters, industrialized 

area), we expect similar behavioral 

responses from the same and similar 

species affected by the Corps’ specified 

activities. That is, disturbance, if any, is 

likely to be temporary and localized 

(e.g., small area movements). 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39490 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

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 these projects based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous, similar projects in the area. 

Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior 

through masking, or interfering with, an 

animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise ratio, temporal variability, 

direction), in relation to each other and 

to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g., 

sensitivity, frequency range, critical 

ratios, frequency discrimination, 

directional discrimination, age or TTS 

hearing loss), and existing ambient 

noise and propagation conditions. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. The mouth of the Columbia 

River area contains active commercial 

shipping and commercial fishing as well 

as numerous recreational and other 

commercial vessels, and background 

sound levels in the area are already 

elevated. 

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 pile driving activities. Cetaceans 

are not expected to be exposed to 

airborne sounds that would result in 

harassment as defined under the 

MMPA. 

Airborne noise would primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels elevated 

above the acoustic criteria. 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 likely 

previously have been ‘taken’ because of 

exposure to underwater sound above the 

behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are generally 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 construction 

activities could have localized, 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat, including prey, by increasing 

in-water sound pressure levels and 

slightly decreasing water quality. 

Increased noise levels may affect 

acoustic habitat (see masking discussion 

above) and adversely affect marine 

mammal prey in the vicinity of the 

project areas (see discussion below). 

During impact and vibratory pile 

driving or removal, elevated levels of 

underwater noise would ensonify the 

project areas 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 longterm effects to the individuals or 

populations. Construction activities are 

of short duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

and airborne sound. 

A temporary and localized increase in 

turbidity near the seafloor would occur 

in the immediate area surrounding the 

area where piles are installed or 

removed. In general, turbidity 

associated with pile installation is 

localized to about a 25-ft (7.6-m) radius 

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

sediments of the project site will settle 

out rapidly when disturbed. Cetaceans 

are not expected to be close enough to 

the pile driving areas to experience 

effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds 

could avoid localized areas of turbidity. 

Local currents are anticipated to 

disburse any additional suspended 

sediments produced by project activities 

at moderate to rapid rates depending on 

tidal stage. Therefore, we expect the 

impact from increased turbidity levels 

to be discountable to marine mammals 

and do not discuss it further. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat in the lower 

Columbia River. The area is highly 

influenced by anthropogenic activities. 

The total seafloor area affected by pile 

installation and removal is a small area 

compared to the vast foraging area 

available to marine mammals in the 

area. At best, the impact area provides 

marginal foraging habitat for marine 

mammals and fishes. Furthermore, pile 

driving and removal at the project site 

would not obstruct long-term 

movements or migration of marine 

mammals. 

Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish 

or, in the case of transient killer whales, 

other marine mammals) of the 

immediate area due to the temporary 

loss of this foraging habitat is also 

possible. The duration of fish and 

marine mammal avoidance of this area 

after pile driving stops is unknown, but 

a rapid return to normal recruitment, 

distribution, and behavior is 

anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance 

by fish or marine mammals of the 

disturbed area would still leave 

significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. 

In-water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey—Sound may affect 

marine mammals through impacts on 

the abundance, behavior, or distribution 

of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, 

cephalopods, fish, zooplankton, other 

marine mammals). Marine mammal 

prey varies by species, season, and 

location. Here, we describe studies 

regarding the effects of noise on known 

marine mammal prey other than other 

marine mammals (which have been 

discussed earlier). 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39491 

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 which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

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

other environmental factors. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish; 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; Popper et al., 

2015). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

The most likely impact to fishes from 

pile driving and removal and 

construction 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. 

Construction activities, in the form of 

increased turbidity, have the potential 

to adversely affect forage fish in the 

project areas. Forage fish form a 

significant prey base for many marine 

mammal species that occur in the 

project areas. Increased turbidity is 

expected to occur in the immediate 

vicinity (on the order of 10 ft (3 m) or 

less) of construction activities. However, 

suspended sediments and particulates 

are expected to dissipate quickly within 

a single tidal cycle. Given the limited 

area affected and high tidal dilution 

rates any effects on forage fish are 

expected to be minor or negligible. 

