[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63618-63646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24857]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XR026]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Jordan Cove Energy Project, 
Coos Bay, Oregon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Jordan Cove Energy Project, 
LP (JCEP) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to 
construction of the Jordan Cove Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminal 
and ancillary projects. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an 
incidental harassment authorization (IHA) allowing JCEP to incidentally 
take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also 
requesting comments on a possible one-year Renewal that could be issued 
under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as 
described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. 
NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision 
on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency 
responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision. This 
project is being tracked on the Fast Act Permitting Dashboard which can 
be accessed at https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-projects/jordan-cove-lng-terminal-and-pacific-connector-gas-pipeline.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than December 
18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical

[[Page 63619]]

comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 
20910 and electronic comments should be sent to [email protected].
    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 received electronically, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or 
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the take of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization is provided to the public for 
review. Under the MMPA, take is defined as meaning to harass, hunt, 
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any 
marine mammal.
    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 such 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 such 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 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations 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 IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review.
    We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice 
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the 
IHA request.

Summary of Request

    On April 23, 2019, NMFS received a request from JCEP for an IHA to 
take marine mammals incidental to pile driving associated with the 
Jordan Cove LNG Project, Coos Bay, Oregon. The application was deemed 
adequate and complete on August 16, 2019. JCEP's request is for the 
take of a small number of seven species of marine mammals by Level B 
harassment. Neither JCEP nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality 
to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The 
IHA, if issued, would be effective from October 1, 2020 through 
September 30, 2021.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    JCEP is proposing to construct an LNG terminal in Coos Bay, install 
a pipeline, conduct dredging to allow for a broader operational weather 
window, widen the TransPacific Parkway (TPP) to facilitate construction 
traffic, and carry out two habitat-related compensatory mitigation 
projects. A subset of this work would occur under the proposed IHA. 
Pile driving is the primary means by which marine mammals within Coos 
Bay may be taken by Level B harassment. Work associated with the 
project may occur year-round beginning in October 2020; however, impact 
pile driving is restricted to the in-water work window established to 
protect salmonids (October 1 to February 15, annually). In-water 
vibratory pile driving may occur year-round. Pile driving at various 
locations may occur simultaneously; however, JCEP would only use one 
hammer at any given site.

Dates and Duration

    JCEP currently anticipates that construction for the LNG Terminal 
would begin in 2020, with a target in-service date in the first half of 
2024. JCEP is requesting take that may occur from the pile driving 
activities in the first year of construction (October 1, 2020 through 
September 30, 2021). Conformance to the ODFW regulatory in-water work 
window for dredging and in-water impact driving will be implemented to 
reduce impacts on listed fish species per other permitting authorities. 
The in-water work window is the period of October 1 to February 15, and 
the period outside the in-water work window is February 16 to September 
30.
    JCEP estimates pile driving may occur over 230 days from October 1, 
2020 through September 30, 2021. The majority of this pile driving 
would be at the water's edge but would result in elevated in-water 
noise levels. Pile driving may occur from approximately 10 minutes to 5 
hours per day depending on the pile driving location and pile driving 
method. At any given location, only one hammer will be used.

Specific Geographic Region

    JCEP would construct the LNG terminal and ancillary projects within 
Coos Bay, Oregon. Coos Bay is an approximately 55.28 km\2\ estuary in 
Coos County, Oregon, making it the second largest estuary in Oregon, 
and the sixth largest on the US west coast.

[[Page 63620]]

It is considered the best natural harbor between San Francisco Bay, 
California and the Puget Sound, Washington. The average depth of the 
Coos estuary is approximately 4 m (13 ft) while the shipping channel is 
approximately 13 m (45 ft) deep. The Coos estuary exhibits the typical 
features of a drowned river valley estuary type. It features a V-shaped 
cross section, a relatively shallow and gently sloping estuary bottom, 
and a fairly uniform increase in depth from the upper, river-dominated 
part of the estuary toward the mouth. Large expanses of intertidal sand 
and mud flats complement channels, eelgrass beds, vegetated marshes, 
and swamps to provide a diversity of estuarine habitats. From the 
entrance, the lower bay runs nine miles northeast then swings to the 
south after the McCullough Bridge in North Bend and widens into the 
tide-flat dominated upper bay. The Coos River enters the upper bay near 
the confluence with Catching Slough, about 27.35 km (17 mi) from the 
mouth of the estuary.
    There are four distinct regions in the Coos estuary--Marine, Bay, 
Slough and Riverine--each based on distinct physical features and 
bottom types, salinity gradients, habitats, and dominant species. There 
are no distinct boundaries between the regions, but each has 
distinctive features.
    The highly energetic Marine region extends from the Coos estuary 
mouth up to about river mile (RM) 2.5. Although the estuary entrance is 
protected by jetties, powerful waves nevertheless propagate through the 
mouth during winter storms. Water quality and salinity are similar to 
the open ocean in this region, but it is moderated by rain-fed river 
and stream flow during winter months.
    The Bay region, divided into the Lower Bay and the Upper Bay, is 
characterized by broad, mostly unvegetated (except for intertidal 
eelgrass beds) tidal flats exposed at low tide and flooded by brackish 
water during higher tides. Tidal flats range from sandy to muddy 
throughout the bay, depending on currents and circulation. Sand may be 
either terrestrial (erosional) or carried into the lower bay from 
nearby ocean sources.
    The Lower Bay region begins above RM 2.5 and extends to about the 
railroad bridge at RM 9. Water salinity in this region is slightly 
fresher than in the ocean, whose influence gradually diminishes 
throughout this zone as the distance from the ocean increases.
    The Upper Bay begins at the railroad bridge (RM 9) and extends to 
the southeastern corner of Bull Island at RM 17. Although the shoreline 
has been drastically altered over the past 150 years, the upper bay 
still includes extensive tidal flats, many acres of which are used for 
commercial oyster cultivation. The shipping channel runs along the 
western shore of the upper bay to access the shipping terminals located 
along the developed shorelines of the cities of North Bend and Coos 
Bay.
    The Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) is included in the 
Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan (CBEMP) and is zoned Deep-Draft 
Navigation Channel which is routinely dredged to an average depth of 
11.5 m (38 ft)(MLLW) and width of 300 m (984 ft). The FNC is bounded by 
the North Spit on the west and north, and the mainland to the south and 
east. Along the mainland bounding the FNC are the communities of 
Charleston and Barview, and the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend. The 
Coos Bay FNC extends from the mouth of Coos Bay to the city of Coos Bay 
docks at about Channel Mile (CM) 15.1.
    The peninsula within Coos Bay is heavily developed with 
concentrated urbanization and industrialization areas. A critical 
airport is located across from the proposed LNG terminal. Timber and 
fishing are the foundation of the county's economy and the Port of Coos 
Bay is one of the largest forest products shipper in the world. Some of 
the more commonly abundant fish include Pacific herring (Clupea 
pallasii), and the non-native American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Most 
fish species are migratory or seasonal, spending only part of their 
life in these waters. Other common seasonal marine fish species include 
surfperch (family Embiotocidae), lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), rock 
greenling (Hexagrammos lagocephalus), sculpin, surf smelt (Hypomesus 
pretiosus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), English sole (Parophrys 
vetulus), black rockfish (Sebastes melanops), northern anchovy 
(Engraulis mordax), eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), longfin smelt 
(Spirinchus thaleichthys), Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus), 
sandsole (Psettichthys melanostictus), and topsmelt (Atherinops 
affinis) (Monaco et. al 1990). Clams, crabs, oysters, and shrimp make 
up important components of these invertebrates in the bay. Some of the 
most abundant and commercially important of these species include 
bentnose clams (Macoma nasuta), Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), 
Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister), and ghost shrimp (Neotrypaea 
californiensis) (Monaco et. al. 1990).

[[Page 63621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18NO19.000

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    JCEP is proposing to construct an LNG facility on the bay side of 
the North Spit of Coos Bay at about Channel Mile (CM) 7.3, along the 
existing federal navigation channel. The LNG Terminal would be capable 
of receiving and loading ocean-going LNG carriers, to export LNG to 
Asian markets, and sized to export 7.8 million metric tons of LNG per 
annum. The LNG Terminal is located in what is referenced as Ingram Yard 
in Figure 1 and would include a gas conditioning plant, a utility 
corridor, liquefaction facilities (including five liquefaction trains), 
two full-containment LNG storage tanks, and LNG loading facilities. The 
LNG Terminal also would include a marine slip, access channel, material 
offloading facility (MOF), and temporary materials barge berth (TMBB), 
collectively referred to as the Marine Facilities. It is these Marine 
Facilities which are the focus of JCEP's application as these are 
within or connected to the waters of Coos Bay where marine mammals may 
be present.

Marine Slip

    The marine slip would include the LNG carrier berth, west lay 
berth, a tsunami protection wall, a retaining wall, an LNG loading 
platform, and a tug dock. The new marine slip would be constructed by 
excavating an existing upland area, keeping an earthen berm on the 
southern side intact during construction. The marine slip would be 
separated from the waters of Coos Bay by the earthen berm. The earthen 
berm would be removed during the last year of construction.
    The eastern and western sides of the slip would be formed from 
sheet pile walls. The sheet piles that would be installed at these 
locations are designed to be driven ``in the dry,'' to ensure 
structural integrity. To form these walls, sheet piles would be driven 
with a vibratory hammer into sandy soils that have been loosened with 
an auger drill prior to piling. The sheets would be installed in the 
upland area before excavating the material that eventually would be on 
the waterside of the sheet pile walls (i.e., ``in the dry''); 
therefore, noise transmitted directly through water would be 
eliminated, and noise indirectly reaching the marine environment would 
be greatly reduced or eliminated. In addition, sheet piles would extend 
along the southwestern corner, beyond the marine slip. The construction 
methodology for this area would be similar to the eastern and western 
walls in the slip (i.e., ``in the dry'' construction). For those piles 
that would be installed in the dry but near the shoreline (e.g., the 
sheet piles at the southwestern wall or the MOF face), noise may 
indirectly propagate into the water.
Material Offloading Facility (MOF)
    JCEP would construct a MOF to be used primarily for delivery of 
large and heavy material and equipment shipments during construction 
that cannot be transported by rail or road. The MOF would cover about 3 
acres on the southeastern side of the slip, and vessels calling at the 
MOF also would use the access channel for navigation and berthing 
(Figure 1-2). The MOF

[[Page 63622]]

would be constructed using the same construction methods and sheet pile 
wall system as the eastern and western sides of the slip (see Section 
1.2.1). The top of the MOF would be at elevation 13 feet North American 
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), and the bottom of the exposed wall 
would be at the access channel elevation (-45 NAVD88 or -45 feet mean 
lower low water [MLLW]). The MOF would provide approximately 450 linear 
feet of dock face for the mooring and unloading of a variety of vessel 
types. Under the proposed IHA, all pile driving would be on sediment 
but close to the water's edge (within approximately 30 meters of the 
shoreline but still ``in-the-dry''). Given the potential propagation of 
sound through the water-laden sediments, these piles have been included 
in this analysis.
    During sheet piling for the marine slip and MOF, soil would first 
be loosened with an auger prior to installation of the sheet piles. 
This auguring would be also done in-the-dry but it does not use any 
percussive force; therefore, it is not expected to generate vibration 
that may translate into underwater noise in excess of NMFS thresholds 
in the nearby waters of Coos Bay. In-water geotechnical boring, which 
is a similar non-percussive drilling method to the proposed auguring, 
produces sound levels of 145 decibels re: 1 microPascal (dB 
re:1[micro]Pa) or less at 1 meter (Erbe and McPherson 2017). Since this 
auguring would occur in-the-dry and at 10 meters or more from the 
water's edge, noise levels in Coos Bay from auguring are expected to be 
far less than NMFS harassment thresholds and therefore, auguring is not 
expected to result in harassment of marine mammals and is not discussed 
further.
    To construct the MOF, earthwork equipment would first cut soil from 
the southern portion of the existing dune. Clean sand would be placed 
in the adjacent waterway, to create a work platform extending outside 
the MOF footprint. Riprap or other suitable material would be placed 
temporarily on the face of the slope, to protect sandy material from 
tidal erosion. Using the placed fill to position construction 
equipment, sheet piles would be driven near the edge of Coos Bay, but 
without direct contact with the marine environment, but close enough 
that noise may be generated into the water indirectly. Material from 
the front of the MOF would then be removed to achieve operational depth 
requirements after the sheet piles have relaxed and locked into place. 
After the sheet piles have relaxed, a topping-off operation would occur 
behind the sheet pile wall to approximate elevation +du13 (NAVD88) 
before concrete and rock are placed on top of the MOF.
    A West Berth wall would be construction on the opposite side of the 
marine slip than the MOF and in a manner identical to the MOF (in-the-
dry). The West Berth wall will consist of additional sheet piles 
installed with a vibratory driver after an auger is used to loosen the 
soil. Only the southern end of the West Berth wall is included in this 
analysis as those piles would be near enough to Coos Bay waters to 
potentially cause harassment to marine mammals (Table 1).
Temporary Materials Barge Berth (TMBB)
    The TMBB would be an offloading facility that would be cut from the 
shoreline area near the western edge entrance to the slip (Figure 1-2 
in JCEP's application), to facilitate early construction activities. A 
section large enough to receive and moor the end of an ocean-going 
barge would be excavated. Following the excavation work, up to six 
mooring piles would be installed. Piles would be vibrated in, to the 
maximum extent possible, and then would be impact-driven to depth if 
necessary. All piles would be installed within the footprint of the 
earthen berm and not driven in open water (i.e., in-the-dry). These 
piles would be removed during the berm excavation to open the slip in 
Year 2 of the project which is not considered under this IHA.

