[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13991-14003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05244]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD070


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Coast Guard Station Monterey 
Waterfront Repairs in Monterey, California

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from the United States Coast 
Guard (USCG) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 
marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting its Station 
Monterey waterfront repair in Monterey, California. Pursuant to the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its 
proposal to issue an IHA to USCG to incidentally take, by Level B 
Harassment only, marine mammals during the specified activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April 
11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie 
Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox 
address for providing email comments is [email protected]. Comments 
sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-
megabyte file size. NMFS is not responsible for comments sent to 
addresses other than those provided here.

[[Page 13992]]

    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information 
(for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to 
the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The following associated 
documents are also available at the same internet address: 
Environmental Assessment and marine mammal monitoring plan. Documents 
cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular 
business hours, at the aforementioned address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].

Summary of Request

    On June 27, 2013, NMFS received an application from USCG for the 
taking of marine mammals incidental to its Station Monterey waterfront 
repairs project. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and 
complete.
    The USCG proposes to conduct its Station Monterey waterfront 
repairs work in Monterey, California. The proposed activity would occur 
between June 15 and October 15, 2014. The following specific aspects of 
the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine 
mammals: in-water pile removal and impact and vibratory pile driving. 
Take, by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of five species is 
anticipated to result from the specified activity.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    The USCG proposes to improve and maintain the structural integrity 
of the patrol boat pier (Pier) and potable waterline at USCG Station 
Monterey (Station) through the replacement of Pier piles and the water 
line.
    The Station's area of responsibility extends 50 miles offshore for 
approximately 120 nautical miles of coastline, from Point A[ntilde]o 
Nuevo south to the Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line, encompassing 
5,000 square miles. The Station's missions include maritime homeland 
security, search and rescue, maritime law enforcement, and public 
affairs. The Station works jointly with other agencies governing the 
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The vessels that are used to 
support the Station's missions are 21 to 25 foot rigid-hull inflatable 
boats, a 41 foot utility boat, a 47 foot motor life boat, and an 87 
foot patrol boat. In addition, a NOAA boat also uses the Pier.

Dates and Duration

    The project is proposed for construction in June 2014. The proposed 
pile extraction and driving activities would occur between June 15 and 
October 15.
    Under the Proposed Action, the repairs will require a maximum of 60 
work days for completion. A work day is limited to a period beginning 2 
hours after sunrise and ending 2 hours before sunset. The duration of 
the repairs, lasting approximately 60 work days, includes the time for 
removal of existing timber piles, new pile installations, and under-
deck and above-deck repairs described below.
    It is assumed that two piles per day would be both extracted and 
installed. Pile driving activities would therefore occur for an 
estimated maximum of 10 days of the total construction time. It is 
assumed that driving time would be about 20 to 25 minutes per pile 
(vibratory or impact). It is assumed that vibratory extraction of the 
existing piles would take about 10 minutes per pile. This would result 
in--at most--60 to 70 minutes of pile driving per day; or 8.5 to 10 
hours of underwater and airborne noise generation from pile driving 
over the course of the project construction.

Specified Geographic Region

    The Monterey Peninsula is 85 miles south of San Francisco, 
California, on the southern end of Monterey Bay. The Station is located 
at 100 Lighthouse Avenue in the City and County of Monterey, California 
(see Figure 1-1 in the IHA application).
    The Pier is on the eastern portion of the Station's waterfront 
facility, along a jetty that extends approximately 1,300 feet east into 
Monterey Harbor. The Pier and floating docks are on the southern side 
of the Jetty. A paved access road runs approximately 800 feet along the 
Jetty. The Pier access road is accessible to the general public; 
however, the USCG facilities are secured by fencing. The eastern end of 
the Jetty is not accessible to the public. This area is inhabited 
throughout most of the year by seabirds, which use the Jetty for 
nesting during spring and summer; and by California sea lions, which 
use the Jetty as a haul-out site. Pacific harbor seals also use rocky 
outcroppings and waters within the larger Monterey Bay area for haul-
out and foraging, respectively.

Detailed Description of Activities

    The Pier was constructed in 1934, of timber and steel material, and 
is supported by 64 piles. In 1995, 47 of the original timber piles were 
replaced with 14 inch steel pipe piles, and the remaining 17 piles were 
covered polyvinyl chloride (PVC) wraps to extend their service life. 
These 17 timber piles are bearing piles that have exceeded their 
service life due to marine borers (i.e., marine organisms, such as 
mollusks, that feed on wood particles) and exposure to the marine

[[Page 13993]]