Finally, exposure to turbid waters from 

construction activities is not expected to 

be different from the current exposure; 

fish and marine mammals in Elliott Bay 

are routinely exposed to substantial 

levels of suspended sediment from 

natural and anthropogenic sources. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving events and the 

relatively small areas being affected, 

pile driving activities associated with 

the proposed actions are not likely to 

have a permanent, adverse effect on any 

fish habitat, or populations of fish 

species. 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 activities 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 this IHA, 

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 (in the form of 

behavioral disturbance and TTS), as use 

of the acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory or 

impact pile driving and removal) have 

the potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns and cause a 

temporary loss in hearing sensitivity for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result for 

porpoises and harbor seals because 

predicted auditory injury zones are 

larger. The proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

proposed take numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, generally 

speaking, we estimate take by 

considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

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

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39492 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

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 activities 

includes the use of continuous 

(vibratory hammer) and impulsive 

(impact hammer) sources, and therefore 

the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

thresholds 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’ activities 

include the use of impulsive (impact 

hammer) and non-impulsive (vibratory 

hammer) 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 5—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing Group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ...................... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ............... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note:Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that 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 by sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., impact and vibratory 

pile driving). 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds for the methods 

and piles being used in this project, 

NMFS used acoustic monitoring data 

from other locations to develop source 

levels for the various pile types, sizes, 

and methods the Corps proposes to use 

(Table 6). 

TABLE 6—SOURCE LEVELS

Pile type and method 

Source level (dB re 1 μPa) 

Reference 

Peak RMS SEL 

24-in steel pipe impact installation ....... 203 dB .................. 190 dB .................. 177 dB .................. CalTrans (2015). 

24-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation/removal.Not available ......... 161 dB .................. Not available ......... U.S. Navy (2015). 

24-in steel sheet pile vibratory installation/removal.175 dB .................. 160 dB .................. 160 dB .................. CalTrans (2015). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39493 

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 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

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 activities in the absence of 

specific modelling. The Level B 

harassment zones for the Corps’ 

proposed activities are shown in Table 

7. 

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 pile installation or 

removal, the optional User Spreadsheet 

tool predicts the distance at which, if a 

marine mammal remained at that 

distance for the duration of the activity, 

it would be expected to incur PTS. The 

isopleths generated by the User 

Spreadsheet used the same TL 

coefficient as the Level B harassment 

zone calculations (i.e., the practical 

spreading value of 15). Inputs used in 

the User Spreadsheet (e.g., number of 

piles per day, duration and/or strikes 

per pile) are presented in Tables 1 and 

2, and the resulting isopleths are 

reported below in Table 7. Due to the 

bathymetry and geography of the project 

areas, sound may not reach the full 

distance of the harassment isopleths in 

all directions. 

TABLE 7—LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES

Pile type and method 

Level A harassment zone (m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) LF Cetacean MF Cetacean HF Cetacean Phocid pinniped 

Otariid 

pinniped 

24-in Steel Pile Impact Installation .......... 430.0 15.3 512.2 230.1 16.8 1,000 

24-in Steel Pile Vibratory Installation ....... 7.9 0.7 11.7 4.8 0.3 5,412 

Steel Sheet Pile Vibratory Installation ..... 36.8 3.3 54.4 22.4 1.6 4,642 

Steel Sheet Pile Vibratory Removal ........ 9.6 0.9 14.2 5.8 0.4 4,642 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the proposed take 

incidental to the Corps’ pile driving 

activities. Unless otherwise specified, 

the term ‘‘pile driving’’ in this section, 

and all following sections, may refer to 

either pile installation or removal. 

Unless otherwise specified, the 

occurrence information described below 

is used to estimate take for both the Year 

1 and Year 2 IHAs. NMFS has carefully 

reviewed the Corps’ analysis and 

concludes that it represents an 

appropriate and accurate method for 

estimating incidental take caused by the 

Corps’ activities. 

Steller Sea Lion, California Sea Lion, 

and Harbor Seal 

For Steller sea lions, California sea 

lions, and harbor seals, the numbers of 

individuals were referenced from 

WDFW’s surveys from 2000–2014 at the 

South Jetty for the months of in water 

work (August through October) and 

averaged to get an estimated daily count 

(Table 8). While animals were surveyed 

at the prominent haul out site along the 

South Jetty, since the Sand Island pile 

dikes are very close to the mouth of the 

river and the South Jetty, the Corps 

assumed each of these estimates 

represent the total number of 

individuals present in the project 

vicinity. In instances where proposed 

activities will occur over a span of two 

or more months, the Corps derived 

potential take estimates from the 

average abundance recorded over the 

specified period. For harbor seals, 

where abundance was only estimated in 

July, the Corps used that estimate for all 

projections. 