                             Table 1--Pile Driving Associated With the LNG Terminal During the 2020-2021 Construction Season
                                                                        [Year 1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Number of
      Pile driving activity             Pile type               Size            Number of     piles driven      Driving type         Water condition
                                                                                  piles          per day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMBB............................  Pipe................  24-in..............               6               1  Vibratory.........  In-the-dry.*
MOF.............................  Sheet...............  N/A................           1,869              13  Vibratory.........  In-the-dry.*
West Berth Southwest Wall.......  Sheet...............  N/A................             113              13  Vibratory.........  In-the-dry.*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Although these piles would not be driven directly in-water, they would be driven in water-laden sediments such that noise could propagate through the
  sediments into the water column, as modeled by JASCO (see Appendix D of JCEP's application).

Ancillary Activities
    JCEP would also conduct ancillary activities to support LNG 
terminal construction. The purpose of these activities includes 
supporting infrastructure and dredge disposal. During the effective 
period of the IHA, pile driving would be required for the widening of 
the TransPacific Parkway (TPP) and U.S. Highway 101 (US-101) 
Intersection and at two sites used for dredge disposal. The purpose of 
the (TPP/US-101) widening work is to provide safe ingress/egress for 
construction traffic by creating a left-turn lane from TPP onto 
northbound US-101 and a right-turn lane from US-101 onto TPP. The 
dredge disposal sites would require a small amount of pile driving to 
construct the support trestle.

TransPacific Parkway/US-101 Intersection Widening

    The TPP/US101 work would occur in the northern part of Coos Bay 
(Figure 1). Traffic surveys and studies of projected construction 
traffic have determined that the intersection of US-101 and TPP (Figure 
1-1) would need to be improved to accommodate delivery of materials for 
LNG terminal construction and operation. These improvements would 
involve widening the TPP on the northern side to provide a left-turn 
lane onto northbound US-101, a wider turning radius from southbound US-
101 onto the TPP, two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, a 14-foot-wide left-
turn lane and widened shoulders with guardrails. The road bases of both 
the TPP and US-101 are causeways comprised of berms with two openings: 
One at the western end of TPP before it reaches land (approximately 90 
meters wide) and one south of TPP along US-101 (approximately 210 
meters wide). All the construction work related to the road 
improvements will be on the inside of the embayment of the road berms 
with limited connectivity to the rest of the Bay.
    Embankment widening on the northern side of the causeway would be 
supported with a grid of approximately

[[Page 63623]]

1,150 untreated timber pilings. No treated timbers would be used. The 
untreated timber piles would be approximately 30 feet long and 14 
inches in diameter at the top. The grid of timber pilings would be 
capped with a riprap embankment, providing a foundation to widen the 
roadway to the north. The timber pilings would be driven into the Bay 
mud using a vibratory and impact hammer within a temporary, outer sheet 
pile ``work isolation containment system'' (cofferdam). The sheet pile 
cofferdam would be installed with a vibratory hammer, and the work area 
would be surrounded by a turbidity curtain.
    To create the cofferdam, approximately 311 sheet pile sections 
would be installed over approximately 11 days of pile-driving. The 
cofferdam is expected to be in place for approximately 1 year. After 
construction in the cofferdam is completed, the sheet piles would be 
cut at the mudline during low tides using a crane on the shoulder of 
the TPP. Removal of the cofferdam would be done during the Year 2 
construction season.
    To construct the timber pile grid, the contractor would construct a 
work access bridge as pile driving progresses parallel to the TPP, on 
the inside of the bermed road. The work bridge would consist of thirty-
six 24-inch piles. The piles would be installed using a combination of 
vibratory and impact driving. A bubble curtain attenuator (BCA) would 
be used during impact driving as these piles will be in-water piles and 
installed during the ODFW in-water work window. The work bridge would 
be temporary and would be in place for approximately 1 year. Pile 
removal would be done using vibratory methods or cutting below the 
mudline during the Year 2 construction season which is not addressed in 
this IHA.

Dredging

    Four permanent dredge areas adjacent to the federal navigation 
channel (FNC) would be dredged over multiple years to allow for 
navigation efficiency and reliability for vessel transit under a 
broader weather window (labeled as Dredge Areas 1 through 4 on Figure 
1-1 in JCEP's application). We note the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(USACE) dredges the federal navigation channel to maintain navigable 
depths, not JCEP; therefore dredging the FNC is not part of the 
specified activities.
    Each of the dredge areas consists of expanding the depth 
immediately adjacent to an existing channel turn or bend. The access 
channel is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); 
maintenance dredging by the USACE is not part of the specified 
activity. The following dredging work has been identified by JCEP as 
part of the proposed project.
    JCEP would dredge approximately 372,900 cubic yards (CY) of 
material, of which the majority is very soft sandstone or siltstone and 
the rest is sand, from four locations in Coos Bay (Dredge Areas 1-4 in 
Figure 1) over four years, including during the effective period of the 
proposed IHA. Dredge Area 1--JCEP proposes to widen the Coos Bay 
channel from the current width of 300 feet to 450 feet, thereby making 
it easier for all vessels transiting the area to make the turn into the 
estuary. In addition, the total corner cutoff on the Coos Bay Range 
side would be lengthened from the current 850 feet to about 1,400 feet 
from the turn's apex. Dredge Area 2--the current corner cutoff distance 
from the apex of this turn is about 500 feet, making it difficult for 
vessels to begin turning sufficiently early to be able to make the turn 
and be properly positioned in the center of the next channel range. 
JCEP proposes to widen the turn area from the Coos Bay Range to the 
Empire Range from the current width of 400 feet to 600 feet at the apex 
of the turn and lengthen the total corner cutoff area from the current 
1,000 feet to about 3,500 feet. Dredge Area 3--JCEP proposes to add a 
corner cut on the west side in this area that would be about 1,150 
feet, thereby providing additional room for vessels to make this turn. 
Dredge Area 4--JCEP proposes to widen the turn area here from the 
current 500 feet to 600 feet at the apex of the turn and lengthen the 
total corner cutoff area of the turn from the current 1,125 feet to 
about 1,750 feet, thereby allowing vessels to begin their turn in this 
area earlier.
    Two methods of dredging are identified as the most practical, given 
the historical dredging practices in the region, the material types 
being dredged, and the location and condition of the placement sites. 
The primary method utilized will be hydraulic cutter suction dredging, 
but mechanical dredging via clamshell or excavator is also likely to be 
used to a limited extent.
    JCEP has not requested, and NMFS does not propose to issue, take 
from the proposed dredging. NMFS has elected to include some mitigation 
to prevent physical injury or entrapment from dredging (see Proposed 
Mitigation section); however, marine mammals would unlikely be taken, 
by harassment, by dredging. Cetaceans are rare in Coos Bay and the only 
pinniped with common occurrence are harbor seals. USACE channel 
maintenance dredging is a common occurrence in Coos Bay and seals are 
likely habituated to this activity. Further, any dredging by JCEP would 
occur at least 500 m from any harbor seal haul-out, and dredging would 
not occur during the harbor seal pupping season. As such, dredging is 
not discussed further in this notice other than in the Proposed 
Mitigation section.

APCO 1 and APCO 2 Sites--Dredged Material Disposal Site Preparation

    A primary location for disposal of dredged material from the NRIs 
would be at two APCO sites (APCO Site 1 and APCO Site 2, collectively 
referred to as the APCO sites) east of the Southwest Oregon Regional 
Airport (Figure 1). Management of dredge material at the APCO sites 
would require construction of a single-lane permanent bridge, and a 
temporary bridge would be needed to construct the permanent bridge (see 
Figure 1-5 in JCEP's application). The temporary work bridge would be 
approximately 30 feet wide and 280 feet long, begin and end on dry 
land, and would require installation of twelve 24-inch-diameter steel 
piles below the highest measured tide (HMT) boundary. These would be 
in-water piles and would be installed during the ODFW in-water work 
window (October 1-February 15). Steel piles would be driven with a 
vibratory hammer and may be tested with impact pile drivers to 
determine whether they have been set properly. If impact driving is 
necessary for installation due to substrate conditions, a BCA would be 
used. The temporary work bridge would be in place for less than 24 
months and would be removed using vibratory methods. The permanent 
bridge would be 200 feet long and nearly 40.5 feet wide, would span the 
tidal mudflat, and would provide access to and from the disposal sites. 
Because the permanent bridge would span the tidal mudflat, no in-water 
pile driving would be required for its construction.
    If dredged material is offloaded from a barge/scow, a temporary 
dredge offload facility would need to be constructed, to hydraulically 
transfer dredge material. Approximately 16 temporary in-water piles 
and/or spuds that would be 24 inches in diameter would be used to moor 
the facility and barges. Additionally, the Temporary Dredge Transfer 
Line will need to be placed across an eelgrass bed at the APCO sites to 
minimize impacts, so a support cradle for the Temporary Dredge Transfer 
Line will be needed which will require five 24-inch temporary piles. 
These five piles would be installed with a vibratory hammer during the 
in-water work window.

[[Page 63624]]

    Table 2 summarizes the pile driving associated with the ancillary 
activities. Only the installation of piles associated with the TPP/US-
101 widening and APCO Sites 1 and 2 would occur during the effective 
period of the IHA. All piles would be driven in the water except for 
the timber piles at the TPP/US-101, which would be driven behind a 
partially dewatered cofferdam. All impact driving of pipe piles would 
be done within a bubble curtain and driven during the ODFW in-water 
work window.

                                               Table 2--Pile Driving Associated With Ancillary Activities
                                                      [TPP/US1010 Widening and APCO Sites 1 and 2]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Number of     Piles driven
          Ancillary activity                    Pile type                   Size                piles          per day              Driving type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPP/US-101 Widening:
    Roadway Grid......................  Timber...................  14[dash]inch..........           1,150              20  Impact and vibratory.
    Cofferdam.........................  Sheet....................  NA....................             311              20  Vibratory.
    Work Access Bridge................  Pipe.....................  24[dash]inch..........              36               4  Vibratory and Impact.
APCO 1 and APCO 2 Sites
    Temporary Work Bridge.............  Pipe.....................  24[dash]inch..........              12               4  Vibratory.
    Dredge Line Support Cradle........  Pipe.....................  24[dash]inch..........               5               4  Vibratory.
    Dredge Offloading Area............  Pipe.....................  24[dash]inch..........              16               4  Vibratory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 summarizes all pile installation work associated with the 
terminal and ancillary activities. At any given site, only one hammer 
would be operating although pile driving may be simultaneously 
occurring at multiple sites.

                               Table 3--Total Piles Associated With the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Ancillary Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Duration
                Method                         Pile type          In-the-dry vs in-water  Total piles          Location           Driving    driving per
                                                                   vs behind cofferdam?                                            days a     day  (min)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      LNG Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory............................  Sheet Pile..............  In-the-dry.............        1,246  MOF (outside in water             97          309
                                                                                                        work window).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory............................  Sheet Pile..............  In-the-dry.............          623  MOF (inside in water              48          309
                                                                                                        work window).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory............................  Sheet Pile..............  In-the-dry.............          113  W. berth wall, 2.5%              8.5          329
                                                                                                        nearest berm (outside
                                                                                                        in water work window).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory............................  Pipe Pile...............  In-the-dry.............            6  TMBB mooring pile                 10            9
                                                                                                        (inside in water work
                                                                                                        window).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Ancillary Activities (all would occur inside in-water work window)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact...............................  Timber..................  Behind cofferdam.......        1,150  TPP/US-101 intersection           60           50
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Vibratory............................                                                                                                    60          100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory............................  Sheet Pile..............  In-water...............          311  TPP/US-101 intersection           16          100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact...............................  Pipe Pile...............  In-water with BCA (for            36  TPP/US-101 intersection            9           20
                                                                  impact driving).
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Vibratory............................                                                                                                     9           80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory............................  Pipe Pile...............  In-water...............           33  APCO sites.............            9           30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. May occur concurrently with other pile-driving activities but only one pile hammer would be operating in any given area.
TPP/US-101--TransPacific Parkway/U.S. Highway 101.
MOF--Material Offloading Facility.
TMBB--Temporary Material Barge Berth.
LNG Terminal--Liquid Natural Gas Terminal.
BCA--Bubble Curtain Attenuation or equivalent.


[[Page 63625]]

    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

    Systematic marine mammal surveys in Coos Bay are limited; 
therefore, JCEP conducted seasonal multi-day surveys in support of the 
IHA application and relied on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(ODFW) aerial surveys as well as anecdotal reports (e.g., media 
reports) to better understand marine mammal presence in Coos Bay. Based 
on these data, seven marine mammal species comprising seven stocks have 
the potential to occur within Coos Bay during the project.
    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. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 4 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
Coos Bay and summarizes information related to the population or stock, 
including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential 
biological removal (PBR) values, where known. For taxonomy, we follow 
Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum 
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's 
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS's U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 2018 (e.g., 
Carretta et al., 2019). All values presented in Table 4 are the most 
recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 
most recent SARs.