environment, and are therefore in need of replacement. The Pier deck 
and floating docks require repairs due to deterioration that has 
occurred from exposure to the marine environment and regular use of 
these facilities.
    A galvanized steel pipe runs under the Pier and provides potable 
water to the Pier's floating docks. Exposure to the marine environment 
over time has resulted in severe corrosion of the water line, 
warranting its replacement.
    The USCG proposes to remove and replace 17 timber piles that 
structurally support the Pier; replace the existing potable water line; 
and improve associated structures to maintain the structural integrity 
of the Pier and potable water line.
    The proposed construction would involve removing the existing 
timber deck, timber stringers, steel pile caps, steel support beams, 
and hardware to access the 17 timber piles that need to be replaced. 
The timber piles, which are approximately 14 to 16 inches in diameter 
and are covered with PVC wraps, would be removed through use of a 
vibratory extractor.
    Each timber pile would then be replaced with a steel pipe pile that 
would be up to 18 inches in diameter, have \1/2\ inch-thick walls, and 
be positioned and installed in the footprint of the extracted timber 
pile. The new steel pipe piles would not be filled with concrete. Other 
material and hardware removed to conduct the pile replacement would be 
replaced with in-kind materials. Best management practices would be 
employed during demolition and construction activities to prevent 
debris from falling into the water.
    Due to dense substrate at the project site, a majority of the steel 
pipe pile installation may require impact pile driving; however, pile 
driving would be conducted with a vibratory hammer to the extent 
feasible, with an impact hammer used for proofing the piles. Pre-
drilling would be permitted and would be discontinued when the pile tip 
is approximately 5 feet above the required pile tip elevation. If the 
steel pipe pile cannot be driven 30 feet below the mudline with an 
impact hammer due to the substrate or Jetty armor, the pile would be 
posted onto the armor stone using 36 inch-diameter concrete pedestals 
and dowels anchored into the armor stone. Concrete slurry would be used 
to cement stone within 5 feet of posted steel pipe piles to further 
secure the piles.
    A sound attenuation system (i.e., bubble curtain) would be used 
during impact hammer pile driving. The bubble curtain creates an 
underwater wall of air around the pile to dissipate in-water sound 
waves.
    Pile extraction and driving equipment would be located on a barge 
positioned in a manner that would not impede access to the floating 
docks; would be at a point along the Pier access road that does not 
disrupt Pier access; and that is secured from pedestrian movements. 
Pile extraction and driving equipment would not be located on the 
existing Pier.
    Several proposed ancillary repairs to the Pier deck and floating 
dock are associated with this project. Specifically, under-deck repairs 
would restore bearings at pedestals and sea walls with non-shrink grout 
pads, and replace underwater pile struts. Above-deck repairs would 
include removing abandoned mooring hardware, replacing missing sections 
of curb, and replacing isolated deck planks that have deteriorated. 
Repairs to the floating dock would include repairing tie rods, 
repairing concrete spall, relocating and securing gangway wear 
plate(s), replacing cleats, replacing missing rubstrips, and replacing 
underwater pile struts.
    Repairs to the potable water line would involve in-kind replacement 
of approximately 175 feet of 3 inch-diameter galvanized piping. The 
existing water line is on the outboard beam of the Pier, and is mounted 
by hangers. The new water line would be supported every 4 feet in the 
same alignment as the existing configuration. Three top side water 
standpipes would be replaced as part of the water line replacement. All 
work for replacement of the potable water line would occur above Mean 
High Water.
    The primary sources of underwater noise would be from the 
extraction of old piles and driving new steel pipe piles to support the 
Pier. The options for installing these piles include driving the piles 
the full length with an impact hammer (either diesel or hydraulic); or 
vibrating in the piles, with limited impact driving to proof the 
bearing of the piles; or partially installing the piles with an impact 
hammer and casting a cement footing at the interface of the jetty. At 
this time USGS has not decided what method will be used, so an analysis 
of both pile driving methods was conducted. Support piles would be 
between 14 and 18 inches in diameter. The analysis assumed the larger 
18 inch size for the noise projections. Impact pile driving produces 
impulse noise, while vibratory pile extraction and driving produces 
non-impulse noise.
    A review of underwater sound measurements for similar projects was 
undertaken to estimate the near-source sound levels for vibratory and 
impact pile driving. Sounds from similar-sized steel shell piles have 
been measured in water for several projects.

Vibratory Pile Installation Sound Generation

    A review of available acoustic data for pile driving indicates that 
the recent Test Pile Program at Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor, 
Washington, provides the most extensive set of data. The project 
involved the installation of test piles of 24-, 36- and 48-inches in 
diameter using a vibratory driver. Most of the installed piles were 36 
inches in diameter, and only one pile was 24-inch diameter. This Test 
Pile Program provided the average sound level based on the root mean 
squared (RMS) levels using a 10-second time constant. Most other data 
reported are based on maximum RMS values using a 1- to 10-second time 
constant (e.g., Caltrans Fish Guidance Manual 2009).
    For 36-inch diameter piles driven by the Navy, the average RMS 
level for all pile driving events was 159 dB RMS at 33 feet or 10 
meters. There was a considerable range in the RMS levels measured 
across a pile driving event, where the highest average RMS level was 
169 dB RMS.
    The range of vibratory sound levels at 33 feet or 10 meters 
reported by Caltrans is 155 dB for 12-inch diameter piles to 175 dB RMS 
for 36-inch diameter piles (based on maximum 1-second RMS levels). All 
of these piles were driven in relatively shallow water.
    Noting that the piles to be used for this project will be smaller 
than those driven by the Navy for their Test Pile Program at Bangor, 
Washington, a near-source level of 168 dB RMS at 33 feet (10 meters) 
level was used to characterize the sound that would be produced from 
vibratory pile installation.

Impact Pile Driving Sound Generation

    A review of existing data indicates that measurements conducted for 
the USCG Tongue Point Pier Repairs in the Columbia River are most 
representative. This project was located on the Columbia River near 
Astoria, Oregon. The purpose of the project was to repair the existing 
Tongue Point pier. The project included installation of 24-inch-
diameter steel pipe piles to replace existing woodpiles, along with 
reconstruction of a concrete deck.
    Data measured at the Tongue Point Pier Repair included similar 
types of pile driving on an existing pier in deep water. Although the 
length of the installed piles was similar to those proposed for this 
project, the diameters

[[Page 13994]]

were larger than proposed for this project. The difference in pile size 
should not result in much, if any, difference in the expected noise 
levels from pile driving.
    Average sound levels measured at Tongue Point include peak 
pressures of 189 to 207 dB, RMS sound pressure levels of 178 to 189 dB, 
and SEL levels of 160 to 175 dB per strike at 33 feet (10 meters). 
Sound levels associated with vibratory installation of the piles were 
not measured on this project. The ambient levels measured in between 
pile driving ranged from a RMS level of 115 to 125 dB. Due to the 
difference in pile sizes, use of the Tongue Point data would likely 
overestimate sound levels expected at the proposed USCG Station 
Monterey project. Based on the Tongue Point sound measurements, 
unattenuated near-source impact pile driving levels applicable to this 
project are 208 dB peak, 195 RMS and 175 dB SEL. Note, a substantially 
higher RMS level of 195 dB was assumed rather than 189 dB that was 
measured for Tongue Point. Typically, there is an approximately 10 to 
15 dB difference in peak and RMS sound pressure levels. Assuming the 
higher peak pressure of 208 dB, an RMS level of 195 dB would typically 
occur. To provide a conservative estimate, the higher RMS sound 
pressure level was assumed for this assessment.