TABLE 8—PINNIPED COUNTS FROM THE SOUTH JETTY FROM 2000–2014 

[WDFW 2014] 

Steller sea lion California sea 

lion Harbor seal 

August .......................................................................................................................................... 324 115 57 

Average August–September ........................................................................................................ 267 182 57 

September ................................................................................................................................... 209 249 57 

October ........................................................................................................................................ 384 508 57 

Average (all months) ................................................................................................................... 306 291 57 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39494 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

To calculate the total estimated takes 

by Level B harassment, the Corps 

multiplied the estimated days of activity 

within each month (or total across 

months) by the associated monthly (or 

average across months) count of each 

species (Table 9). 

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED TAKE OF STELLER SEA LIONS, CALIFORNIA SEA LIONS, AND HARBOR SEALS BY LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT

Project element Month(s) 

Days of pile 

driving in 

month(s) 

Steller sea lion 

average count 

Steller sea lion 

calculated take 

California sea 

lion average 

count 

California sea 

lion calculate 

take 

Harbor seal 

average count 

Harbor seal 

calculated take 

Year 1: 

Pile Dike 6.37 ... August–September 56 267 14,952 182 10,192 57 3,192 

MOF .................. October ................... 11 384 4,224 508 5,588 57 627 

Total takes by Level B harassment ........................................................ 19,176 Total: 15,780 Total: 3,819 

Year 2: 

Pile Dike 6.37 ... August ..................... 24 324 7,776 115 2,760 57 1,368 

Pile Dike 5.15 ... August through October.71 306 21,726 291 20,661 57 4,047 

Total takes by Level B harassment ........................................................ 29,502 Total: 23,421 Total: 5,415 

Based on the relative proportion of 

the area expected to be ensonified above 

the Level A harassment threshold for 

phocid pinnipeds from impact pile 

driving of 24-in steel pipe piles 

(approximately 0.23 square kilometers 

(km2)) to the area ensonified above the 

Level B harassment threshold (up to 94 

km2 for vibratory installation of 24-in 

steel pipe piles), the Corps estimated 

that of the total number of harbor seals 

that may be located within the greater 

Level B harassment zone, no more than 

1 percent would approach the pile 

driving activities closer and enter the 

smaller Level A harassment zone (231 

m). Thus the Corps assumes that 1 

percent of the total estimated takes of 

harbor seals (3,819 individuals in Year 

1 and 5,415 individuals in Year 2; see 

Table 9) would be by Level A 

harassment. Therefore, the Corps has 

requested, and NMFS is proposing to 

authorize, 38 takes of harbor seals by 

Level A harassment and 3,781 takes by 

Level B harassment in Year 1 and 54 

takes of harbor seals by Level A 

harassment and 5,361 takes by Level B 

harassment in Year 2 (Table 10). 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for otariid pinnipeds is 16.8 m. The 

Corps would be required to enforce a 

minimum shutdown zone of 25 m for 

these species. At that close range, the 

Corps would be able to detect California 

sea lions and Steller sea lions and 

implement the required shutdown 

measures before any sea lions could 

enter the Level A harassment zone. 

Therefore, no takes of California sea 

lions or Steller sea lions by Level A 

harassment are requested or proposed to 

be authorized. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales have been 

observed in the immediate vicinity of 

the project area in recent years. 

Humpbacks have been arriving in the 

lower Columbia estuary as early as midJune and have been observed as late as 

mid-November with a peak of 

abundance coinciding with the peak 

abundance of forage fish in midsummer. No surveys were located for 

the project area, but it is assumed that 

they could be present during pile 

driving activities. Given the higher 

observed abundances in summer, the 

Corps assumes up to two individuals 

per month could enter the Level B 

harassment zone during pile driving 

activities each year, for a total of 6 takes 

of humpback whales by Level B 

harassment in each year (Table 10). 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for low-frequency cetaceans for any pile 

type or method is 430 m. During impact 

pile driving, the Corps would be 

required to implement a shutdown zone 

equivalent to the Level A harassment 

zone for low-frequency cetaceans. Given 

the visibility of humpback whales, the 

Corps would be able to detect 

humpback whales and shut down pile 

driving before any humpbacks could 

enter the Level A harassment zone. 

Therefore, no take of humpback whales 

by Level A harassment is requested or 

proposed to be authorized. 

Transient Killer Whale 

Killer whales were not detected in fall 

and winter aerial surveys off the Oregon 

coast documented in Adams et al. 