                           Table 4--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present Within Coos Bay during LNG Terminal Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Stock abundance  (CV,
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;      Nmin, most recent               Annual M/
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock            Strategic (Y/N) 1    abundance survey) 2      PBR        SI 3
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  N, N..............  26,960 (0.05, 25,849,         801        139
                                                                                                             2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Killer Whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  West Coast Transient...  N, N..............  521 (-, 243, 2012)....        2.4          0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  Northern CA/Southern OR  N, N..............  35,769 (0.52, 23,749,         475      >=0.6
                                                                                                             2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    Northern elephant seal..........  Mirounga angustirostris  California breeding....  N, N..............  179,000 (n/a, 81,368,       4,882        8.8
                                                                                                             2010).
    Steller sea lion................  Eumetopias jubatus.....  Eastern U.S............  ..................  41638 (-, 41,638,             498        247
                                                                                                             2015).
    California sea lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  N, N..............  257,606 (n/a, 233,515,     14,011      >=321
                                                                                                             2014).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Pacific harbor seal.............  Phoca vitulina.........  Oregon/Washington        N, N..............  24,732 (unk, -, 1999)         unk        unk
                                                                Coastal.                                     \5\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case]
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ The minimum population estimate (NMIN) for the West Coast Transient stock of killer whales is derived from mark-recapture analysis for West Coast
  transient population whales from the inside waters of Alaska and British Columbia of 243 whales (95% probability interval = 180-339) in 2006 (DFO
  2009), which includes animals found in Canadian waters.
\5\ Because the most recent abundance estimate is >8 years old (1999), there is no current estimate of abundance available for this stock. However, for
  purposes of our analysis, we apply the previous abundance estimate (24,732) which accounts for animals in water during aerial surveys.

    As described below, all seven species comprising seven stocks 
temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that 
take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing 
it.

Gray Whales

    Gray whales are only commonly found in the North Pacific. Genetic 
comparisons indicate there are distinct

[[Page 63626]]

``Eastern North Pacific'' (ENP) and ``Western North Pacific'' (WNP) 
population stocks, with differentiation in both mtDNA haplotype and 
microsatellite allele frequencies (LeDuc et al. 2002; Lang et al. 
2011a; Weller et al. 2013). Tagging, photo-identification and genetic 
studies show that some whales identified in the WNP off Russia have 
been observed in the ENP, including coastal waters of Canada, the U.S. 
and Mexico (e.g., Lang 2010; Mate et al. 2011; Weller et al. 2012; 
Urb[aacute]n et al. 2013, Mate et al. 2015). WNP gray whales are not 
expected to enter Coos Bay and therefore will not be discussed further.
    From 2009 to 2013, researcher attached satellite tags to 35 gray 
whales off the coasts of Oregon and northern California from September 
to December 2009, 2012, and 2013 (Lagerquist et al., 2019). These 
whales are members of the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG), a subset 
of gray whales in the ENP that feed off the PNW, during summer and 
fall. Tracking periods for the satellite[hyphen]tagged whales in this 
study ranged from 3 days to 383 days. Feeding[hyphen]area home ranges 
for the resulting 23 whales covered most of the near[hyphen]shore 
waters from northern California to Icy Bay, Alaska, and ranged in size 
from 81[thinsp]km\2\ to 13,634[thinsp]km\2\. Core areas varied widely 
in size (11-3,976[thinsp]km\2\) and location between individuals, with 
the highest[hyphen]use areas off Point St. George in northern 
California, the central coast of Oregon, and the southern coast of 
Washington. Tag data indicates whales primarily occupied waters 
predominantly over continental shelf waters less than 10[thinsp]km from 
shore and in depths less than 50[thinsp]m. Gray whales undertake annual 
migrations from northern feeding waters, primarily in the Bering, 
Chukchi, and western Beaufort seas during the summer, before heading 
south to breeding and calving grounds off Mexico over the winter. 
Between December and January, late-stage pregnant females, adult males, 
and immature females and males migrate southward. The northward 
migration occurs in two stages between February and late May. The first 
group, consisting of adult males and immature females, moves north in 
this stage, while females with calves spend more time in southern 
waters and travel north later (Calambokidis et al. 2014).
    Gray whales enter larger bays such as San Francisco Bay during 
their northward and southward migration. Although Coos Bay is not a 
common stopping point, the Corvallis Gazette-Times (2000) reported that 
a gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) entered Coos Bay and traveled 15 
miles from the mouth into the estuary in June 2000. Furthermore, a 
local television station (KCBY, North Bend) reported a gray whale 
occurrence in Coos Bay in November 2009, although this has not been 
verified. The November 2009 observation likely occurred during the gray 
whale's southbound migration, while the observation in June 2000 
probably was during the northbound migration, both of which occur in 
near-shore waters off the coast of Oregon.
    Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred 
along the west coast of North America from Mexico through Alaska. This 
event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME). A UME is 
defined under the MMPA as a stranding that is unexpected; involves a 
significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and demands 
immediate response. As of September 30, 2019, 121 gray whales have 
stranded in the U.S. between Alaska and California with an additional 
10 strandings in Canada and 81 in Mexico. Of the U.S. strandings, six 
of the animals have been found in Oregon. Full or partial necropsy 
examinations were conducted on a subset of the whales. Preliminary 
findings in several of the whales have shown evidence of emaciation. 
These findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, so 
more research is needed. Threats to gray whales include ship strike, 
fishery gear entanglement, and climate change-related impacts such as 
reduction in prey availability, and increased human activity in the 
Arctic (Caretta et. al., 2019).
    Gray whales belonging to the ENP stock are not listed as endangered 
or threatened under the ESA nor designated as depleted or strategic 
under the MMPA. The stock is within its OSP range. Punt and Wade (2012) 
estimated the ENP population was at 85 percent of carrying capacity (K) 
and at 129 percent of the maximum net productivity level (MNPL), with a 
probability of 0.884 that the population is above MNPL and therefore 
within the range of its optimum sustainable population (OSP). In 2018, 
the IWC approved a 7-year quota (2019-2025) of 980 gray whales landed, 
with an annual cap of 140, for Russian and U.S. (Makah Indian Tribe) 
aboriginals based on the joint request and needs statements submitted 
by the U.S. and the Russian Federation. The U.S. and the Russian 
Federation have agreed that the quota will be shared with an average 
annual harvest of 135 whales by the Russian Chukotka people and 5 
whales by the Makah Indian Tribe. Total takes by the Russian hunt 
during the past five years were: 143 in 2012, 127 in 2013, 124 in 2014, 
125 in 2015, and 120 in 2016 (IWC). There were no whales taken by the 
Makah Indian Tribe during that period because their hunt request is 
still under review. Other sources of mortality and serious injury 
include commercial fishery interaction, ingestion of marine debris, and 
nearshore industrialization and shipping congestion throughout gray 
whale migratory corridors leading to increased exposure to pollutants 
and ship strikes, as well as a general habitat degradation. In 
addition, the Arctic climate which include part of this stock's range 
is changing significantly, resulting in a reductions in sea ice cover 
that are likely to affect gray whale populations (Johannessen et al. 
2004, Comiso et al. 2008).

Killer Whales

    Killer whales are found throughout the North Pacific. Along the 
west coast of North America, killer whales occur along the entire 
Alaskan coast (Braham and Dahlheim 1982), in British Columbia and 
Washington inland waterways (Bigg et al. 1990), and along the outer 
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Green et al. 1992; Barlow 
1995, 1997; Forney et al. 1995). Seasonal and year-round occurrence has 
been noted for killer whales throughout Alaska (Braham and Dahlheim 
1982) and in the intracoastal waterways of British Columbia and 
Washington State, where whales have been labeled as `resident,' 
`transient,' and `offshore' type killer whales (Bigg et al., 1990) 
based on aspects of morphology, ecology, genetics, and behavior. Within 
the transient ecotype, association data (Ford et al. 1994, Ford and 
Ellis 1999, Matkin et al. 1999), acoustic data (Saulitis 1993, Ford and 
Ellis 1999) and genetic data (e.g., Hoelzel et al. 1998) confirm that 
at least three communities of transient whales exist and represent 
three discrete populations: (1) Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and 
Bering Sea transients, (2) AT1 transients, and (3) West Coast 
transients. For purposes of this analysis, we limit our assessment to 
West Coast transients based on project location.
    Killer whales belonging to the transient stock have been documented 
as occurring in Coos Bay. In May 2017, a pair of killer whales was 
observed feeding on what was concluded to be a seal (AECOM 2017). The 
whales moved through the estuary northwards past Jordan Cove to the 
Highway 101 Bridge. However, the whales are not known to linger in the 
area and no biologically important habitat for this stock exists in 
Coos Bay. No killer whales were

[[Page 63627]]

observed during AECOM's November/December 2018 surveys.
    Killer whales are not listed as endangered or threatened under the 
ESA nor designated as depleted or strategic under the MMPA. Primary 
threats include commercial fishery and vessel interactions. Human-
caused mortality has been underestimated, primarily due to a lack of 
information on Canadian fisheries, and that the minimum abundance 
estimate is considered conservative (because researchers continue to 
encounter new whales and provisionally classified whales from western 
Alaska, southeastern Alaska, and off the coast of California were not 
included), resulting in a conservative PBR estimate.

Harbor Porpoise

    In the Pacific Ocean, harbor porpoise are found in coastal and 
inland waters from Point Conception, California to Alaska and across to 
Kamchatka and Japan (Gaskin 1984). There are several stocks of harbor 
porpoise along the west coast of the U.S. and in inland waterways. 
While harbor porpoise are rare within Coos Bay, if present, animals are 
likely belonging to the Northern California/Southern Oregon stock which 
is delimited from Port Arena, California in the south to Lincoln City, 
Oregon, approximately 230 miles north of the project site. Use of 
Oregon estuaries by harbor porpoise are not common; especially in Coos 
Bay, are not common (e.g., Bayer, 1985). No harbor porpoise were 
observed during the AECOM May 2017, or November/December 2018, vessel-
based line transect surveys.
    Harbor porpoise in northern California/southern Oregon are not 
listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA nor as depleted under 
the MMPA. The northern California portion of this harbor porpoise stock 
was determined to be within their Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) 
level in the mid-1990s (Barlow and Forney, 1994), based on a lack of 
significant anthropogenic mortality. There are no known habitat issues 
that are presently of concern for this stock, although harbor porpoise 
are sensitive to disturbance by anthropogenic sound sources, such as 
those generated during the installation and operation of marine 
renewable energy facilities (Teilmann and Carstensen, 2012). The stock 
is not known to exceed 10 percent of the calculated PBR (15.1) and, 
therefore, can be considered to be insignificant and approaching zero 
mortality and serious injury rate (Carretta et al., 2015).

Northern Elephant Seal

    Northern elephant seals belonging to the California breeding stock 
are found occasionally in Oregon either resting or molting (shedding 
their hair) on sandy beaches. Elephant seals do not generally breed in 
Oregon, however there are a number of breeding sites in California such 
as A[ntilde]o Nuevo State Reserve. Cape Arago State Park, just south of 
the entrance to Coos Bay, is the only spot where northern elephant 
seals haul-out year-around in Oregon. The majority of the elephant 
seals seen in Oregon are sub-adult animals that come to shore to molt. 
Northern elephant seals regularly occur at haul-out sites on Cape 
Arago, approximately 3.7 miles south of the entrance to Coos Bay.
    Scordino (2006) reported total counts (average, maximum, minimum) 
of harbor seal, elephant seal, California sea lion, and Steller sea 
lion at Cape Arago during each month surveyed between 2002 and 2005 
(Figure 4-2 in JCEP's application). Abundance of elephant seals was low 
in all months, with a maximum of 54 animals reported in May (Scordino, 
2006). No Northern elephant seals have been observed within Coos Bay; 
however, given their close proximity to the mouth of the estuary, they 
have been included in this analysis.
    Northern elephant seals are not listed as endangered or threatened 
under the ESA nor designated as depleted under the MMPA. Because their 
annual human-caused mortality (>=8.8) is much less than the calculated 
PBR for this stock (4,882), northern elephant seals are not considered 
a ``strategic'' stock under the MMPA. Threats to Northern elephant 
seals include commercial and recreational fisheries, marine debris 
entanglement, direct intentional mortality and injury (e.g., 
shootings), power plant entrainment; and oil/tar exposure (Carretta et 
al. 2014b). The population continues to grow, with most births 
occurring at southern California rookeries (Lowry et al. 2014). There 
are no known habitat issues that are of concern for this stock.

California Sea Lion

    California sea lions are distributed along the North Pacific waters 
from central Mexico to southeast Alaska, with breeding areas restricted 
primarily to island areas off southern California (the Channel 
Islands), Baja California, and in the Gulf of California (Wright et 
al., 2010). California sea lions are dark brown with broad fore 
flippers and a long, narrow snout. There are five genetically distinct 
geographic populations. The population seen in Oregon is the Pacific 
Temperate stock, which are commonly seen in Oregon from September 
through May (ODFW 2015).
    Almost all California sea lions in the Pacific Northwest are sub-
adult or adult males (NOAA 2008). The occurrence of the California sea 
lion along the Oregon coast is seasonal with lowest abundance in Oregon 
in the summer months, from May to September, as they migrate south to 
the Channel Islands in California to breed. During other times of the 
year, the primary areas where it comes ashore are Cascade Head, 
Tillamook County; Cape Arago, Coos County; and Rouge Reef and Orford 
Reef in Curry County.
    The California sea lions stock has been growing steadily since the 
1970s. The stock is estimated to be approximately 40 percent above its 
maximum net productivity level (MNPL = 183,481 animals), and it is 
therefore considered within the range of its optimum sustainable 
population (OSP) size (Laake et al. 2018). The stock is also near its 
estimated carrying capacity of 275,298 animals (Laake et al. 2018). 
However, there remain many threats to California sea lions including 
entanglement, intentional kills, harmful algal blooms, and climate 
change. For example, for each 1 degree Celsius increase in sea surface 
temperature (SST), the estimated odds of survival declined by 50 
perfect for pups and yearlings, while negative SST anomalies resulted 
in higher survival estimates (DeLong et al. 2017). Such declines in 
survival are related to warm oceanographic conditions (e.g., El 
Ni[ntilde]o) that limit prey availability to pregnant and lactating 
females (DeLong et al. 2017). Changes in prey abundance and 
distribution have been linked to warm-water anomalies in the California 
Current that have impacted a wide range of marine taxa (Cavole et al. 
2016).
    California sea lions are not listed as endangered or threatened 
under the ESA nor designated as depleted under the MMPA Threats to this 
species include incidental catch and entanglement in fishing gear, such 
as gillnets; biotoxins, as a result of harmful algal blooms; 
intentional mortality (e.g., gunshot wounds and other human-caused 
injuries), as California sea lions are sometimes viewed as a nuisance 
by commercial fishermen (NOAA 2016). Between 2013 to 2016, NMFS 
declared a UME for California sea lions in southern California. The 
likely cause was a change in the availability of sea lion prey, 
especially sardines, a high value food source for nursing mothers, is a 
likely contributor to the large number of strandings. Sardine spawning 
grounds shifted further offshore in 2012

[[Page 63628]]

and 2013, and while other prey were available (market squid and 
rockfish), these may not have provided adequate nutrition in the milk 
of sea lion mothers supporting pups, or for newly-weaned pups foraging 
on their own.
    During the four-day 2017, May AECOM surveys, two California sea 
lions were observed while on-effort during the vessel-based line 
transect surveys while eight animals were observed off-effort. No 
California sea lions were observed during the three-day November/
December 2018, surveys.