Airborne Noise

    Based on airborne noise levels measured during the Navy Test Pile 
Project in Bangor, Washington (NAVFAC 2012), the greatest unweighted 
maximum noise level (Lmax) was measured at 102 dB re 20 
[mu]Pa, and the average Lmax 97 dB re [mu]Pa at 50 feet (15 
m) from the source. For impact pile driving, the greatest 
Lmax was 112 dB re 20 [mu]Pa and the average Lmax 
103 dB re 20 [mu]Pa at 50 feet (15 m) from the source.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to 
occur in the proposed construction area include Pacific harbor seal 
(Phoca vitulina richardsi), California sea lion (Zalophus 
californianus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), killer whale 
(Orcinus orca), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). The southern 
sea otter (Enhydra lutris) is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and is not considered further in this proposed IHA notice. A 
summary of marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction and their 
abundance and ESA-status are listed in Table 1.
    General information on the marine mammal species found in 
California waters can be found in Caretta et al. (2013), which is 
available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/po2012.pdf. Refer to that document for information on these species. 
Specific information concerning these species in the vicinity of the 
proposed action area is provided below.

  Table 1--List of Marine Mammal Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction That Occur in the Vicinity of the USCG Station
                                         Monterey Waterfront Repair Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Common name              Scientific name          Stock               ESA status           Abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion............  Zalophus            U.S...............  Not listed.............         296,750
                                  californianus.
Harbor seal....................  Phoca vitulina      California........  Not listed.............          30,196
                                  richardsi.
Harbor porpoise................  Phocoena phocoena.  Monterey Bay......  Not listed.............           1,492
Killer whale...................  Orcinus orca......  Eastern North       Not listed.............             240
                                                      Pacific offshore.
                                                     West coast          Not listed.............             354
                                                      transient.
Gray whale.....................  Eschrichtius        Eastern North       Not listed.............          19,126
                                  robustus.           Pacific.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California Sea Lion

    Monterey Bay California sea lions are part of the U.S. stock, which 
begins at the U.S./Mexico border and extends northward into Canada. The 
U.S. stock was estimated at 296,750 in the 2012 Stock Assessment Report 
(SAR) and may be at carrying capacity, although more data are needed to 
verify that determination (Carretta et al. 2013). Because different age 
and sex classes are not all ashore at any given time, the population 
assessment is based on an estimate of the number of births and number 
of pups in relation to the known population. The current population 
estimate is derived from visual surveys, conducted in 2007, of the 
different age and sex classes observed ashore at the primary rookeries 
and haul-out sites in southern and central California, coupled with an 
assessment done in 2008 of the number of pups born in the southern 
California rookeries (Carretta et al. 2013). California sea lions are 
present year-round in Monterey Bay, with generally lower numbers during 
the summer months when some individuals return to southern California 
to breed.
    California sea lions do not avoid areas with heavy or frequent 
human activity, but rather may approach certain areas to investigate. 
This species typically does not flush from a buoy or haulout if 
approached.
    California sea lions are not listed under the ESA.

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals are members of the true seal family (Phocidae). For 
management purposes, differences in mean pupping date (Temte 1986), 
movement patterns (Jeffries 1985; Brown 1988), pollutant loads 
(Calambokidis et al. 1985), and fishery interactions have led to the 
recognition of three separate harbor seal stocks along the west coast 
of the continental U.S. (Boveng 1988). The three distinct stocks are: 
(1) Inland waters of Washington State (including Hood Canal, Puget 
Sound, Georgia Basin and the Strait of Juan de Fuca out to Cape 
Flattery), (2) outer coast of Oregon and Washington, and (3) California 
(Carretta et al. 2011). Harbor seals found in the vicinity of the 
proposed action area belong to the California stock.
    Pacific harbor seals display year-round site fidelity, though they 
have been known to swim several hundred miles to find food or suitable 
breeding habitat. Although generally solitary in the water, harbor 
seals come ashore at haul-outs that are used for resting, 
thermoregulation, birthing, and nursing pups. Haul-out sites are 
relatively consistent from year to year (Kopec and Harvey 1995), and 
females have been recorded returning to their own natal haul-out when 
breeding (Green et al. 2006). In the vicinity of the proposed action 
area, Pacific harbor seals are not known to regularly use the Jetty as 
a haul-out site, but may use beaches or other relatively low-gradient 
areas to haul-out in the project area, and in areas north such as 
beaches along Cannery Row.
    Pacific harbor seals are present year-round in Monterey Bay and 
would be expected in the project area, though in much lower numbers 
than California sea

[[Page 13995]]

lions (Lowry 2012). There are no known pupping sites in the vicinity of 
the project area, so Pacific harbor seal pups are not expected to be 
present during pile driving.
    Harbor seals are not listed under the ESA.

Harbor Porpoise

    The harbor porpoise is a member of the Phocoenidae family. In the 
eastern North Pacific, harbor porpoise are found in coastal and inland 
waters from Point Conception, California to Alaska and along at least 
the eastern Aleutian chain and eastern Bering Sea (Leatherwood et al. 
1988). Along the west coast of the United States, harbor porpoise 
appear to have much less extensive home range and movement when 
compared to the same species in the east coast (Calambokidis and Barlow 
1991). Recent genetic analyses of harbor porpoise population structure 
along the eastern North Pacific indicate that there is small scale 
subdivision within the U.S. portion of this range (Chivers et al. 
2002). They are typically found in waters less than 80 m deep within 
bays, estuaries, and harbors. They generally occur in groups of two to 
five individuals, and are considered to be shy, nonsocial animals.
    For management purposes, harbor porpoise found in Monterey Bay is 
treated as a separate stock (Monterey Bay stock). Harbor porpoises may 
be present year-round in Monterey Bay, but in relatively low numbers. 
Harbor porpoises are found in shallow sandy bottom regions of the 
Monterey Bay shelf (Monterey Bay Whale Watch 2012) often within 300 m 
of shore (Sekiguchi 1995). They tend to be more abundant in areas north 
of Monterey Bay (Barlow 1988).
    Harbor porpoises are not listed under the ESA.

Killer Whale

    The West coast transient and the eastern North Pacific offshore 
stocks of killer whale may be found near the project site. 
Nevertheless, killer whales are relatively uncommon, migratory 
inhabitants of Monterey Bay. It would be extremely rare that killer 
whales would venture into shallow waters close to the project area, 
particularly within the harbor to the south of the jetty. They have 
been included here because in June 2011, four killer whales were 
sighted in the harbor by local fishermen (NBC Bay Area 201), though the 
article reported that an occurrence such as this, so close to shore, 
was extremely rare.
    None of these two killer whale stock is listed under the ESA.