(2014). Aerial seabird marine mammal 

surveys observed zero killer whales in 

January 2011, zero in February 2012, 

and 10 in September 2012 within an 

approximately 1,500 km2 range near the 

MCR (Adams 2014). While a rare 

occurrence, a pod of transient killer 

whales were detected near the Astoria 

Bridge in May of 2018 (Frankowicz 

2018). There have been no confirmed 

sightings of southern resident killer 

whales entering the project area. The 

Corps estimates that no more than 2 

transient killer whales per year could be 

near the mouth of the Columbia River 

during proposed work and taken by 

Level B harassment (Table 10). 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for mid-frequency cetaceans for any pile 

type or method is 15.3 m. The Corps 

would be required to implement a 

minimum 25 m shutdown zone for midfrequency cetaceans. Given the visibility 

of killer whales, at that close range, the 

Corps would be able to detect transient 

killer whales and shut down pile 

driving before any killer whales could 

enter the Level A harassment zone. 

Therefore, no take of transient killer 

whales by Level A harassment is 

requested or proposed to be authorized. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are regularly 

observed in the oceanward waters 

adjacent to the project area and are 

known to occur year-round. Their 

nearshore abundance peaks with 

anchovy presence, which is generally 

June through October. There was one 

recorded sighting of a harbor porpoise 

in the project area east of the jetties in 

the Sept-Nov timeframe (OBIS– 

SEAMAP 2019). Therefore, it is feasible 

that animals could be present during 

pile driving activities. During 

monitoring for pile driving at the 

Columbia River Jetty System, over the 

course of a 5-day monitoring period, 

observers detected 5 harbor porpoises 

(Grette Associates 2016). Given the 

potential for harbor porpoise to travel in 

pairs, the Corps estimates that one pair 

of harbor porpoises per day may enter 

the Level B harassment zone per day of 

pile driving (67 days in Year 1 and 95 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39495 

days in Year 2) for a total of 134 harbor 

porpoises taken in Year 1 and 190 taken 

in Year 2. 

For impact installation of 24-in steel 

pipe piles, the Level A harassment zone 

for high-frequency cetaceans is 512 m. 

Although the Corps would be required 

to implement a shutdown zone of 515 

m during this activity (see Proposed 

Mitigation), due to the cryptic nature 

and lower detectability of harbor 

porpoises at large distances, the Corps 

anticipates that up to 16 of the harbor 

porpoises (2 per week over the course of 

8 weeks of impact pile driving) that 

enter the Level B zone in Year 1 could 

approach the project site closer and 

potentially enter the Level A harassment 

zone undetected during impact 

installation. Similarly, the Corps 

estimates that up to 27 of the harbor 

porpoises that enter the Level B 

harassment zone in Year 2 (2 per week 

over the course of 13.5 weeks of impact 

pile driving) could approach the project 

site closer and potentially enter the 

Level A harassment zone undetected 

during impact installation. These takes 

by Level A harassment could occur as 

one group in one day or single animals 

over multiple days. In total, the Corps 

has requested take of 134 harbor 

porpoises in Year 1 (118 takes by Level 

B harassment and 16 takes by Level A 

harassment) and 190 harbor porpoises 

in Year 2 (163 takes by Level B 

harassment and 27 takes by Level A 

harassment) (Table 10). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals have been 

observed near the mouth of the 

Columbia River, but there are no known 

haulout locations for northern elephant 

seals in the project vicinity. Given the 

rarity of sightings in and around the 

Columbia River, the Corps estimates 

that no more than 2 northern elephant 

seals per month may enter the project 

area and be taken by Level B harassment 

each year, for a total of 6 takes by Level 

B harassment in Year 1 and 6 takes by 

Level B harassment in Year 2 (Table 10). 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

(230 m) occurs during impact 

installation of 24-in steel pipe piles. It 

is unlikely that northern elephant seals 

would be found within this zone, and 

even more unlikely that northern 

elephant seals would be found within 

the Level A harassment zones for 

vibratory pile driving of any pile size 

(less than 23 m for all pile types). 

However, even if northern elephant 

seals were encountered in the project 

areas, at that close range, the Corps 

would be able to detect them and 

implement the required shutdown 

measures before any northern elephant 

seals could enter the Level A 

harassment zones. Therefore, no take of 

northern elephant seals by Level A 

harassment is requested or proposed to 

be authorized. 