Steller Sea Lion

    The Steller sea lion range extends along the Pacific Rim, from 
northern Japan to central California. For management purposes, Steller 
sea lions inhabiting U.S. waters have been divided into two DPS: The 
Western U.S. and the Eastern U.S. The population known to occur within 
the Lower Columbia River is the Eastern DPS. The Western U.S. stock of 
Steller sea lions are listed as endangered under the ESA and depleted 
and strategic under the MMPA. The Eastern U.S. stock was de-listed in 
2013 following a population growth from 18,000 in 1979 to 70,000 in 
2010 (an estimated annual growth of 4.18 percent) (NOAA 2013). A 
population growth model indicates the eastern stock of Steller sea 
lions increased at a rate of 4.76 percent per year (95 percent 
confidence intervals of 4.09-5.45 percent) between 1989 and 2015 based 
on an analysis of pup counts in California, Oregon, British Columbia, 
and Southeast Alaska (Muto et al., 2017). This stock is likely within 
its Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP); however, no determination of 
its status relative to OSP has been made (Muto et al., 2017).
    Steller sea lions can be found along the Oregon coast year-round 
with breeding occurring in June and July. The southern coast of Oregon 
supports the largest Steller breeding sites in U.S. waters south of 
Alaska, producing some 1,500 pups annually. Near the entrance of Coos 
Bay, Steller sea lions can be found year round at Cape Arago State 
Park. Steller sea lions may occasionally enter Coos Bay; however, no 
long term residency patterns have been observed.
    Threats to Steller sea lions include boat/ship strikes, 
contaminants/pollutants, habitat degradation, illegal hunting/shooting, 
offshore oil and gas exploration, and interactions (direct and 
indirect) with fisheries (Muto et al., 2017).
    During the four-day May 2017, AECOM surveys, a single Steller sea 
lion was observed while off-effort during the vessel-based line 
transect surveys. No Steller sea lions were observed during the three-
day November/December 2018, surveys.

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters off Baja 
California, north along the western coasts of the continental U.S., 
British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska, west through the Gulf of Alaska 
and Aleutian Islands, and in the Bering Sea north to Cape Newenham and 
the Pribilof Islands (Caretta et al., 2014). Within U.S. west coast 
waters, five stocks of harbor seals are recognized: (1) Southern Puget 
Sound (south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge); (2) Washington Northern 
Inland Waters (including Puget Sound north of the Tacoma Narrows 
Bridge, the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca); (3) Hood 
Canal; (4) Oregon/Washington Coast; and (5) California. Seals belonging 
to the Oregon/Washington Coast stock are included in this analysis.
    Harbor seals generally are non-migratory, with local movements 
associated with tides, weather, season, food availability, and 
reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981). 
Harbor seals do not make extensive pelagic migrations, though some long 
distance movement of tagged animals in Alaska (900 km) and along the 
U.S. west coast (up to 550 km) have been recorded (Brown and Mate 1983, 
Herder 1986, Womble 2012). Harbor seals have also displayed strong 
fidelity to haulout sites (Pitcher and Calkins 1979, Pitcher and 
McAllister 1981).
    The Pacific harbor seal is the most widespread and abundant 
resident pinniped in Oregon. They haul-out to rest at low tide on sand 
bars in most bays and estuaries along the Oregon coast. They are also 
found on nearshore rocks and islands usually within 3 miles of the 
coast. Females are mature at around age 4 and give birth to one pup 
each year. In Oregon, pups are born in late March through April. 
Nursing pups remain with their mothers for 4 to 6 weeks and are then 
weaned to forage and survive on their own. Pups are precocious at 
birth, capable of swimming and following their mothers into the water 
immediately after birth. Females leave their pups at haul-outs or along 
sandy beaches while searching for food.
    Within Coos Bay, four harbor seal haul-out sites have been 
identified by ODFW; three of which have documented pup sightings. From 
the inlet to the upper Bay, these are South Slough (southeast of the 
entrance channel), Pigeon Point, Clam Island, and Coos Port (see Figure 
4-1 in JCEP's application). The Clam Island and Pigeon Point haul-outs 
flank each side of the FNC. The Pigeon Point haulout is inundated at 
high tide but Clam Island and Coos Port are not; these haulouts are 
available at those locations during high tides. The closest haul-out to 
the LNG Terminal is the northern end of Clam Island, an estimated three 
miles from the project site. Some of the ancillary features are closer, 
such as the NRIs, which are about 0.5 to 1 mile from Clam Island. South 
Slough is well south of any activities involved with the project.
    Harbor seals generally forage within close proximity to their haul-
outs. For example, a study of radio tagged harbor seals in San 
Francisco Bay found that the majority of foraging trips were less than 
10 km from their regular haul-out (Grigg et al. 2012), and a similar 
study in Humboldt Bay found that the majority of seals travelled 13 km 
or less to forage (Ougzin 2013). Both studies found that harbors seals 
typically forage at in relatively shallow water depths; a median value 
of 7 m was reported for the San Francisco Bay Study (Grigg et al. 
2012).
    It is suspected the ``resident'' population of 300-400 harbor seals 
use Coos Bay year-round with habitat use including breeding, pupping, 
and foraging. The most recent haul-out counts were conducted by ODFW in 
May and June 2014 (Table 5). In 2014, 333 seals were observed at Coos 
Bay haulouts in June (Wright, pers comm, August 27, 2019). May yielded 
slightly higher numbers, as expected since it is closer to peak pupping 
season; however, the South Slough haulout site was not surveyed in May 
due to fog. To account for animals in water and not counted in the 
survey, we applied a 1.53 correction factor to the total June count, as 
described in Huber et al. (2001) and was done by ODFW to estimate total 
number of seals along the Oregon and Washington Coast based on 2014 
aerial haulout surveys (see http://geo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=1899a537f0a046499312b988df7ed405). This yields a June 
Coos Bay harbor seal abundance of 509 (333 seals x 1.53).

[[Page 63629]]



                   Table 5--Harbor Seal Counts From Aerial Survey Data--ODFW May and June 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    May 22, 2014                           June 5, 2014
           Haul-out site           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Total                   Pups               Total           Pups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clam Island.......................  287..................  87...................             214              40
Coos Port.........................  48...................  7....................              75              14
Pigeon Point......................  17...................  6....................               0               0
South Slough......................  n/a (fog)............  n/a (fog)............              44               8
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coos Bay Total................  352..................  100..................             333              62
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Coos Bay Total (with        539..................  n/a..................             509             n/a
         correction factor).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JCEP also sponsored marine mammal presence and abundance data 
collection throughout Coos Bay in 2017 and 2018. Appendix A of JCEP's 
application contains the field reports from those efforts. These 
surveys were vessel-based line transect surveys. Observations made by 
AECOM during May 2017 site-specific surveys found similar patterns to 
the ODFW aerial surveys. More than 300 observations of harbor seals 
were recorded in the estuary over the four days of survey. AECOM 
conducted additional surveys during November and December 2018 to 
establish a fall/winter local abundance estimate for harbor seals. A 
maximum of 167 seals were hauled-out between the Clam Island and Pigeon 
Point haul-outs at any one time. ODFW indicates it is likely many 
harbor seals are year-round residents in Coos Bay and rely on these 
waters for all life stages and behaviors including, by not limited to, 
breeding, pupping, and foraging.
    Harbor seals are not listed as endangered or threatened under the 
ESA nor designated as depleted under the MMPA. Current threats include 
commercial fisheries, research fisheries, gillnet tribal fishery, 
direct mortality (e.g., shootings), and ship strike. The stock was 
previously reported to be within its Optimum Sustainable Population 
(OSP) range (Jeffries et al. 2003, Brown et al. 2005), but in the 
absence of recent abundance estimates, this stock's status relative to 
OSP is unknown.

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine 
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect 
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided 
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated 
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, 
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB 
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception 
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was 
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall 
et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their 
associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 6.

                  Table 6--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
                              [NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Hearing group                 Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans         7 Hz to 35 kHz.
 (baleen whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans         150 Hz to 160 kHz.
 (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
 whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true  275 Hz to 160 kHz.
 porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
 cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
 cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater)   50 Hz to 86 kHz.
 (true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater)  60 Hz to 39 kHz.
 (sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
  composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
  species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
  hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
  composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
  cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

    The phocid pinniped functional hearing group was modified from 
Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid 
species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of 
hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 
2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. 
Seven marine mammal species (three cetacean and four pinniped (three 
otariid and one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-
occur with the proposed survey activities--please refer to Table 4. Of 
the cetacean species that may be present, one is classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), one is classified as 
mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species and 
the sperm whale), and one is classified as high-

[[Page 63630]]

frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment 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 by Incidental Harassment 
section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 
regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive 
success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on 
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.

Description of Sound Sources

    This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the 
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this 
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified 
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified 
activity on marine mammals found later in this document. For general 
information on sound and its interaction with the marine environment, 
please see, e.g., Au and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. (1995); 
Urick (1983).
    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are 
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number 
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and 
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the 
distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave 
(length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths 
than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more 
rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the 
height of the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is 
represented by the decibel (dB). A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is 
described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a reference 
pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa)), and is 
a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; 
therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes 
in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the SPL referenced 
at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa), while 
the received level is the SPL at the listener's position (referenced to 
1 [mu]Pa).
    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over 
the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring 
all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the 
square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for 
both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all 
values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of 
pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often 
used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because 
behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be 
better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
    Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s) 
represents the total energy in a stated frequency band over a stated 
time interval or event, and considers both intensity and duration of 
exposure. The per-pulse SEL is calculated over the time window 
containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 percent of the acoustic energy). 
SEL is a cumulative metric; it can be accumulated over a single pulse, 
or calculated over periods containing multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 
represents the total energy accumulated by a receiver over a defined 
time window or during an event. Peak sound pressure (also referred to 
as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum instantaneous 
sound pressure measurable in the water at a specified distance from the 
source, and is represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure.
    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure 
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the 
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a 
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either 
directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions 
(omnidirectional sources), as is the case for sound produced by the 
pile driving activity considered here. The compressions and 
decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in 
pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as 
hydrophones.
    As described in Jasco (2019), during impact pile driving, acoustic 
energy is created upon impact and travels through the water along 
different paths. These paths are (1) from the top of the pile where the 
hammer hits, through the air, into the water; (2) from the top of the 
pile, down the pile, radiating directly in the pile from the length of 
pile below the waterline; (3) from the top of the pile, down the pile, 
radiating directly into the water from the length of pile below the 
waterline, and (4) down the pile radiating into the ground, travelling 
through the ground, radiating back into the water. Farther away from 
the pile, ground-borne energy prevails although it is greatly 
suppressed. Vibratory hammers sit on top of the pile and, using 
counter-rotating eccentric weights, drives the pile into the ground 
without striking it. Therefore, noise pathways from vibratory driving 
do not include number 1 above. Horizontal vibrations are cancelled out 
while vertical vibrations are transmitted into the pile. In general, 
sound increases with pile size (diameter and wall thickness), hammer 
energy, and ground hardness.
    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the 
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound, which is 
defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single 
source or point (Richardson et al., 1995). The sound level of a region 
is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and 
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., wind and 
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds 
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic 
(e.g., vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number of sources 
contribute to ambient sound, including wind and waves, which are a main 
source of naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 
hertz (Hz) and 50 kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient 
sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave 
height. Precipitation can become an important component of total sound 
at frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 
times. Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient sound 
levels, as can some fish and snapping shrimp. The frequency band for 
biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. 
Sources of ambient sound related to human activity include 
transportation (surface vessels), dredging and construction, oil and 
gas drilling and production, geophysical surveys, sonar, and 
explosions. Vessel noise typically dominates the total ambient sound 
for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of 
anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz

[[Page 63631]]

and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate 
rapidly.
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources that 
comprise ambient sound at any given location and time depends not only 
on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and 
levels of biological and human 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. The result is that, depending on the source type 
and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a 
negligible addition to the local environment or could form a 
distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.
    Underwater ambient sound in Coos Bay is comprised of sounds 
produced by a number of natural and anthropogenic sources and varies 
both geographically and temporally. Human-generated sound is a 
significant contributor to the ambient acoustic environment in Coos 
Bay. During AECOM's 2017 and 2018 marine mammal line transect surveys, 
they also collected acoustic data to identify background sound levels 
in Coos Bay. Understanding the acoustic habitat of the Bay is important 
for identifying the potential severity of impact of the proposed 
acoustic stressor (in this case pile driving) on marine mammals. Twenty 
acoustic recordings were made between May 4-10, 2017. Background noise 
levels ranged from 109.6-169.7 dB rms with a median of 124.7 dB rms 
(Appendix A of JCEP's application). The highest level (169.7 dB rms) 
was recorded during active loading of a container vessel at the 
Roseburg Forest Products Chip Terminal on 4 May 2017 in Jordan Cove. 
The lowest ambient noise levels were recorded on 4 May 2017, also near 
Jordan Cove, with a calculated rms noise level of 109.6 dB re 1[mu]Pa. 
Eighteen acoustic recordings were made between November 26-28, 2018, 
during the line transect field survey. The ambient noise levels ranged 
from 84.7-134.9 rms dB re 1[mu]Pa with a median of 120.5 rms dB, with 
the highest levels recorded on 28 November 2018 in the Lower Estuary 
(Appendix A of JCEP's application).
    Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: 
Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). 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). Please see 
Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts. 
The distinction between these two sound types is not always obvious, as 
certain signals share properties of both pulsed and non-pulsed sounds. 
A signal near a source could be categorized as a pulse, but due to 
propagation effects as it moves farther from the source, the signal 
duration becomes longer (e.g., Greene and Richardson, 1988).
    Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic 
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically 
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients 
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur 
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds 
are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure 
to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may 
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal 
pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical 
injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
    Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or 
prolonged, and may be either continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995; 
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals 
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g., 
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced 
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or 
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems. The 
duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be greatly 
extended in a highly reverberant environment.
    The impulsive sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by 
rapid rise times and high peak levels. Vibratory hammers produce non-
impulsive, continuous noise at levels significantly lower than those 
produced by impact hammers. Rise time is slower, reducing the 
probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed 
over a greater amount of time (e.g., Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson 
et al., 2005).
    Potential Effects of Underwater Sound--Anthropogenic sounds cover a 
broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of 
highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to 
potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of 
exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential 
effects of underwater sound from anthropogenic sources can potentially 
result in one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing 
impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral 
disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et 
al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; G[ouml]tz et 
al., 2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal 
characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration 
of the sound exposure. In general, sudden, high level sounds can cause 
hearing loss, as can longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary 
or permanent loss of hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise 
within an animal's hearing range. We first describe specific 
manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific 
to pile driving.
    Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of 
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a 
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing 
range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be 
audible (potentially perceived) to the animal but not strong enough to 
elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone 
corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and 
of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological 
responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals of high 
intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause 
discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying 
these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking (i.e., 
when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to 
detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing 
threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.
    We describe severe effects (i.e., certain non-auditory physical or 
physiological effects) only briefly as we do not expect that there is a 
reasonable likelihood that pile driving may result in such effects. 
Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity 
from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to 
physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the 
auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). Non-auditory 
physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in 
marine mammals exposed to high level

[[Page 63632]]

underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral 
reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as a result of an avoidance 
reaction) caused by exposure to sound include neurological effects, 
bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue 
damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 
2007; Tal et al., 2015). The construction activities considered here do 
not involve the use of devices such as explosives or mid-frequency 
tactical sonar that are associated with these types of effects and 
therefore are not likely to occur.
    Threshold Shift--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 TS 
is customarily expressed in dB (ANSI 1995, Yost 2007). A TS can be 
permanent (PTS) or temporary (TTS). As described in NMFS (2018), there 
are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, 
including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., 
impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed 
for a long enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, 
the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours 
to days), the frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), 
the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species 
relative to the signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses 
sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 
2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., 
spatial, temporal, and spectral). When analyzing the auditory effects 
of noise exposure, it is often helpful to broadly categorize sound as 
either impulsive--noise with high peak sound pressure, short duration, 
fast rise-time, and broad frequency content--or non-impulsive. When 
considering auditory effects, vibratory pile driving is considered a 
non-impulsive source while impact pile driving is treated as an 
impulsive source.
    TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing 
sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case 
the animal's hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et 
al., 2007). 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 NMFS 2018 for review). Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS 
could cause PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can be total or partial 
deafness, while in most cases the animal has an impaired ability to 
hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
    NMFS defines TTS as 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 
Finneran 2014 for a review), 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; Finneran et al., 2002).
    TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during 
exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing 
threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be 
heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 
sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data 
on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been 
obtained for marine mammals.
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. 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. 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 occurs during a time 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.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus 
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena 
asiaeorientalis)) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant 
seal, harbor seal, and California sea lion) exposed to a limited number 
of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in 
laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained 
spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to 
impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset 
(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises 
have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species 
(Finneran, 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data 
come from a limited number of individuals of cetaceans and pinnipeds. 
There are no data available on noise-induced hearing loss for 
mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for 
further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. 
(2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and NMFS (2016).
    Behavioral Effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of 
effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous 
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or 
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment 
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly 
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous 
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species sensitivity, state of 
maturity, experience with the same or similar stressors, current 
activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 
well as the interplay between factors (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; 
Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et 
al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals 
but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a 
sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 
2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the 
sound source (e.g., signal properties, whether it is moving or 
stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). Please see 
Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of studies 
involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes 
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated 
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to 
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that 
habituation is

[[Page 63633]]

appropriately considered as a progressive reduction in response to 
stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial, rather 
than as, more generally, moderation in response to human disturbance 
(Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is sensitization, when an 
unpleasant experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form 
of avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. As noted, behavioral state 
may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting 
may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound 
levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for 
feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have showed 
pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound 
sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed 
responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources 
(typically airguns or acoustic harassment devices) have been varied but 
often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes 
suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et 
al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). However, many delphinids approach 
low-frequency airgun source vessels with no apparent discomfort or 
obvious behavioral change (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012), indicating the 
importance of frequency output in relation to the species' hearing 
sensitivity. As described above, the background noise levels in Coos 
Bay are typically around 120 dB rms; therefore, harbor seals would 
likely be more habituated to elevated noise levels.
    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater 
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given 
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving 
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater 
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts 
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces 
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a 
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be 
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 
2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which 
we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive 
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
    Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of 
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as 
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel 
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Nowacek et al.; 2004, Goldbogen et 
al., 2013a, 2013b). Variations in dive behavior may reflect 
interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging) 
or they may be of little biological significance. The impact of an 
alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends 
on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type 
and magnitude of the response.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between 
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 
stage of the animal.
    Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors 
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure 
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a 
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates 
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute 
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may 
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and 
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in 
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise 
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic 
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005, 2006; Gailey et 
al., 2007; Gailey et al., 2016).
    Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple 
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and 
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic 
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to 
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased 
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of 
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have 
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales 
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward 
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic 
noise (Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, animals may cease sound 
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or 
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other 
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance 
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales 
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory 
paths--in order to avoid noise from airgun surveys (Malme et al., 
1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area 
once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). 
Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to 
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species 
in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does 
not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann 
et al., 2006).
    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a 
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound 
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in 
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of 
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine 
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight 
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and 
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from 
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the 
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings 
(Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to 
a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and 
Reeves, 2008), and

[[Page 63634]]

whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence the 
response.
    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more 
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to 
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of 
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to 
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects 
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies 
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased 
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and 
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In 
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through 
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent 
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington 
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, 
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose 
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any 
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption 
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound 
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one 
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not 
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe 
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et 
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day 
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic 
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple 
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either 
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, 
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive 
behavioral responses.
    Stress Responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be 
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination 
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, 
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., 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-
pituitary-adrenal 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).
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through 
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals 
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; 
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to 
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects 
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; 
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations 
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 
that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These 
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine 
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to 
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be 
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS 
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
    Auditory 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; Erbe et al., 
2016). 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., 
shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise 
source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the 
characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest 
(e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in 
relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., 
sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency 
discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 
and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions.
    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important 
in determining any potential impacts. For example, low-frequency 
signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds 
produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of 
mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural 
sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The 
masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be 
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g., 
Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as 
animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000; 
Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt 
et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal 
and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), 
through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other 
compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested 
directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations 
it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking 
compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking 
sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g., 
Branstetter et al., 2013).
    Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and 
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the 
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency 
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial 
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping 
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially 
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
    Potential Effects of JCEP's Activity--As described previously (see 
``Description of Active Acoustic Sound

[[Page 63635]]

Sources''), JCEP proposes to conduct pile driving, including impact and 
vibratory driving, in Coos Bay. Both vibratory and impact pile driving 
near the water's edge (in the dry) may occur year round; however, in-
water impact pile driving would only occur during the ODFW in-water 
work window (October 1-February 15). The effects of pile driving on 
marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including the size, 
type, and depth of the animal; the depth, intensity, and duration of 
the pile driving sound; the depth of the water column; the substrate of 
the habitat; the standoff distance between the pile and the animal; and 
the sound propagation properties of the environment.
    With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of 
pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes in an 
animal's typical behavioral patterns and/or avoidance of the affected 
area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995): 
changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows or 
respirations per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/
increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral 
activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response 
or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); 
avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight 
responses.
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the 
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant 
behavioral modifications that could lead to effects on growth, 
survival, or reproduction, such as drastic changes in diving/surfacing 
patterns or significant habitat abandonment are extremely unlikely in 
this area. The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and 
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals 
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007). However, some of the harbor seals in 
Coos Bay have likely become habituated to anthropogenic noises in the 
developed Bay area. As described above, the background noise conditions 
of the Bay are already elevated (with median levels at or above NMFS 
Level B harassment thresholds) and harbor seals are likely habituated 
to these noise levels. Further, if other activities such as active 
loading of a container vessel at the Roseburg Forest Products Chip 
Terminal, those activities may mask pile driving noises to some degree.
    Whether impact or vibratory driving, sound sources would be active 
for relatively short durations, with relation to potential for masking. 
The frequencies output by pile driving activity are lower than those 
used by most species expected to be regularly present for communication 
or foraging. We would expect any masking to occur concurrently within 
the zones of behavioral harassment already estimated for vibratory and 
impact pile driving, and which have already been taken into account in 
the exposure analysis.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The proposed activities would result in permanent effects to a very 
small portion of Coos Bay used by marine mammals, primarily the area of 
the proposed LNG Terminal. The TPP/US-101 site would be permanently 
widened; however, this northern area is less commonly used by marine 
mammals than other parts of the bay and all impacts would occur inside 
the existing berm which acts as the roadway
    Temporary impacts include increased noise levels during pile 
driving, resulting in impacts tothe acoustic habitat, but meaningful 
impacts are unlikely. There are no known foraging hotspots (although 
harbor seals likely primarily forage within the bay in general), or 
other ocean bottom structures of significant biological importance to 
marine mammals present in the marine waters in the vicinity of the 
project area. For harbor seals resident to Coos Bay, their daily 
acoustic habitat would have elevated noise levels during pile driving; 
however, these noise levels would likely be only a minor increase when 
considering anthropogenic sources in Coos Bay and would only occur when 
pile driving is occurring. The most severe noise levels from impact 
pile driving would not occur during time of sensitive biological 
importance such as the pupping season.
    Impacts to the water column and substrates during pile driving and 
dredging are anticipated, but these would be limited to minor, 
temporary suspension of sediments leading to increased turbidity in the 
immediate area of pile driving and dredging. This increased turbidity 
could impair visibility during foraging; however, is not expected to 
have any effects on individual marine mammals because, as described 
above, these activities would not occur near any critical foraging 
hotspots.
    Effects to Prey--Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on 
the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species (e.g., 
crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies 
by species, season, and location and, for some, is not well documented. 
Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known 
marine mammal prey.
    Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their 
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator 
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 
Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures, 
which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and 
particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of 
surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on 
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the 
sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing 
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include 
behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related 
injuries), and mortality.
    Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or 
intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as 
flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp 
sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local 
distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the 
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g., 
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. 
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish 
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies 
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are 
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction 
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 
2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might 
affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially 
impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs (e.g., 
Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 
1992). However, some studies have shown no or slight reaction to 
impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson 
and Gyselman, 2009; Cott et al., 2012). More

[[Page 63636]]

commonly, though, the impacts of noise on fish are temporary.
    SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish 
and fish mortality. 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 in-water impact pile driving work window is designed to reduce 
impacts to marine mammal prey such as salmonids; therefore, any effects 
on prey are also expected to be minor.
    The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the 
project areas would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The 
duration of fish avoidance of an area after pile driving stops is 
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and 
behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey 
species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the expected 
short daily duration of individual pile driving events and the 
relatively small areas being affected. It is also not expected that the 
industrial environment of the Naval installations provides important 
fish habitat or harbors significant amounts of forage fish.
    For transient killer whales, impacts to their prey (e.g., harbor 
seals) is not anticipated to be affected as seals are not expected to 
abandon the Coos Bay and therefore would remain available to killer 
whales. Further, killer whales do not forage on harbor seals in any 
great numbers in Coos Bay as transient killer whales are not common to 
Coos Bay.
    As described in the preceding, the potential for pile driving or 
dredging to affect the availability of prey to marine mammals or to 
meaningfully impact the quality of physical or acoustic habitat is 
considered to be insignificant. Effects to habitat will not be 
discussed further in this document.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to pile driving. Based on the nature of the 
activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures 
(e.g., shutdown zone measures) discussed in detail below in Proposed 
Mitigation section, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor 
proposed to be authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to 
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is 
estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best 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) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take 
estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g., 
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
    JCEP's proposed activity includes the use of continuous, non-
impulsive (vibratory pile driving) and intermittent, impulsive (impact 
pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms), respectively, are applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual 
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five 
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a 
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources 
(impulsive or non-impulsive).
    These thresholds are provided in Table 7 below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

[[Page 63637]]



                     Table 7--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     PTS Onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
             Hearing group              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Impulsive                         Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;   Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                          LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;   Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                          LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB;   Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                          LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).....  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;   Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                          LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)....  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;   Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                          LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
  calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
  thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
  a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
  Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
  frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
  being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
  designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
  that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
  exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
  is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    JCEP investigated potential source levels associated with their 
proposed pile driving activities. For piles driven in-water, JCEP used 
data from Caltrans (2015) to estimate source levels and in 
consideration of use of bubble curtains (required per ODFW regulations) 
and derive estimated distances to the appropriate NMFS Level B 
harassment isopleth (160 dB for impact driving, 120 dB for vibratory 
driving) using a practical (15logR) spreading model (Table 8).