Gray Whale

    During the winter and spring, the entire Eastern North Pacific 
stock of gray whale population migrates along the coast, generally 
within 3 km of the Monterey Bay coastline, traveling to their summer 
feeding grounds in the Bering Sea and to their winter breeding grounds 
in Baja California. It is expected that gray whales would very rarely 
venture into the shallow waters of the project area, particularly into 
Monterey Harbor south of the jetty.
    The Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale is not listed under 
the ESA.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the 
types of stressors associated with the specified activity (in-water 
pile driving and pile removal) have been observed to impact marine 
mammals. This discussion may also include reactions that we consider to 
rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise 
to the level of a take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a 
discussion of studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound 
or exhibiting barely measurable avoidance). This section is intended as 
a background of potential effects and does not consider either the 
specific manner in which this activity will be carried out or the 
mitigation that will be implemented, and how either of those will shape 
the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The ``Estimated 
Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this document will 
include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are 
expected to be taken by this activity. The ``Negligible Impact 
Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how this specific 
activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of 
this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section, 
the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, and the ``Anticipated Effects on 
Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw conclusions regarding the 
likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or 
survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal 
populations or stocks.

Acoustic Impacts

    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based 
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using 
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, 
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of 
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the 
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and 
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range 
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
     Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 
22 kHz (however, a study by Au et al. (2006) of humpback whale songs 
indicate that the range may extend to at least 24 kHz);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species 
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
     Pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to 
occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest 
sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, five marine mammal 
species (three cetacean and two pinniped species) are likely to occur 
in the proposed seismic survey area. Of the three cetacean species 
likely to occur in USCG's proposed project area, the gray whale is 
classified as a low-frequency cetacean, the killer whale is classified 
as a mid-frequency cetacean, and harbor porpoise is classified as a 
high-frequency cetacean (Southall et al. 2007). A species functional 
hearing group is a consideration when we analyze the effects of 
exposure to sound on marine mammals.
    USCG and NMFS determined that in-water pile removal and pile 
driving during the Station Monterey waterfront repair project has the 
potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammal species 
and stocks in the vicinity of the proposed activity.
    Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for 
prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is 
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain

[[Page 13996]]

frequency ranges (Kastak et al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et 
al. 2002; 2005). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of 
hearing sensitivity is unrecoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case 
the animal's hearing threshold will recover over time (Southall et al. 
2007). Since marine mammals depend on acoustic cues for vital 
biological functions, such as orientation, communication, finding prey, 
and avoiding predators, hearing impairment could result in the reduced 
ability of marine mammals to detect or interpret important sounds. 
Repeated noise exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS.
    Experiments on a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) and beluga 
whale (Delphinapterus leucas) showed that exposure to a single watergun 
impulse at a received level of 207 kPa (or 30 psi) peak-to-peak (p-p), 
which is equivalent to 228 dB (p-p) re 1 [mu]Pa, resulted in a 7 and 6 
dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds 
returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within 4 minutes of 
the exposure (Finneran et al. 2002). No TTS was observed in the 
bottlenose dolphin. Although the source level of pile driving from one 
hammer strike is expected to be much lower than the single watergun 
impulse cited here, animals being exposed for a prolonged period to 
repeated hammer strikes could receive more noise exposure in terms of 
SEL than from the single watergun impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa\2\-s) in the aforementioned experiment (Finneran et al. 2002).
    Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise 
could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that 
utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al. 2009). 
Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as 
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds 
important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, 
marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being 
severely masked could also be impaired.
    Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize. 
Therefore, since noise generated from in-water vibratory pile driving 
and removal is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have 
less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes 
(toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more 
likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially 
important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also 
affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and 
thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al. 
2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al. 2004; Holt 
et al. 2009).
    Unlike TS, masking can potentially impact the species at 
population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual 
levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and 
could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and 
populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound 
levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times in terms 
of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of 
these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All 
anthropogenic noise sources, such as those from vessels traffic and 
pile driving and removal, contribute to the elevated ambient noise 
levels, thus intensify masking.
    Nevertheless, the sum of noise from the proposed USCG Station 
Monterey waterfront repair construction activities is confined in an 
area that is largely bounded by jetty and landmass, therefore, the 
noise generated is not expected to contribute to increased ocean 
ambient noise. Due to shallow water depths near the jetty, underwater 
sound propagation for low-frequency sound (which is the major noise 
source from pile driving) is expected to be poor.
    Finally, exposure of marine mammals to certain sounds could lead to 
behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al. 1995), such as: Changing 
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or 
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities, 
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as 
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive 
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping), avoidance of 
areas where noise sources are located, and/or flight responses (e.g., 
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
    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, and reproduction. Some of these 
significant behavioral modifications include:
     Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those 
thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to 
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
     Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic 
environment; and
     Cease feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography), and is also difficult to predict (Southall et 
al. 2007).
    The proposed project area is not a prime habitat for marine 
mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by marine mammals. 
Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic 
noise associated with USCG waterfront repair activities are expected to 
affect only a small number of marine mammals on an infrequent basis.