TABLE 10—PROPOSED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY YEAR, BY SPECIES AND

STOCK AND PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Species 

Proposed 

take by 

Level A 

harassment 

Proposed 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 

Total 

proposed 

take 

Stock Stock 

abundance 

Percent 

of stock 

Year 1: 

Humpback whale .......................... 0 6 6 California/Oregon/Washington ............ 2,900 0.21 

Killer whale ................................... 0 2 2 West Coast Transient ......................... 349 0.57 

Harbor porpoise ........................... 16 118 134 Northern Oregon/Washington Coast .. 21,487 0.60 

California sea lion ......................... 0 15,780 15,780 U.S ...................................................... 257,606 6.13 

Steller sea lion .............................. 0 19,176 19,176 Eastern ................................................ 52,932 36.23 

Harbor seal ................................... 38 3,781 3,819 Oregon/Washington Coast .................. 24,732 15.44 

Northern elephant seal ................. 0 6 6 California Breeding ............................. 179,000 0.003 

Year 2: 

Humpback whale .......................... 0 6 6 California/Oregon/Washington ............ 2,900 0.21 

Killer whale ................................... 0 2 2 West Coast Transient ......................... 349 0.57 

Harbor porpoise ........................... 27 163 190 Northern Oregon/Washington Coast .. 21,487 0.88 

California sea lion ......................... 0 23,421 23,421 U.S ...................................................... 257,606 9.09 

Steller sea lion .............................. 0 29,502 29,502 Eastern ................................................ 52,932 55.74 

Harbor seal ................................... 54 5,361 5,415 Oregon/Washington Coast .................. 24,732 21.89 

Northern elephant seal ................. 0 6 6 California Breeding ............................. 179,000 0.003 

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. 

Time Restrictions 

The Corps has provided in its 

description of the project that pile 

driving would occur only during 

daylight hours (no sooner than 30 

minutes after sunrise through no later 

than 30 minutes before sunset), when 

visual monitoring of marine mammals 

can be conducted. In addition, to 

minimize impacts to ESA-listed fish 

species, all in-water construction would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39496 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

be limited to the months of August 

through November. 

Shutdown Zones 

Before the commencement of in-water 

construction activities, the Corps would 

establish shutdown zones for all 

activities. The purpose of a shutdown 

zone is generally to define an area 

within which shutdown of the activity 

would occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area). Pile driving 

would also not commence until all 

marine mammals are clear of their 

respective shutdown zones. Shutdown 

zones are meant to encompass the Level 

A harassment zones and therefore 

would vary based on the activity type 

and marine mammal hearing group 

(Table 11). At minimum, the shutdown 

zone for all hearing groups and all 

activities is 25 m. For in-water heavy 

machinery work other than pile driving 

(e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine 

mammal comes within 25 m, operations 

would cease and vessels would reduce 

speed to the minimum level required to 

maintain steerage and safe working 

conditions. This type of work could 

include, for example, the movement of 

the barge to the pile location or 

positioning of the pile on the substrate 

via a crane. 

The Corps would also establish 

shutdown zones for all marine 

mammals for which take has not been 

authorized or for which incidental take 

has been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met. These 

zones are equivalent to the Level B 

harassment zones for each activity (see 

Table 11). 

TABLE 11—SHUTDOWN ZONES

Pile type and method 

Shutdown zones by hearing group 

(m) 

Shutdown 

zones for 

unauthorized 

species 

(m) LF cetacean MF cetacean HF cetacean Phocid pinniped 

Otariid 

pinniped 

24-in Steel pipe Pile Impact Installation ................................... 430 25 515 a 50 25 1,000 

24-in Steel pipe pile Vibratory Installation ................................ 25 25 25 25 25 5,412 

24-in Steel Sheet Pile Vibratory Installation b ........................... 40 25 55 25 25 4,642 

24-in Steel Sheet Pile Vibratory Removal b .............................. 25 25 25 25 25 4,642 

a 50 m is for harbor seals, shutdown zone for northern elephant seals is 235 m. 

bVibratory installation and removal of 24-in steel sheet piles only applicable in Year 1. No sheet piles will be installed or removed in Year 2. 

Protected Species Observers 

The placement of protected species 

observers (PSOs) during all pile driving 

activities (described in the Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting section) 

would ensure that the entire shutdown 

zone is visible. Should environmental 

conditions deteriorate such that the 

entire shutdown zone would not be 

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

driving would be delayed until the PSO 

is confident marine mammals within 

the shutdown zone could be detected. 