                       Table 8--Estimated Source Levels for Piles Driving and Corresponding Level B Harassment Isopleths and Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Source levels at 10 meters (dB)              160/120 dB RMS threshold (Level B harassment)
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Distance to
           Pile type/method/location                                                                 Level B
                                                      Peak             RMS             SEL        threshold (m)             Area (sq. km) \2\
                                                                                                       \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      LNG Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheet piles/24-in pipe piles (in-the-dry)......       See Appendix D is JCEP's application                1,914  2.49/3.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Ancillary Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch Pipe Piles at TPP/US-101--Impact with           \1\ 196         \1\ 183         \1\ 170             341  0.136
 BCA.
14-inch Timber Piles at TPP/US-101--Impact                  180             170             160              46  0.002
 within cofferdam.
24-inch Pipe Piles at TPP/US-101, and APCO       ..............             165             165          10,000  TPP/US101--1.18.
 sites--Vibratory.                                                                                               APCO--0.40.
14-inch Timber Piles at TPP/US-101--Vibratory..  ..............             162             162           6,310  1.18
Sheet Piles at TPP/US-101--Vibratory...........  ..............             160             160           4,642  1.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes a 7dB bubble curtain reduction from unattenuated sources in Caltrans (2015).
\2\ Distance to threshold is calculated whereas area accounts for cutoffs from land.

    For piles driven close to the water's edge but out of water (in 
water laden sediments) at the MOF, JCEP contracted JASCO to conduct 
more sophisticated acoustic modeling to determine if sound propagation 
through the sediment would contribute to elevated noise levels in-water 
above NMFS harassment thresholds. Appendix D in JCEP's application 
contains the full modeling report for vibratory pile driving, 
respectively, near the water's edge (within 9 m (30 feet)) at the MOF 
(note Appendix C contains impact pile driving model; however, no impact 
driving piles in-the-dry would occur under the proposed IHA). The model 
methods, in summary, included use of a full-wave numerical sound 
propagation model to simulate the transmission of vibratory pile 
driving noise through water-saturated soils into the water. Source 
levels for vibrating sheet piles were based on published hydrophone 
measurements of in-water sheet pile driving.
    To model sound propagation from vibratory pile driving, JASCO used 
a modified version of the RAM parabolic-equation model (Collins 1993, 
1996). The environmental data and source levels were input to 
underwater noise modeling software to estimate the underwater noise 
received levels (RL) that would be present in the water near the pile 
driving. The maximum modeled

[[Page 63638]]

Level B harassment threshold distance for vibratory pile driving in-
the-dry at the LNG Terminal site is 1,914 m. We note Jasco 
conservatively applied the findings from the vibratory model for piles 
set back 30 ft (9 m) from the water's edge to all piles that are to be 
installed within 100 ft (30 m) of the water's edge. The model predicted 
that the Level A harassment thresholds for all hearing groups would not 
be reached during vibratory pile driving at the Terminal (all in-the-
dry piles) when considering five hours of vibratory pile driving per 
day (see Table 5-2 in Appendix B in JCEP's application).
    When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in 
recognition of the fact that an ensonified area/volume could be more 
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in 
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools 
to help predict a simple isopleth from in-water sources that can be 
used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help 
predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included 
in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths 
produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which 
may result in some degree of overestimate of Level A harassment take. 
However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate 
isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not 
available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine 
these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where 
appropriate. For stationary sources such as pile driving, NMFS User 
Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal 
remained at that exact distance the whole duration of the activity, it 
could incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet for all the in-
water pile driving work and the resulting isopleths are reported in 
Table 9. We note none of the peak source levels exceed any Level A 
harassment threshold.

                                             Table 9--NMFS User Spreadsheet Inputs for In-Water Pile Driving
                                                                [User spreadsheet input]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        14-in timber
                                      24-in steel impact      14-in timber impact   24-in steel  vibratory     Sheet  vibratory          vibratory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used..............  (E.1) Impact pile       (E.1) Impact pile       (A) Non-Impulse-Stat-   (A) Non-Impulse-Stat-  (A) Non-Impulse-Stat-
                                     driving.                driving.                Cont.                   Cont.                  Cont.
Source Level (Single Strike/shot    170 dB................  160 dB................  165 dB................  160 dB...............  162 dB.
 SEL/rms).
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz).  2 kHz.................  2 kHz.................  2.5 kHz...............  2.5 kHz..............  2.5 kHz.
(a) Number of strikes per pile....  200...................  100...................  N/A...................  N/A..................  N/A.
(a) Number of piles per day or      4.....................  20....................  0.5 hours.............  1.67 hours...........  1.67 hours.
 activity duration.
Propagation (xLogR)...............  15....................  15....................  15....................  15...................  15.
Distance of source level            10....................  10....................  10....................  10...................  10.
 measurement (meters)+.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting Level A isopleths for in-water pile driving for each 
marine mammal hearing group are presented in Table 10 (the following 
discussion does not apply to in-the-dry piles as that was modeled by 
Jasco). The User Spreadsheet calculates a very small zone (less than 6 
m) when considering 1.67 hours of vibratory driving piles in-water 
(this time does not include time it takes to reset the hammer to new 
piles) and JCEP would implement a minimum 10 m shutdown zone. 
Therefore, NMFS has determined there is no potential for Level A take 
during any of the vibratory pile driving scenarios. During impact 
hammering in open water (which occurs only at the TPP/US-101 site), the 
potential for Level A take remains very small; however, it is greater 
than during vibratory driving. JCEP anticipates it could install up to 
20 14-in timber piles per day. This could take several hours over the 
course of the entire day to reset piles; however, the resulting 
isopleth for all 20 piles is less than 56 meters for all species. When 
considering the installation of five 14-in timber piles (a more 
reasonable but still lengthy amount of time when considering animal 
movement), the Level A isopleth distance is also very small. Similarly, 
impact driving 24-in steel pipe piles at the TPP/US-101 site when 
considering the installation of four piles per day results in a small 
Level A harassment distance when using the User Spreadsheet. JCEP 
proposes to install 36 24-in piles over 9 days at this location to 
construct the work access bridge. The 36 piles installed at the TPP/US-
101 site are located in an area that is behind a berm with infrequent 
harbor seal presence. For a seal to incur PTS, it must remain 63 m from 
the pile for the time it takes for four piles to be installed. These 
piles would only be proofed with the impact hammer; therefore, 
vibratory driving would occur first and then the hammer would have to 
be reset. In total, the amount of time it may take to install four 
piles is several hours. JCEP is proposing shutdown zones equal to or 
greater than the calculated Level A harassment isopleth distance for 
all pile driving. Because the zones are small and consider several 
hours in duration, NMFS believes the potential for Level A harassment 
is de minimis and is not proposing to issue take of any marine mammal 
by Level A harassment.

[[Page 63639]]



                       Table 10--Calculated Level A Harassment Isopleths Based on NMFS User Spreadsheet for In-Water Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Source levels at 10 meters (dB)                          Distance to Level A threshold \1\ (m)
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Project element requiring pile                                                                               High-
           installation               Peak \2\      RMS (vibratory)/SEL   Low- frequency  Mid- frequency     frequency        Phocids        Otariids
                                                          (impact)           cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      LNG Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheet Piles at MOF/South West                 (4)  (4)..................              NE              NE              NE              NE              NE
 Berth wall and 24-inch TMBB
 Mooring Piles--Vibratory (in
 water/in the dry).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Ancillary Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch Pipe Piles at TPP/US-101--            201  170 SEL..............           117.0             4.2           139.3            62.6             4.6
 Impact with BCA.
14-inch Timber Piles at TPP/US-               180  160 SEL..............            46.4             1.7            55.3            24.8             1.8
 101--Impact within cofferdam.
24-inch Pipe Piles at TPP/US-101              191  165 RMS..............             8.0             0.7            11.8             4.8             0.3
 and APCO sites--Vibratory in
 water.
14-inch Timber Piles at TPP/US-               172  162 RMS..............            11.2             1.0            16.5             6.8             0.5
 101--Vibratory within cofferdam.
Sheet Piles at TPP/US-101--                   175  160 RMS..............             8.2             0.7            12.2             5.0             0.4
 Vibratory in water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Level A thresholds are based on the NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing; cSEL
  threshold distances are shown. See footnote 3 below.
\2\ All distances to the peak Level A harassment thresholds are not met.
\3\ Since these piles will be driven on land, source values at 10 m are not available; distances are calculated by JASCO modeling.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.

Harbor Seals

    Over the last several decades, intermittent and independent surveys 
of harbor seal haul-outs in Coos Bay have been conducted. The most 
recent aerial survey of haul-outs in Washington and Oregon occurred in 
2014 by ODFW. Those surveys were conducted during a time when the 
highest number of animals would be expected to haul out (i.e., the 
latter portion of the pupping season [May and June] and at low tide). 
Based on logistic population growth models, harbor seal populations of 
the Oregon Coast had reached carrying capacities during the late 1980s 
and early 1990s (Brown et al. 2005). Using these data, an estimation of 
the number of seals using the Coos Bay estuary haul-outs can be made by 
simply dividing the area of the Coos Bay estuary by the estimated 
population size.
    The Coos Bay estuary has an area of 55.28 square kilometers, as 
measured using geographic information system (GIS) files available from 
the Coastal Atlas (2018). We used the ODFW 2014 June aerial survey data 
yielding 333 observed individuals to estimate harbor seal density in 
Coos Bay during the February 15-September 30 timeframe. We did not 
apply the corrected abundance of 509 seals because those data are 
collected during times with higher abundance than the rest of the 
season. Therefore, we used the straight counts which, when considering 
a timeframe of February through September, is likely more 
representative of long-term abundance. The resulting density is 6.2 
seals/km\2\.
    AECOM conducted surveys during November and December 2018, to 
determine a fall/winter estimate for harbor seals. This survey included 
3 days of aerial (drone) flyovers at the Clam Island and Pigeon Point 
haul-outs to capture aerial imagery. In addition, vessel-based transect 
surveys over a 3-day period, using the same survey methods as the May 
2017, surveys. This field effort observed a maximum of 167 harbor seals 
hauled out at the Clam Island and Pigeon Point sites on any one day for 
a resulting density of 3.0 seals/km\2\ when estimating take for the 
October 1-February 15th work window.

Other Pinnipeds

    No data are available to calculate density estimates for non-harbor 
seal pinnipeds; therefore, JCEP applies a presence/absence approach 
considering group size for estimating take for California sea lions, 
Steller sea lions, and Northern elephant seals. As described in the 
Description of Marine Mammals section, no haulouts for California sea 
lions and Steller sea lions exist within Coos Bay where harassment from 
exposure to pile driving could occur; however, these species do haul 
out on the beaches adjacent to the entrance to Coos Bay. These animals 
forage individually and seasonal use of Coos Bay have been observed, 
primarily in the spring and summer when prey are present. For this 
reason, JCEP estimates one California and Steller sea lion may be 
present each day of pile driving.