Visual Disturbance

    The activities of workers in the project area may also cause 
behavioral reactions of marine mammals, such as pinnipeds flushing from 
the jetty or pier, or moving farther from the disturbance to forage. 
The jetty is partially accessible for public use and experiences 
moderate to heavy foot traffic from fishermen and tourists along the 
western portion of the jetty. The California sea lions use the fenced-
off eastern portion of the jetty and the area beneath the pier as haul-
out sites and appear to be well habituated to human activity, often 
tolerating humans at a distance of just a few feet beyond the fences or 
dock areas that separate humans from the hauled-out animals.
    Observations made by Harvey and Hoover (2009) during previous 
repairs of the pier indicated very little disturbance of marine 
mammals, particularly on the eastern portion of the jetty. They 
concluded that the animals did not seem to be behaviorally modified by 
the presence of the construction activities. The only potential 
disturbance seemed to occur during diving operations, which may have 
startled some individuals. The presence of workers is likely to affect 
only animals within close proximity to the workers and is not expected 
to affect animals on the jetty outside of the work area. The presence 
of workers would not result in population level impacts or affect the 
long-term fitness of the species.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    No permanent impacts to habitat are proposed to or would occur as a 
result of the proposed project. The USCG's proposed Station Monterey 
waterfront repair activity would not increase the pier's existing 
footprint, and no new

[[Page 13997]]

structures would be installed that would result in the loss of 
additional habitat. Therefore, no restoration of the habitat would be 
necessary. A temporary, small-scale loss of foraging habitat may occur 
for marine mammals if marine mammals leave the area during pile 
extraction and driving activities.
    Acoustic energy created during pile replacement work would have the 
potential to disturb fish within the vicinity of the pile replacement 
work. As a result, the affected area could temporarily lose foraging 
value to marine mammals. During pile driving, high noise levels may 
exclude fish from the vicinity of pile driving. Hastings and Popper 
(2005) identified several studies that suggest fish will relocate to 
avoid areas of damaging noise energy. The acoustic frequency and 
intensity ranges that have been shown to negatively impact fish (FHWG 
2008) and an analysis of potential noise output of the proposed 
project, indicate that the distance from underwater pile driving at 
which noise has the potential to cause temporary hearing loss in fish 
over a distance of approximately 42 meters from pile driving activity, 
or approximately 0.003 km\2\ inside the harbor south of the jetty. 
Therefore, if fish leave the area of disturbance, pinniped foraging 
habitat may have temporarily decreased foraging value when piles are 
driven using impact hammering.
    The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving 
stops is unknown. However, the affected area represents an extremely 
small portion of the total area within foraging range of marine mammals 
that may be present in the project area.
    Monterey Bay is classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, as 
amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The EFH provisions of the 
Sustainable Fisheries Act are designed to protect fisheries habitat 
from being lost due to disturbance and degradation. The act requires 
implementation of measures to conserve and enhance EFH. The Monterey 
Bay is classified as an EFH for 118 species of commercially important 
fish, 30 of which have potential to occur within the project area. Some 
of these species are likely prey to pinnipeds and occasionally southern 
sea otters. In addition to EFH designations, portions of the Monterey 
Bay are designated as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for 
various fish species within the Pacific Groundfish, Pacific Coast 
Salmon, Highly Migratory Species, and Coastal Pelagic Fisheries 
management plans. These HAPC areas include kelp forest and rocky reef 
habitats, both of which occur in and adjacent to the Project Area.
    Given the short daily duration of increased underwater and airborne 
noise levels associated with the project, the relatively small areas 
being affected, and the impact avoidance and minimization measures, the 
proposed project is not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on 
EFH. Therefore, the project is not likely to have a long term adverse 
effect on marine mammal foraging habitat.
    Because of the short duration and relative small area of the 
habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammals and the 
food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or 
long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their 
populations.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) 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 (where relevant).
    For the proposed USCG Station Monterey waterfront repair 
activities, USCG worked with NMFS and proposed the following mitigation 
measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the 
project vicinity. The primary purpose of these mitigation measures is 
to detect marine mammals within or about to enter designated exclusion 
zones corresponding to NMFS current injury thresholds and to initiate 
immediate shutdown or power down of the piling hammer, making it very 
unlikely potential injury or TTS to marine mammals would occur, and to 
reduce Level B behavioral of marine mammals would be reduced to the 
lowest level practicable.

Use of Noise Attenuation Devices

    Noise attenuation systems (i.e., bubble curtains) will be used 
during all impact pile driving to interrupt the acoustic pressure and 
reduce the impact on marine mammals. By reducing underwater sound 
pressure levels at the source, bubble curtains would reduce the area 
over which both Level A and B harassment would occur, thereby 
potentially reducing the numbers of marine mammals affected.
    With the bubble curtain system in place, the exclusion zone within 
which marine mammal injury could occur is eliminated.

Time Restriction

    Work would occur only during daylight hours when visual monitoring 
of marine mammals can be implemented.

Establishment of Level B Harassment Zones of Influence

    Before the commencement of in-water pile driving activities, USCG 
shall establish Level B behavioral harassment zones of influence (ZOIs) 
where received underwater sound pressure levels (SPLs) are higher than 
160 dB (rms) and 120 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa for impulse noise sources 
(impact pile driving) and non-impulses noise sources (vibratory pile 
driving and mechanic dismantling), respectively. The modeled maximum 
isopleths for ZOIs are listed in Table 2.

           Table 2--Modeled Level B Harassment Zones of Influence for Various Pile Driving Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Distance to 120 dB re 1  Distance to 160 dB re 1
                    Pile driving activities                         [mu]Pa (rms) (m)         [mu]Pa (rms) (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile driving........................................                    2,400                       NA
Impact pile driving (with bubble curtain).....................                       NA                      465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the underwater acoustic measurements are conducted during 
initial test pile driving, USCG shall adjust the size of the ZOIs, and 
monitor these zones as described under the Proposed Monitoring section 
below.
    NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) shall conduct 
initial survey of the exclusion zones to ensure that no marine mammals 
are seen within the zones before impact pile driving of a pile segment 
begins. If

[[Page 13998]]

marine mammals are found within the exclusion zone, impact pile driving 
of the segment would be delayed until they move out of the area. If a 
marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor 
would wait 15 minutes for pinnipeds and harbor porpoise and 30 minutes 
for gray and killer whales. If no marine mammals are seen by the 
observer in that time it can be assumed that the animal has moved 
beyond the exclusion zone. This 15-minute criterion is based on 
scientific evidence that harbor seals in San Francisco Bay dive for a 
mean time of 0.50 minutes to 3.33 minutes (Harvey and Torok, 1994), and 
the mean diving duration for harbor porpoises ranges from 44 to 103 
seconds (Westgate et al., 1995).

Soft Start

    A ``soft-start'' technique is intended to allow marine mammals to 
vacate the area before the pile driver reaches full power. For 
vibratory hammers, the contractor will initiate the driving for 15 
seconds at reduced energy, followed by a 1 minute waiting period when 
there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more. This procedure shall be 
repeated two additional times before continuous driving is started. 
This procedure would also apply to vibratory pile extraction.
    For impact driving, an initial set of three strikes would be made 
by the hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1 minute waiting 
period, then two subsequent three-strike sets before initiating 
continuous driving.