Monitoring for Level A and Level B 

Harassment 

PSOs would monitor the Level B 

harassment zones to the extent 

practicable, and all of the Level A 

harassment zones. Monitoring zones 

provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project areas 

outside the shutdown zones and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring 

Prior to the start of daily in-water 

construction activity, or whenever a 

break in pile driving of 30 minutes or 

longer occurs, PSOs would observe the 

shutdown and monitoring zones for a 

period of 30 minutes. The shutdown 

zone would be considered cleared when 

a marine mammal has not been 

observed within the zone for that 30- 

minute period. If a marine mammal is 

observed within the shutdown zones 

listed in Tables 12 and 13, pile driving 

activity would be delayed or halted. If 

pile driving is delayed or halted due to 

the presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity would not commence or resume 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

exited and been visually confirmed 

beyond the shutdown zones or 15 

minutes have passed without redetection of the animal. When a marine 

mammal for which Level B harassment 

take is authorized is present in the Level 

B harassment zone, activities would 

begin and Level B harassment take 

would be recorded. If work ceases for 

more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity 

monitoring of the shutdown zones 

would commence. A determination that 

the shutdown zone is clear must be 

made during a period of good visibility 

(i.e., the entire shutdown zone and 

surrounding waters must be visible to 

the naked eye). 

Soft Start 

Soft-start procedures are used to 

provide additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors would be 

required to provide an initial set of three 

strikes from the hammer at reduced 

energy, followed by a 30-second waiting 

period, then two subsequent reducedenergy strike sets. Soft start would be 

implemented at the start of each day’s 

impact pile driving and at any time 

following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of 30 minutes or 

longer. 

Based on our evaluation of the Corps’ 

proposed measures, as well as other 

measures considered by NMFS, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39497 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and, 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring during 

pile driving activities would be 

conducted by PSOs meeting NMFS’ 

standards and in a manner consistent 

with the following: 

• Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) who have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods would be used; 

• At least one PSO would have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator would be 

designated. The lead observer would be 

required to have prior experience 

working as a marine mammal observer 

during construction. 

PSOs would 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. 

The Corps would have at least 2 PSOs 

stationed in the project area to monitor 

during all pile driving activities. One 

PSO would be positioned at the work 

site on the construction barge to observe 

Level A harassment and shutdown 

zones. At least one PSO would monitor 

from a boat to ensure full visual 

coverage of the Level B harassment 

zone(s) and alert construction crews of 

marine mammals entering the Level B 

harassment zone and/or approaching 

the Level A harassment zones. 

Additional PSOs may be employed 

during periods of low or obstructed 

visibility to ensure the entirety of the 

shutdown zones are monitored. 

Monitoring would be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after all in water construction activities. 

In addition, observers would record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and would document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than 30 minutes. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving activities, or 60 days prior 

to a requested date of issuance of any 

future IHAs for the project, or other 

projects at the same location, whichever 

comes first. The marine mammal report 

would include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, 

the report would include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: (a) How many and what type 

of piles were driven or removed and the 

method (i.e., impact or vibratory); and 

(b) the total duration of time for each 

pile (vibratory driving) number of 

strikes for each pile (impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; and 

• 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. 

For each observation of a marine 

mammal, the following would be 

reported: 

• Name of PSO who sighted the 

animal(s) and PSO location and activity 

at time of sighting; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; 

• Distance and location of each 

observed marine mammal relative to the 

pile being driven or hole being drilled 

for each sighting; 

• Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best estimate); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.); 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

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

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specified actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft reports 

would constitute the final reports. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS’ comments would be 

required to be submitted within 30 days 

after receipt of comments. All PSO 

datasheets and/or raw sighting data 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39498 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

would be submitted with the draft 

marine mammal report. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

Corps would report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 

NMFS and to the West Coast Region 

(WCR) regional stranding coordinator as 

soon as feasible. If the death or injury 

was clearly caused by the specified 

activity, the Corps would 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 would not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report would include the 

following information: 

1. Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

2. Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

3. Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

4. Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

5. If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

6. 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 species listed 

in Table 10, 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. We note, though, that there 

are far fewer estimated takes of 

cetaceans than pinnipeds, and some 

additional pinniped-specific analysis is 

included. 

Pile driving activities associated with 

the Sand Island Pile Dikes Repairs 

Project have the potential to disturb or 

displace marine mammals. Specifically, 

the project activities may result in take, 

in the form of Level A and Level B 

harassment, from underwater sounds 

generated from pile driving. Potential 

takes could occur if individuals are 

present in the ensonified zone when 

these activities are underway. 

The takes from Level A and Level B 

harassment would be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activities and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

harassment is minimized through the 

construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

In both years, take by Level A 

harassment is proposed for 2 species 

(harbor seals and harbor porpoise) to 

account for the possibility that an 

animal could enter a Level A 

harassment zone prior to detection, and 

remain within that zone for a duration 

long enough to incur PTS before being 

observed and the Corps shutting down 

pile driving activity. Any take by Level 

A harassment is expected to arise from, 

at most, a small degree of PTS, i.e., 

minor degradation of hearing 

capabilities within regions of hearing 

that align most completely with the 

energy produced by impact pile driving 

(i.e. the low-frequency region below 2 

kHz), not severe hearing impairment or 

impairment within the ranges of greatest 

hearing sensitivity. Animals would need 

to be exposed to higher levels and/or 

longer duration than are expected to 

occur here in order to incur any more 

than a small degree of PTS. 