[[Page 63640]]

Northern elephant seals are not common in Coos Bay and also forage/
travel individually. JCEP estimates one individual may be present 
within a given ensonified area greater than the NMFS harassment 
threshold one day for every seven days of pile driving.
Cetaceans
    Similar to pinnipeds other than harbor seals, it is not possible to 
calculate density for cetaceans in Coos Bay as they are not present in 
great abundance and therefore JCEP estimates take based on a presence/
absence approach and considers group size. During migration, gray 
whales species typically travels singly or as a mother and calf pair. 
This species has been reported in Coos Bay only a few times in the last 
decade and thus take of up to two individuals is requested as a 
contingency. The typical group size for transient killer whales is two 
to four, consisting of a mother and her offspring (Orca Network, 2018). 
Males and young females also may form small groups of around three for 
hunting purposes (Orca Network, 2018). Previous sightings in Coos Bay 
documented a group of 5 transient killer whales in May 2007 (as 
reported by the Seattle Times, 2007) and a pair of killer whales were 
observed during the 2017 May surveys. Considering most pile driving 
would occur outside the time period killer whales are less likely to be 
present, JCEP assumes that a group of three killer whales come into 
Coos Bay and could enter a Level B harassment zone for one day up to 
five times per year which would allow for a combination of smaller 
(e.g., 2 animals) or larger (e.g., 5 animals) groups.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Harbor Seals
    ODFW and AECOM survey data suggest approximately 300 to 400 harbor 
seals are resident to Coos Bay. We also anticipate there is some flux 
between Coos Bay haulouts and nearby coastal haulouts, which likely 
contributes to the higher abundance estimates during the pupping 
season. Given the residency patterns, the standard approach for 
estimating take is likely insufficient to enumerate the number of 
harbor seals potentially taken by the specified activity. However, we 
do not believe that every harbor seal in the estuary (300 to 400 
individuals) would be taken every day of pile driving given distances 
from haulouts to Level B harassment zones and pile driving durations 
within a day. Therefore, an approach balancing these two extremes 
needed to be developed.
    NMFS typically relies on a standard calculation where estimated 
take = density x ensonified area x number of pile driving. This is 
considered a static approach in that it accounts for any given moment 
of pile driving--a snapshot in time. Typically, this approach allows 
for a sufficient amount of take from a typical pile driving project and 
we find it suitable for the Ancillary Activities because they would be 
limited in duration or would occur in areas where harbor seals are not 
expected to traverse frequently. However, the inputs described above 
are not directly applicable for estimating harbor seal take resulting 
from the vibratory pile driving that is planned at the LNG Terminal, 
because (1) vibratory driving at the Terminal may be occurring for 
several hours per day, (2) Coos Bay is narrow and level B noise 
thresholds are expected to be exceeded across the width of Coos Bay at 
the Terminal, and (3) many harbor seals that haul out at Clam Island, 
and to a lesser extent, the other haulouts in Coos Bay, likely swim by 
the LNG Terminal work zone throughout the day. Because of these 
factors, individual animals are expected to move into the Level B ZOI 
throughout the day as active vibratory driving is occurring at the LNG 
Terminal, and harbor seal take would be underestimated without 
accounting for the movement of animals. Therefore, JCEP developed a 
calculation method whereby seals were allowed to move continuously past 
the LNG Terminal site. JCEP refers to this as the movement method.
    JCEP's movement method uses the same base assumption as the typical 
static method described above--that harbor seals are distributed evenly 
across the estuary. However, this method then assumes that these evenly 
distributed harbor seals travel through the harassment zones and they 
use a current drift speed as a proxy for this drift but it could also 
be considered a slow swim speed (likely representative for animals 
milling around an estuary to which they are resident) as described 
below. The calculations used by JCEP to estimate harbor seal exposures 
(likely occurring to the same 300 to 400 individuals) is: (Seals/km\2\ 
x (ZOI) km\2\) + (Seals/km\2\ x (Current) km/min x (Pile Driving) min/
day x (Channel Width) km) = Seals/day. This calculation represents that 
take for each day is calculated by taking a snapshot of the seals that 
are in the Level B harassment zone when driving starts (i.e., the 
conventional static method), and then adding to that the seals that 
``flow'' into the leading edge of the ZOI for the duration of pile 
driving. After harbor seals flow across the leading edge of the Level B 
harassment zone, they are considered taken.
    Although seals are active swimmers and do not drift with the 
current, the purpose of the method was not to characterize actual 
movement but to estimate how many seals may pass into a given Level B 
harassment zone throughout the day. The method proposed by JCEP is a 
method designed to model the possibility seals may come within the 
Level B harassment zone in greater probability than a single snapshot 
in time in a given day (the static calculation method described above). 
In their Acoustic Integration AIM model, the U.S. Navy estimates harbor 
seal swim speeds range from 1-4 kilometers per hour (0.27 m/sec-1.1 m/
sec) (Table B-2 in Navy, 2017). The proposed method assumes a drift 
speed of 0.39 m/sec (1.4 km/hour), which is within this range. We note 
the data from which the Navy swim speeds are derived are primarily 
tagging data during dives and bouts of foraging where animals are 
likely lunging for prey and moving quickly. Therefore, because we are 
looking for representative swim speeds crossing zones and these animals 
are resident to Coos Bay, we believe the lower end of this range is 
representative of average swim speeds. Further, the proposed movement 
method assumes seals flow in one direction whereas it is more likely 
seals are moving in multiple directions, potentially not crossing or 
taking longer to cross a Level B harassment isopleth. When considering 
this straight-line movement assumption and that the speed proposed is 
within a reasonable swim speed, NMFS finds JCEP's method is acceptable 
to estimate the potential for exposure. More importantly, the resulting 
number of exposures from this method is an equally reasonable amount of 
take given the specified activity (Table 11). We do not anticipate the 
calculated exposures to represent the number of individuals taken but 
that these exposures likely will occur to the same individuals 
repeatedly as the population appears to be resident with some flux in 
abundance as evident by the lower sighting rates in winter months than 
near pupping season.

[[Page 63641]]



                                                                            Table 11--Estimated Harbor Seal Exposures
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Level B
                                                                                                                             Mins      zone area     Level B    Total Level
              Method                      Pile type        Total piles         Location           Animal      Driving    driving per    from GIS    takes per     B takes     Calculation method
                                                                                               density \a\      days         day        (sq. km)     day \a\      (Year 1)
                                                                                                                                         \b,c\                      \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       LNG Terminal Piles
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory.........................  Sheet Pile...........        1,246  MOF (outside ODFW              6.2           97          309         2.49        64.52     6,258.44  Movement.
                                                                         work window).
Vibratory.........................  Sheet Pile...........          623  MOF (inside ODFW work          3.0           48          309         2.49        31.66     1,519.68  Movement.
                                                                         window).
Vibratory.........................  Sheet Pile...........          113  W. berth wall, 2.5%            6.2          8.5          329         2.49        66.34       563.89  Movement.
                                                                         nearest berm
                                                                         (outside ODFW work
                                                                         window).
Vibratory.........................  Pipe Pile............            6  TMBB mooring pile              3.0           10            9         3.19         9.64        96.40  Static
                                                                         (inside ODFW window).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ancillary Activities Piles (all inside ODFW window)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact............................  Timber...............        1,150  TPP/US-101                     3.0           60           50           NA           NA           NA  Static.
                                                                         intersection.
Vibratory.........................  Timber...............        1,150  TPP/US-101                     3.0           60          100         1.18         3.58       214.80  Static.
                                                                         intersection.
Vibratory.........................  Sheet Pile...........          311  TPP/US-101                     3.0           16          100         1.18         3.58        57.28  Static.
                                                                         intersection.
Impact............................  Pipe Pile............           36  TPP/US-101                     3.0            9           20        NA\c\           NA           NA  Static.
                                                                         intersection.
Vibratory.........................  Pipe Pile............           36  TPP/US-101                     3.0            9           80         1.18         3.58        32.22  Static.
                                                                         intersection.
Vibratory.........................  Pipe Pile............           33  APCO sites...........          3.0            9           30         0.40         1.20        10.80  Static.
                                                          -------------                       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total.......................  .....................  ...........  .....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........     8,753.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Animal density is calculated for both in-water and out-of-water impact pile driving work windows as animal density is not uniform throughout the year.
\b\ NA Indicates that Level A threshold is not exceeded for that piling activity.
\c\ The calculated area of the Level B zone is influenced by land.

    A summary of the proposed amount of take, by species, with respect 
to stock size is provided in Table 12. For all marine mammal species, 
it is unlikely Level A harassment would occur due the nature of the 
work and movement of animals throughout the bay. Cetaceans especially 
would likely move quickly through the area and JCEP would implement 
shutdown zones equal to most conservative Level A harassment distance 
based on the User Spreadsheet (i.e., the output that considers the 
maximum amount of piles driven in one day).

                              Table 12--Total Amount of Proposed Take, per Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Proposed take
           Common name                     Stock        --------------------------------------  Percent of stock
                                                              Level A            Level B          (stock size)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gray whale.......................  Eastern North                         0                  2        <1 (26,960)
                                    Pacific.
killer whale.....................  West Coast Transient                  0                 15            3 (521)
harbor porpoise..................  Northern CA/Southern                  0                 12        <1 (35,769)
                                    OR.
Northern elephant sea............  California breeding.                  0                 33       <1 (179,000)
Steller sea lion.................  Eastern U.S.........                  0                230        <1 (41,638)
California sea lion..............  U.S.................                  0                230       <1 (257,606)
Pacific harbor seal..............  Oregon/Washington                     0              8,754       <*2 (24,732)
                                    Coast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The number of takes presented here (n = 8,750) represents potential exposures to 300-400 individual harbor
  seals, not the number of individuals taken.

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 such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such 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 such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse

[[Page 63642]]

impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned), and;
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    JCEP's project design greatly reduces marine mammal and fisheries 
impacts to in-water noise. JCEP is conducting the majority of pile 
driving (over 90 percent) at the LNG terminal site behind a berm or in-
the-dry. Further, the bulk of the terminal slip would be excavated and 
dredged before being connected to the estuary. Excavated material would 
be used to restore the former Kentuck golf course to functional 
wetlands. JCEP will primarily use a vibratory hammer to reduce the 
potential for auditory injury; pre-drill the soil at the LNG terminal 
to loosen and facilitate a more efficient installation and optimize 
vibratory driving, implement NMFS' standard soft-start procedure for 
impact hammer pile-driving, avoid in-water impact pile driving from 
February 16 through September 30 which includes the harbor seal pupping 
season. When in-water impact driving is necessary, JCEP will use a 
bubble curtain that will distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of 
the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column, balance 
bubbles around the pile, and have the lowest bubble ring on the seabed 
floor.
    JCEP would implement shutdown zones (Table 13) equal to the Level A 
harassment distances as calculated based on the maximum number of piles 
driven per day. These zones are all relatively small; therefore, there 
is little concern for unnecessary project delays. These shutdown zones 
will also minimize noise exposure such that the severity of any Level B 
harassment is minimized. If a species for which take is not authorized 
is observed within Coos Bay and could be exposed to pile driving noise, 
JCEP would implement a shutdown zone that equates to the Level B 
harassment zone for that activity.

                         Table 13--Shutdown Zones, by Pile Driving Activity and Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Impact pile driving           Vibratory pile-driving
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Pipe piles,
                     Species                                                       timber piles
                                                   Timber piles    Pipe piles at     and sheet     Pipe Piles at
                                                   at TPP/US-101    TPP/US-101     piles at TPP/       APCO
                                                                                      US-101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Shutdown Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal.....................................              30              70              10              10
Northern Elephant Seal..........................              30              70              10              10
California Sea Lion.............................              10              10              10              10
Stellar Sea Lion................................              10              10              10              10
Gray Whale......................................              60             140              25              30
Killer Whale....................................              10              10              10              10
Harbor Porpoise.................................              60             140              25              30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS 
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures 
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the 
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density).
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important

[[Page 63643]]

physical components of marine mammal habitat).
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    JCEP will implement a marine mammal monitoring plan that will 
include shutdown zones and monitoring areas. JCEP's Marine Mammal 
Monitoring Plan includes five components: (1) Conduct a preconstruction 
survey; (2) monitor marine mammal occurrence near the project site 
during construction; (3) enforce shutdown zones (Table 12) for marine 
mammals; (4) record observations of marine mammals in the observable 
portions of the Level B harassment zones, including movement and 
behavior of animals; and (5) report the results of the preconstruction 
survey and the construction monitoring, including take numbers. Each of 
these components is discussed in detail in the associated Marine Mammal 
Monitoring Plan, provided in Appendix E of JCEP's application.
    At least two protected species observers (PSOs) will be on-watch 
during all pile driving. Monitoring locations will be specific to each 
activity and may be subject to change depending on physical conditions 
at the site. PSOs will be positioned on either land-based structures, 
the shoreline, or boats, depending on activity, best vantage point, and 
field and safety conditions. The PSOs will be stationed to observe 
shut-down zone and maximum visual coverage of the Level B harassment 
zones.
    A two-person PSO team will complete a one-time, boat-based, 2-day 
pre-construction survey of potential Level B harassment zones prior to 
pile driving activities at the LNG Terminal Marine Facilities (Table 
2). A one-day survey would be conducted at the TPP/US-101 and APCO 
sites prior to pile driving work. The surveys will include on-water 
observations at each of the pile driving locations to observe species 
numbers and general behaviors of animals in the area. Surveys will 
occur no earlier than seven days before the first day of construction 
at each activity site.
    Special attention will be given to the two closest harbor seal 
haul-out sites in proximity to the project area--Clam Island and Pigeon 
Point--as described in Section 4 of the IHA application. On each of the 
monitoring days, monitoring will occur for up to 12 hours (weather-
dependent), to include one low-tide survey and one high-tide survey in 
daylight hours. A small boat will be used for the survey from various 
locations that provide the best vantage points. The information 
collected from monitoring will be used for comparison with results of 
marine mammal behaviors during pile-driving activities and will 
contribute to baseline monitoring data for the area.
    Marine mammal observations will begin 30 minutes prior to the onset 
of pile driving. Monitoring the Level B harassment zone for a minimum 
of 30 minutes after pile-driving stops.
    Recording marine mammal presence in the entirety of the vibratory 
driving Level B harassment zones is not practicable and is not planned 
The Level B harassment zone will be monitored out to visible distances 
and then using the daily density calculated for each species observed, 
the number of Level B harassment take will be extrapolated out to the 
full zone or if hydroacoustics data is available, the measured Level B 
harassment zone. PSOs will continue monitoring 30 minutes post pile 
driving each day.
    A final marine mammal monitoring report shall be prepared and 
submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the 
draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational 
elements described in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, including, but 
not limited to: dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal 
monitoring, a description of construction activities occurring during 
each daily observation period, weather and sightability conditions, 
sighting data (e.g., number of marine mammals observed, by species) PSO 
locations during marine mammal monitoring, any mitigation action, and 
other applicable parameters as listed in the Draft IHA available at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. The report must also distinguish 
between the number of individual animals taken and the number of 
incidences of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals, and 
the number of total takes estimated based on sighting capabilities.
    In addition to marine mammal monitoring, JCEP, in coordination with 
NMFS, has developed a preliminary Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan. This 
plan is designed to conduct sound source verification and verify that 
underwater noise thresholds are not exceeded over distances greater 
than predicted by the acoustic models used in JCEP's application and 
this analysis. For the 2020-2021 construction season, hydroacoustic 
monitoring will be conducted for a portion of all piles to be installed 
by impact or vibratory methods. In general, approximately 5 percent of 
each pile driving activity would be monitored, with a minimum of three 
and a maximum of 20 piles monitored.
    Two hydrophones will be placed for each monitoring event, one 
placed close to the pile and one placed at a greater distance so that a 
transmission loss value can be measured. For in-water pile driving, the 
hydrophone nearest the pile will be placed at least 3H from the pile, 
where H is the water depth at the pile and 0.7 to 0.85H depth from the 
surface, or 10 meters, whichever is greater (NMFS 2012b). For all pile 
driving, including in-the-dry pile installation, hydrophones will be 
placed at least 1 meter below the surface and with a clear acoustic 
line-of-sight between the pile and the hydrophone. The other hydrophone 
will be placed at mid-column depth, at a distance at least 20 times the 
source depth from each pile being monitored, in waters at least 5 
meters deep (NMFS 2012a). If the water velocity is 1.5 meters per 
second or greater, 1 to 3 meters off the bottom is recommended for 
near-field hydrophones and greater than 5 meters from the surface is 
recommended for any far-field hydrophones (FHWG 2013). A weighted tape 
measure will be used to determine the depth of the water. The 
hydrophones will be attached to a nylon cord, a steel chain, or other 
proven anti-strum features, if the current is swift enough to cause 
strumming of the line. The nylon cord or chain will be attached to an 
anchor that will keep the line the appropriate distance from each pile. 
The nylon cord or chain will be attached to a float or tied to a static 
line at the surface. The distances will be measured by a tape measure, 
where possible, or a laser range-finder. The acoustic path (line of 
sight) between the pile and the hydrophone(s) should be unobstructed in 
all cases.
    The on-site inspector/contractor will inform the acoustics 
specialist when pile driving is about to begin, to ensure that the 
monitoring equipment is operational. Underwater sound levels will be 
monitored continuously during the entire duration of each pile being 
driven, with a minimum one-third octave band frequency resolution. The 
wideband instantaneous absolute peak pressure and sound exposure level 
(SEL) values of each strike, and daily cumulative SEL (cSEL) should be 
monitored in real time during construction, to ensure that the project 
does not exceed its authorized take level. Peak and RMS pressures will 
be reported in dB (1 [micro]Pa). SEL will be reported in dB (1 
[micro]Pa\2\ per second). Wideband time series recording is strongly 
recommended during all impact pile driving.

[[Page 63644]]

    Underwater sound levels will be continuously monitored during the 
entire duration of each pile being driven. The peak, root-mean-square 
(RMS) (impulse level), and SEL of each strike will be monitored in real 
time. The cSEL also will be monitored, assuming no contamination from 
other noise sources. Underwater sound levels will be measured in dB 
re:1 [micro]Pa. JCEP will submit a draft report on all monitoring 
conducted under the IHA within ninety calendar days of the completion 
of marine mammal and/or acoustic monitoring or sixty days prior to the 
issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first. 
When applying for a subsequent IHA, JCEP will include a summary of the 
monitoring data collected to date with its application.
    A final draft report, including data collected and summarized from 
all monitoring locations, will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of 
completion of the hydroacoustic monitoring. The results will be 
summarized in graphical form and will include summary statistics and 
time histories of impact sound values for each pile. A final report 
will be prepared and submitted to NMFS within 30 days following receipt 
of comments on the draft report from NMFS. The report will include 
information of the circumstances surrounding the recordings (e.g., pile 
size, type, hydrophone distance to pile, etc.) as presented in JCEP's 
Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, 
such as serious injury, or mortality, JCEP must immediately cease the 
specified activities and report the incident to the NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources (301-427-8401) and the West Coast Region Stranding 
Coordinator (206-526-4747). The report must include the time and date 
of the incident; description of the incident; environmental conditions 
(e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and 
visibility); description of all marine mammal observations and active 
sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident; species 
identification or description of the animal(s) involved; fate of the 
animal(s); and photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    Activities must not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with JCEP to 
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. JCEP may not resume 
pile driving activities until notified by NMFS.
    In the event JCEP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and 
the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is 
unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a 
moderate state of decomposition), JCEP must immediately report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast 
Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. Activities may continue while NMFS 
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with JCEP to 
determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to 
the activities are appropriate.
    In the event that JCEP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, 
and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the specified activities (e.g., 
previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), JCEP must report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Region 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, the majority of our analyses applies to all 
species listed in Table 4 except for harbor seals, given that many of 
the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal 
stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. For harbor 
seals, there are meaningful differences in anticipated individual 
responses to activities, impact of expected take on the resident 
population in Coos Bay (all part of the Oregon/Washington stock), or 
impacts on habitat; therefore, we provide a supplemental analysis 
independent of the other species for which we propose to authorize 
take.
    NMFS has identified key qualitative and quantitative factors which 
may be employed to assess the level of analysis necessary to conclude 
whether potential impacts associated with a specified activity should 
be considered negligible. These include (but are not limited to) the 
type and magnitude of taking, the amount and importance of the 
available habitat for the species or stock that is affected, the 
duration of the anticipated effect to the species or stock, and the 
status of the species or stock. When an evaluation of key factors shows 
that the anticipated impacts of the specified activity would clearly 
result in no greater than a negligible impact on all affected species 
or stocks, additional evaluation is not required. In this case, all the 
following factors are in place for all affected species or stocks 
except harbor seals:
     No takes by mortality, serious injury or Level A 
harassment are anticipated or authorized;
     Takes by Level B harassment is small in number (less than 
3 percent of the best available abundance estimates for all stocks);
     Take would not occur in places and/or times where take 
would be more likely to accrue to impacts on reproduction or survival, 
such as within ESA-designated or proposed critical habitat, 
biologically important areas (BIA), or other habitats critical to 
recruitment or survival (e.g., rookery);
     Take would occur over a short timeframe, being limited to 
the short duration a marine mammal would be present within Coos Bay 
during pile driving;
     Take would occur over an extremely small portion of 
species/stock range;

[[Page 63645]]

     The affected stocks are not known to be declining and/or 
are within OSP range; and
     Any impacts to marine mammal habitat from pile driving are 
temporary and minimal.
    For all species and stocks, take, by Level B harassment only, would 
only occur within Coos Bay--a limited, confined area of any given 
stock's home range, including the Oregon/Washington stock of harbor 
seals. JCEP is not requesting, and NMFS is not proposing to issue Level 
A harassment of marine mammals incidental to the specified activities.
    For harbor seals, we further discuss our negligible impact finding 
in the context of potential impacts to the resident population, a small 
subset of the Oregon/Washington coastal stock, within Coos Bay. Similar 
to other stocks, take by mortality, serious injury, or Level A 
harassment is not anticipated or proposed to be authorized; takes would 
occur over a very small portion of the stock's range; and the affected 
stocks are not known to be declining. OSP for harbor seals is currently 
unknown; however, the stock was previously reported to be within its 
OSP range (Jeffries et al. 2003, Brown et al. 2005).
    As discussed in the Description of Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 
section, a resident population of approximately 300-400 harbor seals 
that belong to the Oregon/Washington Coastal stock likely reside year-
round within Coos Bay. The exact home range of this sub-population is 
unknown but harbor seals, in general, tend to have limited home range 
sizes. Therefore, we can presume a limited number of harbor seals 
(approximately 300-400) will be repeatedly taken throughout the 
effective period of the IHA, though not necessarily on sequential days. 
It is possible a limited number of harbor seals may enter the bay 
occasionally (similar to occasional Steller sea lion and California sea 
lion presence) from nearby coastal haulouts (e.g., Cape Arago); 
however, these seals would likely not be repeatedly exposed throughout 
the entire year. For those animals exposed repeatedly, these exposures 
would occur throughout the year but not every single day (230 days of 
pile driving work total). In addition, pile driving work is spread 
throughout the Bay thereby changing the areas where Level B harassment 
may occur. Regardless, in general, repeated exposure, especially over 
sequential days, of harbor seals to pile driving noise could result in 
impacts to reproduction or survival of individuals if that exposure 
results in adverse, long-term impacts. The following discussion 
analyzes the potential impacts from repeated pile driving exposure to 
Coos Bay harbor seals.
    Harbor seals within Coos Bay are currently exposed to numerous 
anthropogenic noise sources. As described in the Specified Geographic 
Area section, Coos Bay is highly developed along its coastline. Typical 
noise sources within Coos Bay include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
maintenance dredging, commercial shipping and fishing vessel traffic, 
and recreational boating. Despite these existing anthropogenic 
stressors, unpublished ODFW aerial survey data indicates that harbor 
seals in Coos Bay have been stable and likely approach carrying 
capacity (Wright et al. 2019, pers. comm), similar to the status of the 
entire stock. In the absence of recent abundance estimates throughout 
its range, the current population trend of the Oregon/Washington 
Coastal stock is unknown; however, 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. As 
described in Southall et al. (2007), except for na[iuml]ve individuals, 
behavioral responses depend critically on the principles of habituation 
and sensitization meaning an animal's exposure history with a 
particular sound and other contextual factors play a role in 
anticipated behaviors and subsequently, consequences of those behaviors 
of survival and reproduction. Example contextual factors include 
nearness to a source, if the source is approaching and general novelty 
or familiarity with a source (Southall et al., 2007).
    AECOM's acoustic surveys indicate median background noise levels in 
Coos Bay are at or higher than the harassment threshold used in our 
analysis to estimate Level B harassment (120 dB rms). The range of 
background noise levels in the presence of working commercial vessels 
have been measured up to 164 dB rms at close but unknown distance from 
the source; however, we can assume those measurements were taken 
several tens of meters away from the vessel for safety and port access 
reasons. Overall, harbor seals are familiar with several anthropogenic 
noise sources in Coos Bay, pile driving is stationary (not perceived as 
approaching), and the haulout sites within Coos Bay are no less than 
500 m from any pile driving location.
    There are no known concentrated foraging areas around the terminal 
site or location of the ancillary activities. Further, JCEP would not 
conduct any impact pile driving during the pupping season which would 
otherwise be introducing noise that has a greater potential for injury 
during critical life stages and when abundance and density of harbor 
seals are greatest.
    In summary and as described above, although this small resident 
population is likely to be taken repeatedly throughout the year, the 
following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that 
the impacts resulting from JCEP's proposed activity are not expected to 
adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates 
of recruitment or survival on harbor seals:
     No mortality, serious injury, or Level A harassment is 
anticipated or authorized.
     Exposure resulting in Level B harassment would occur in a 
very small part of the Oregon/Washington Coastal stock's range.
     Animals exposed would primarily be limited to the 300-400 
resident harbor seals in Coos Bay, a small percentage of the overall 
stock (approximately 2 percent).
     No in-water impact pile driving would occur during the 
pupping season; therefore, no impacts to pups from this activity is 
likely to occur. Vibratory pile driving near the water's edge may 
result in noise propagation near the MOF and ancillary activities; 
however, pupping sites are located outside the Level B harassment 
ensonification areas for any pile driving activity.
     Harbor seals in Coos Bay are habituated to several sources 
of anthropogenic noise sources with no evidence exposure is impacting 
rates or recruitment and survival (as evident from steady population 
numbers as derived from several years of ODFW aerial survey data).
     The Oregon/Washington coastal stock is subject to very low 
anthropogenic sources of mortality and serious injury (e.g., annual 
minimum level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is 10.6 
harbor seals) and is likely reaching carrying capacity (Carretta, 
2018).
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine 
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on 
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

[[Page 63646]]

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA 
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated 
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to 
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or 
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to 
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative 
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or 
spatial scale of the activities.
    For all stocks, the amount of authorized take is small (less than 3 
percent; Table 12). Although the number of exposures of harbor seals is 
high, as described above, takes would likely occur to the small 
(approximately 300 to 400 animals), resident population of harbor seals 
within Coos Bay.
    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 will be taken relative to the population size 
of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
preliminarily 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.
    Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures 
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and 
monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will 
not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from JCEP's 
proposed activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    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, in this case with the West Coast Region 
Protected Resources Division, whenever we propose to authorize take for 
endangered or threatened species.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammal species is proposed 
for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, 
NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA 
is not required for this action.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to JCEP for constructing the proposed Jordan Cove LNG 
Terminal and associated ancillary activities in Coos Bay, Oregon from 
October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021, provided the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are 
incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for construction of the 
proposed Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and ancillary activities. We also 
request at this time comment on the potential renewal of this proposed 
IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your 
comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform 
decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year IHA renewal with 
an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) another year of 
identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified 
Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as 
described in the Specified Activities section of this notice would not 
be completed by the time the IHA expires and a second IHA 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 expiration of the current IHA.
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the 
requested renewal 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 
because only a subset of the initially analyzed activities remain to be 
completed under the renewal).
    (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: November 7, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-24857 Filed 11-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P