Shutdown Measures

    Although no marine mammal exclusion zone exists due to the 
implementation of noise attenuation devices (i.e., bubble curtain), 
USCG shall discontinue pile driving or pile removal activities if a 
marine mammal within the ZOI appears disturbed by the work activity. 
Work may not resume until the animal leaves the ZOI, or 30 minutes have 
passed before the disturbed animal is last sighted.

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation 
measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of 
ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least 
practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and 
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included 
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed below:
    (1.) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
    (2.) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or 
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received 
levels of pile driving and pile removal or other activities expected to 
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 
above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
    (3.) A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed 
to received levels of pile driving and pile removal, or other 
activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal 
may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
    (4.) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number 
or number at biologically important time or location) to received 
levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the 
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to 
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
    (5.) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that 
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance 
of habitat during a biologically important time.
    (6.) For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals 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 ITA 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 ITAs 
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. 
USCG submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA 
application. It can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on 
comments or new information received from the public during the public 
comment period.
    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or 
more of the following general goals:
    (1.) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, 
both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective 
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data 
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
    (2.) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals 
are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate 
with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or 
PTS;
    (3.) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond 
to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse 
effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may 
impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects 
on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the 
following methods:
    [ssquf] Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared 
to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    [ssquf] Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli 
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    [ssquf] Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas 
with

[[Page 13999]]

concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
    (4.) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
    (5.) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of 
certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

Proposed Monitoring Measures

    USCG shall employee NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal 
monitoring for its Station Monterey waterfront repair project.
    Before the start of the waterfront repair work, baseline biological 
monitoring shall be conducted to survey the potential Level A and B 
harassment zones on 2 separate days within 1 week before the first day 
of construction. Biological information collected during baseline 
monitoring will be used for comparison with results of monitoring 
during pile driving and removal activities.
    Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be 
conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power).
    Marine mammal visual monitoring shall be conducted from the best 
vantage point available, including the USCG pier, jetty, adjacent docks 
within the harbor, to maintain an excellent view of the exclusion zone 
and adjacent areas during the survey period. Monitors would be equipped 
with radios or cell phones for maintaining contact with work crews.
    Vessel-based visual marine mammal monitoring within the 120 dB and 
160 dB ZOIs shall be conducted during 10% of the vibratory pile driving 
and removal and impact pile driving activities, respectively.
    Data collection during marine mammal monitoring will consist of a 
count of all marine mammals by species, a description of behavior (if 
possible), location, direction of movement, type of construction that 
is occurring, time that pile replacement work begins and ends, any 
acoustic or visual disturbance, and time of the observation. 
Environmental conditions such as weather, visibility, temperature, tide 
level, current and sea state would also be recorded.

Reporting Measures

    USCG would be required to submit weekly monitoring reports that 
summarize the monitoring results, construction activities and 
environmental conditions to NMFS.
    A final report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after 
completion of the proposed project.
    In addition, NMFS would require USCG to notify NMFS' Office of 
Protected Resources and NMFS' Stranding Network within 48 hours of 
sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the vicinity of the 
construction site. USCG shall provide NMFS with the species or 
description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including 
carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of first 
discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if 
available).
    In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is found by USCG 
that is not in the vicinity of the Station Monterey construction site, 
USCG would report the same information as listed above as soon as 
operationally feasible to NMFS.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].
    As discussed above, in-water pile driving (vibratory and impact) 
and pile removal generate loud noises that could potentially harass 
marine mammals in the vicinity of the USCG's proposed Station Monterey 
waterfront repair.
    Currently NMFS uses 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 
the received levels for the onset of Level B harassment for non-impulse 
(vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulse sources (impact pile 
driving) underwater, respectively. For airborne noises, NMFS uses 90 dB 
re 20 [mu]Pa and 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa at the received levels for the 
onset of Level B harassment for harbor seal and all pinnipeds except 
harbor seal, respectively. Table 3 summarizes the current NMFS marine 
mammal take criteria.

   Table 3--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Non-Explosive Sound
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Criterion           Criterion definition        Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Underwater Noise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment (Injury).  Permanent Threshold   180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
                               Shift (PTS) (Any      (cetaceans)/190 dB
                               level above that      re 1 [mu]Pa
                               which is known to     (pinnipeds) root
                               cause TTS).           mean square (rms).
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
                               Disruption (for       (rms).
                               impulse noises).
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
                               Disruption (for non-  (rms).
                               impulse noise).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Airborne Noise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa.
                               Disruption (for
                               harbor seal).
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa.
                               Disruption (for
                               pinnipeds other
                               than harbor seal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The take calculations presented here relied on the best data 
currently available for marine mammal populations at the jetty and in 
the nearby waters of Monterey Bay. The population data used are 
discussed in each species take calculation subsection below. The 
formula below was developed for calculating take due to pile driving 
and is applied to each group-specific noise impact threshold. The 
formula is founded on the following assumptions:
     All piles to be installed would have a noise disturbance 
distance equal to the pile that causes the greatest noise disturbance 
(i.e., the piling furthest from shore, in this case the farthest east 
pile along the jetty).
     It is estimated that an average of two or three piles will 
be installed and removed per day. The best estimate of the number of 
days during which pile driving would occur is 10 days, and this was 
used in all modeling calculations.

[[Page 14000]]

     Mitigation (e.g., a noise attenuation system such as a 
bubble curtain) would be used during impact pile driving.
     An individual animal can only be taken once per method of 
installation during a 24 hour period.
    The calculation for marine mammal take uses the following formula:

Take Estimate = (n x ZOI) x 10 days of activity

Where:

n (number of animals per unit area) = The density estimate used for 
each species. The unit of area is km\2\.
ZOI (zone of influence) = the area encompassed by all locations 
where the sound pressure levels equal or exceed the threshold being 
evaluated.
Multiplying n x ZOI produces an estimate of the abundance of animals 
that could be present in the area of exposure per day. The final 
take estimate must be a whole number; therefore, values are rounded 
up to the next whole number.