Additionally, the amount of 

authorized take by Level A harassment 

is very low for all marine mammal 

stocks and species. For both IHAs, for 5 

of 7 affected stocks, NMFS anticipates 

and proposes to authorize no Level A 

harassment take over the duration of the 

Corps’ planned activities; for the other 

2 stocks, NMFS authorizes no more than 

54 takes by Level A harassment in any 

year. If hearing impairment occurs, it is 

most likely that the affected animal 

would lose only a few decibels in its 

hearing sensitivity. These takes of 

individuals by Level A harassment (i.e., 

a small degree of PTS) are not expected 

to accrue in a manner that would affect 

the reproductive success or survival of 

any individuals, much less result in 

adverse impacts on the species or stock. 

As described above, NMFS expects 

that marine mammals would likely 

move away from an aversive stimulus, 

especially at levels that would be 

expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice through use of soft 

start. The Corps would also shut down 

pile driving activities if marine 

mammals approach within hearing 

group-specific zones that encompass the 

Level A harassment zones (see Table 11) 

further minimizing the likelihood and 

degree of PTS that would be incurred. 

Even absent mitigation, no serious 

injury or mortality from construction 

activities is anticipated or authorized. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment in the form of 

behavioral disruption, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

including the Sand Island Pile Dike 

System Test Piles Project conducted by 

the Corps in preparation for the 

proposed Sand Island Pile Dikes Repairs 

Project (84 FR 61026; November 12, 

2019), would likely be limited to 

reactions such as avoidance, increased 

swimming speeds, increased surfacing 

time, or decreased foraging (if such 

activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson 

and Reyff 2006). Most likely, 

individuals would simply move away 

from the sound source and temporarily 

avoid the area where pile driving is 

occurring. If sound produced by project 

activities is sufficiently disturbing, 

animals are likely to simply avoid the 

area while the activities are occurring, 

particularly as the project is located on 

a busy waterway at the mouth of the 

Columbia River with high amounts of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 39499 

vessel traffic. We expect that any 

avoidance of the project areas by marine 

mammals would be temporary in nature 

and that any marine mammals that 

avoid the project areas during 

construction would not be permanently 

displaced. Short-term avoidance of the 

project areas and energetic impacts of 

interrupted foraging or other important 

behaviors is unlikely to affect the 

reproduction or survival of individual 

marine mammals, and the effects of 

behavioral disturbance on individuals is 

not likely to accrue in a manner that 

would affect the rates of recruitment or 

survival of any affected stock. 

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. However, since 

the hearing sensitivity of individuals 

that incur TTS is expected to recover 

completely within minutes to hours, it 

is unlikely that the brief hearing 

impairment would affect the 

individual’s long-term ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics, 

and would therefore not likely impact 

reproduction or survival of any 

individual marine mammal, let alone 

adversely affect rates of recruitment or 

survival of the species or stock. 

The project is also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitats. The 

project activities will not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected (with no known 

particular importance to marine 

mammals), the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. The shores along the 

Columbia River are occasionally used by 

harbor seals for pupping, but the Corps’ 

proposed activities would occur outside 

of the harbor seal pupping season. There 

are no known important areas for other 

marine mammals, such as feeding or 

pupping areas. 

For all species and stocks, and in both 

years, take would occur within a 

limited, relatively confined area (the 

mouth of the Columbia River) of the 

stock’s range. Given the availability of 

suitable habitat nearby, any 

displacement of marine mammals from 

the project areas is not expected to affect 

marine mammals’ fitness, survival, and 

reproduction due to the limited 

geographic area that would be affected 

in comparison to the much larger 

habitat for marine mammals within the 

lower Columbia River and immediately 

outside the river along the Oregon and 

Washington coasts. Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment would be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact to the marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat 

through use of mitigation measures 

described herein. 

Some individual marine mammals in 

the project areas may be present and be 

subject to repeated exposure to sound 

from pile driving on multiple days. 