    The ZOI impact is the estimated range of noise impact for a given 
threshold. Because the work will be conducted near the jetty, 
underwater noise is not expected to spread spherically from the source. 
Underwater noise contours were therefore modeled using SoundPlan. The 
contours were then imported to ArcGIS to calculate the area within the 
contours and determine the AOI for each threshold. The ZOI for 
vibratory pile driving encompasses the area out to the 120 dB isopleth 
(Level B threshold), while the ZOI for impact driving encompasses the 
area out to the 160 dB isopleth (Level B threshold). It is assumed that 
an underwater noise attenuation system, such as a bubble curtain with 
an estimated 10 dB attenuation, would be used as a mitigation measure. 
However, the actual attenuation that will be achieved in the field is 
unknown and would likely vary with each installation.
    Airborne noise would spread spherically from the source; therefore, 
the ZOI for airborne impacts was calculated as the area within a circle 
(Area = pi x radius\2\).
    Although 10 days of total in-water work are proposed, pile 
extraction or driving would only occur periodically in that time, as 
described in earlier in this document. An average work day (beginning 2 
hours after sunrise and ending 2 hours before sunset) is approximately 
8 to 9 hours, depending on the month. Although it is anticipated that 
only 30 to 70 minutes would be spent pile driving per day, to take into 
account deviations from the estimated times for pile installation and 
extraction--and to account for the additional use of the impact pile 
driver in case of failure of the vibratory hammer to reach the desired 
embedment depth--the potential impacts were modeled as if the entire 
day could be spent pile driving.
    The exposure assessment methodology estimates the number of 
individuals that would be exposed, because of pile extraction and 
driving activities, to noise levels that exceed established NMFS 
thresholds. Results of the acoustic impact exposure assessments should 
be regarded as conservative estimates that are strongly influenced by 
limited biological data. Although the numbers generated from the pile 
driving exposure calculations provide estimates of marine mammal 
exposures for consideration by NMFS, the short duration and limited 
extent of the repairs would limit actual exposures.
    Based on the modeling results presented above, it is estimated that 
up to 2,095 Level B harassment takes of various species due to 
underwater and airborne noise from impact pile driving operations, and 
up to 2,760 Level B harassment takes of various species from vibratory 
pile driving and removal due to underwater and airborne noise. A 
summary of the take estimates is provided in Table 4.

               Table 4--Summary of Potential Marine Mammal Takes and Percentage of Stocks Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Percentage of
                                  Estimated     Estimated take   Abundance of        stock
                                   density        by level B         stock        potentially   Population trend
                                                  harassment                       affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion..........  At-sea: 8.62              4,231         396,750            1.06  Stable.
                                per km\2\;
                                Haul-out: 250.
Harbor seal..................  0.965 pre km\2\              70          30,196            0.20  Stable.
Harbor porpoise..............  0.05 pre km\2\.               4           1,492            0.27  Stable.
Killer whale (Eastern North    Rare...........               6             240            2.50  Stable.
 Pacific offshore).
Killer whale (west coast       Rare...........               6             354            1.70  Stable.
 transient).
Gray whale...................  Rare...........               6          19,126            0.03  Stable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis and Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is ``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 Level B harassment 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 behavioral harassment, 
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any 
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any 
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as 
well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, 
the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
    The USCG's proposed Station Monterey waterfront repair project 
would conduct pile driving and pile removal activities. Elevated 
underwater noises are expected to be generated as a result of pile 
driving and pile removal. However, USCG would use noise attenuation 
devices (i.e., bubble curtain) during the impact pile driving, thus 
eliminating potential for injury (PTS) and TTS. For vibratory pile 
driving and pile removal, noise levels are not expected to reach to the 
level that may cause TTS, injury (PTS included), or mortality to marine 
mammals. Therefore, NMFS does not expect that any animals would 
experience Level A (including injury) harassment or Level B harassment 
in the form of TTS from being exposed to in-water pile driving and pile 
removal associated with USCG construction project.
    In addition, the USCG's proposed activities are localized and of 
short duration. The entire project area is limited to the USCG's 
Station Monterey pier and jetty. The entire waterfront repair project 
would replace 17 timber piles with relative small 14-inch steel

[[Page 14001]]

pipe piles. The entire duration for pile driving is expected to be 
fewer than 10 days, assuming driving two piles per day. The duration 
for driving each pile would be about 20 to 25 minutes (vibratory or 
impact). These low intensity, localized, and short-term noise exposures 
may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral modification 
by the animals. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to 
subside quickly when the exposures cease. Additionally, no important 
feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be 
near the proposed action area. Therefore, the take resulting from the 
proposed Station Monterey waterfront repair project is not reasonably 
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 
marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival. 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 USCG Station Monterey waterfront 
repair will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal 
species or stocks.

Small Number

    Based on analyses provided above, it is estimated that 
approximately 4,231 California sea lions, 70 Pacific harbor seals, 4 
harbor porpoises, 6 Eastern North Pacific offshore or West coast 
transient killer whales (or a combination of both stocks), and 6 gray 
whales could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level 
B behavioral harassment from the proposed construction work at the USCG 
Station Monterey. These numbers represent approximately 0.03%-2.5% of 
the stocks and populations of these species that could be affected by 
Level B behavioral harassment.
    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 mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals 
will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or 
stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of 
affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for 
subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    No species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by 
these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 
consultation under the ESA is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In July 2013, the USCG prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment 
for Waterfront Repairs at United States Coast Guard Station Monterey, 
Monterey, California (draft EA). This draft EA has been posted on NMFS' 
Web site http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. NMFS will 
review the draft EA and decide either to adopt it or prepare its own 
NEPA document before making a determination on the issuance of an IHA, 
which will be completed prior to the issuance or denial of this 
proposed IHA.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to USCG for conducting waterfront repair at its Station 
Monterey, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is 
provided next.
    This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 
issued).
    (1.) This Authorization is valid from July 15, 2014, through July 
14, 2015.
    (2.) This Authorization is valid only for activities associated 
with waterfront repair project at the USCG's Monterey Station in 
Monterey, California.
    (3.) (A) The species authorized for incidental harassment takings, 
Level B harassment only, are: Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina 
richardsi), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), harbor 
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), transient and offshore killer whales 
(Orcinus orca), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus).
    (B) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the 
following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
     Impact and vibratory pile driving;
     Pile removal; and
     Work associated with above piling activities.
    (C) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under 
this Authorization must be reported within 24 hours of the taking to 
the West Coast Regional Administrator (562) 980-4000, National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Chief of the Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427-8401, or 
his designee (301-427-8401).
    (4.) The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 
least 48 hours prior to the start of activities identified in 3(b) 
(unless constrained by the date of issuance of this Authorization in 
which case notification shall be made as soon as possible).
    (5.) Prohibitions
    (A) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the 
species listed under condition (3.)(A) above and by the numbers listed 
in Table 4. The taking by Level A harassment, injury or death of these 
species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other 
species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the 
modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.
    (B) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the 
required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 
7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this 
Authorization.
    (6.) Mitigation
    (A) Use of Noise Attenuation Devices
    Pile driving energy attenuator (such as air bubble curtain system) 
shall be used for all impact pile driving.
    (B) Time Restriction
    In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight hours 
when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be implemented.
    (C) Establishment of Level B Harassment Zones of Influence
    (i) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving activities, 
USCG shall establish Level B behavioral harassment zones of influence 
(ZOIs) where received underwater sound pressure levels (SPLs) are 
higher than 160 dB (rms) and 120 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa for impulse noise 
sources (impact pile driving) and non-impulses noise sources (vibratory 
pile driving and mechanic dismantling), respectively. The modeled 
isopleths for ZOIs are listed in Table 5.

[[Page 14002]]



           Table 5--Modeled Level B Harassment Zones of Influence for Various Pile Driving Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Distance to 120 dB re 1  Distance to 160 dB re 1
                    Pile driving activities                         [mu]Pa (rms) (m)         [mu]Pa (rms) (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile driving........................................                    2,400                       NA
Impact pile driving (with bubble curtain).....................                       NA                      465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Once the underwater acoustic measurements are conducted during 
initial test pile driving, USCG shall adjust the size of the ZOIs, and 
monitor these zones as described under the Proposed Monitoring section 
below.
    (D) Monitoring for marine mammal presence shall take place 30 
minutes before and 30 minutes after pile driving.
    (E) Soft Start
    (i) For vibratory hammers, the contractor shall initiate the 
driving for 15 seconds at reduced energy, followed by a 1 minute 
waiting period when there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more. This 
procedure shall be repeated two additional times before continuous 
driving is started. This procedure shall also apply to vibratory pile 
extraction.
    (ii) For impact driving, an initial set of three strikes would be 
made by the hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1 minute waiting 
period, then two subsequent three-strike sets before initiating 
continuous driving.
    (f) Shutdown Measures
    Although no marine mammal exclusion zone exists due to the 
implementation of noise attenuation devices (i.e., bubble curtain), 
USCG shall discontinue pile driving or pile removal activities if a 
marine mammal within the ZOI appears disturbed by the work activity. 
Work may resume until the animal leaves the ZOI, or 30 minutes have 
passed before the disturbed animal is last sighted.
    (7.) Monitoring:
    (A) Protected Species Observers
    USCG shall employee NMFS-approved protected species observers 
(PSOs) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Station Monterey 
waterfront repair project.
    (B) Baseline Biological Monitoring
    (i) Baseline biological monitoring shall be conducted to survey the 
potential Level A and B harassment zones on 2 separate days within 1 
week before the first day of construction.
    (ii) Biological information collected during baseline monitoring 
will be used for comparison with results of monitoring during pile 
driving and removal activities.
    (C) Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall 
be conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 
power).
    (D) Marine mammal visual monitoring shall be conducted from the 
best vantage point available, including the USCG pier, jetty, adjacent 
docks within the harbor, to maintain an excellent view of the exclusion 
zone and adjacent areas during the survey period. Monitors would be 
equipped with radios or cell phones for maintaining contact with work 
crews.
    (E) Vessel-based visual marine mammal monitoring within the 120 dB 
and 160 dB ZOIs shall be conducted during 10% of the vibratory pile 
driving and removal and impact pile driving activities, respectively.
    (F) Data collection during marine mammal monitoring shall consist 
of a count of all marine mammals by species, a description of behavior 
(if possible), location, direction of movement, type of construction 
that is occurring, time that pile replacement work begins and ends, any 
acoustic or visual disturbance, and time of the observation. 
Environmental conditions such as weather, visibility, temperature, tide 
level, current and sea state would also be recorded.
    (8.) Reporting:
    (A) USCG shall submit weekly monitoring reports that summarize the 
monitoring results, construction activities and environmental 
conditions to NMFS.
    (B) USCG shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 
90 days of the conclusion of the construction work. This report shall 
detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during 
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have 
been harassed.
    (C) If comments are received from the NMFS West Coast Regional 
Administrator or NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft 
report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days 
thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report 
will be considered to be the final report.
    (D) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities 
clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by 
this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or 
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 
USCG shall immediately cease all operations and immediately report the 
incident to the Supervisor of Incidental Take Program, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 
West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the 
following information:
    (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    (ii) description of the incident;
    (iii) status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    (iv) environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);
    (v) description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (vi) species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (vii) the fate of the animal(s); and
    (viii) photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is 
available).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with WSF to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. USCG may not resume their 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
    (E) In the event that USCG discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
USCG will immediately report the incident to the Supervisor of the 
Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding 
Coordinators. The report must include the same information identified 
above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of 
the incident. NMFS will work with WSF to determine whether 
modifications in the activities are appropriate.
    (F) In the event that USCG discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA

[[Page 14003]]

(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), USCG shall report the incident to 
the Supervisor of the Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast 
Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. WSF 
shall provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other 
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine 
Mammal Stranding Network. USCG can continue its operations under such a 
case.
    (9.) This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if 
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the 
authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the 
species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or 
stocks for subsistence uses.
    (10.) A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of 
each contractor who performs the waterfront repair work at USCG Station 
Monterey.

Request for Public Comments

    NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and 
any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for USCG. Please include 
with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help 
inform our final decision on USCG request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: March 5, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-05244 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P