However, pile driving is not expected to 

occur on every day of the in-water work 

window, and these individuals would 

likely return to normal behavior during 

gaps in pile driving activity within each 

day of construction and in between 

work days. As discussed above, there is 

similar foraging and haulout habitat 

available for marine mammals within 

and outside of the Columbia River along 

the Washington and Oregon coasts, 

outside of the project area, where 

individuals could temporarily relocate 

during construction activities to reduce 

exposure to elevated sound levels from 

the project. Therefore, any behavioral 

effects of repeated or long duration 

exposures are not expected to negatively 

affect survival or reproductive success 

of any individuals. Thus, even repeated 

Level B harassment of some small 

subset of an overall stock is unlikely to 

result in any effects on rates of 

reproduction and survival of the stock. 

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 mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 

for either year; 

• In both years, Level A harassment is 

not anticipated or authorized for 5 of the 

7 species. For the other 2 species (1 

high-frequency cetacean and 1 phocid 

pinniped), the amount of Level A 

harassment is low and would be in the 

form of a slight degree of PTS in limited 

low frequency ranges (<2 kHz) which 

are not the most sensitive primary 

hearing ranges for these species and 

would not interfere with conspecific 

communication or echolocation; 

• For both years, Level B harassment 

would be in the form of behavioral 

disturbance, primarily resulting in 

avoidance of the project areas around 

where impact or vibratory pile driving 

is occurring, and some low-level TTS 

that may limit the detection of acoustic 

cues for relatively brief amounts of time 

in relatively confined footprints of the 

activities; 

• Nearby areas of similar habitat 

value (e.g., foraging and haulout 

habitats) within and outside the lower 

Columbia River are available for marine 

mammals that may temporarily vacate 

the project areas during construction 

activities for both projects; 

• Effects on species that serve as prey 

for marine mammals from the activities 

are expected to be short-term and, 

therefore, any associated impacts on 

marine mammal feeding are not 

expected to result in significant or longterm consequences for individuals, or to 

accrue to adverse impacts on their 

populations from either project; 

• The ensonified areas in both years 

are very small relative to the overall 

habitat ranges of all species and stocks, 

and will not adversely affect ESAdesignated critical habitat for any 

species or any areas of known biological 

importance; 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat from either project; 

• The efficacy of the mitigation 

measures in reducing the effects of the 

specified activities on all species and 

stocks for both projects; 

• The enhanced mitigation measures 

(e.g., shutdown zones equivalent to the 

Level B harassment zones) to eliminate 

the potential for any take of 

unauthorized species; and 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in the lower Columbia River, 

including previous work at the Sand 

Island Pile Dikes, that have documented 

little to no behavioral effect on 

individuals of the same species that 

could be impacted by the specified 

activities from both projects, suggesting 

the degree/intensity of behavioral 

harassment would be minimal. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activities in Year 1 will 

have a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

NMFS also preliminarily finds that the 

total marine mammal take from the 

proposed activities in Year 2 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39500 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Notices 

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. 

For all species other than Steller sea 

lions, the proposed take in each year is 

below one third of the population for all 

marine mammal stocks (Table 10). In 

Year 1 and Year 2, the proposed take of 

Steller sea lions, as a proportion of the 

stock abundance is 36.23 percent and 

55.74 percent, respectively, if all takes 

are assumed to occur for unique 

individuals. In reality, it is unlikely that 

all takes would occur to different 

individuals. The project area represents 

a small portion of the stock’s overall 

range (from Alaska to California (Muto 

et al., 2019)) and based on observations 

at other Steller sea lion haulouts, it is 

reasonable to expect individual animals 

to be present at the haulout and in the 

water nearby on multiple days during 

the activities. Therefore, it is more likely 

that there will be multiple takes of a 

smaller number of individuals within 

the project area, such that the number 

of individuals taken would be less than 

one third of the population. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals would be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks in Year 1. 

NMFS also preliminarily finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals 

would be taken relative to the 

population size of the affected species 

or stocks in Year 2. 

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, in 

this case with the West Coast Regional 

Office. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of humpback whales from the Mexico 

and Central America DPSs, which are 

listed under the ESA. The Permits and 

Conservation Division has requested 

initiation of section 7 consultation with 

the West Coast Region for the issuance 

of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the 

ESA consultation prior to reaching a 

determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

two sequential IHAs to the Corps for 

conducting the Sand Island Pile Dikes 

Repairs Project in the lower Columbia 

River, beginning in August 2023, with 

the previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

incorporated. A draft of the proposed 

IHAs can be found at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of 2 proposed 

sequential IHAs for the proposed Sand 

Island Pile Dikes Repairs Project. 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 subsequent renewal IHAs. 

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 28, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14138 Filed 6–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Proposed deletions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase from 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Proposed deletions from the 

Procurement List. 

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing 

to delete a product(s) from the 

Procurement List that were furnished by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES