[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53026-53046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21140]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD445


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pier Replacement Project

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 a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction 
activities as part of a pier replacement project. Pursuant to the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its 
proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the 
Navy to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B Harassment only, 
during the specified activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than October 
6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie 
Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 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 to the Internet at 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm 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: Ben Laws, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability

    An electronic copy of the Navy's application and supporting 
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, 
may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, 
please call the contact listed above.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA; 2013) for its 
pier replacement project. We subsequently adopted the EA and signed our 
own Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to issuing the first 
IHA for this project, in accordance with NEPA and the regulations 
published by the Council on Environmental Quality. Information in the 
Navy's application, the Navy's EA, and this notice collectively provide 
the environmental information related to proposed issuance of this IHA 
for public review and comment. All documents are available at the 
aforementioned Web site. We will review all comments submitted in 
response to this notice as we complete the NEPA process, including a 
decision of whether to reaffirm the existing FONSI, prior to a final 
decision on the incidental take authorization request.

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

[[Page 53027]]

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.
    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.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to 
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of 
an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on 
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine 
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must 
either issue or deny the authorization. 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 July 8, 2014, we received a request from the Navy for 
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile installation 
and removal associated with a pier replacement project in San Diego Bay 
at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego, CA (NBPL), followed on July 14, 
2014, by a draft monitoring report for activities conducted under the 
previous IHA issued for this project. We reviewed these documents and 
provided a request for additional information to the Navy on August 5, 
2014; the Navy submitted revised versions of the request on August 14 
and August 19, 2014, the latter of which we deemed adequate and 
complete. The pier replacement project is planned to occur over four 
years; this proposed IHA would cover only the second year of work and 
would be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance. 
Hereafter, use of the generic term ``pile driving'' may refer to both 
pile installation and removal unless otherwise noted.
    The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving is expected to 
produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in 
behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Species with the expected 
potential to be present during all or a portion of the in-water work 
window include the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), harbor 
seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus 
truncatus), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and either short-beaked 
or long-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus spp.). California sea lions 
are present year-round and are common in the project area, while 
bottlenose dolphins may be present year-round but sightings are highly 
variable in Navy marine mammal surveys of northern San Diego Bay. 
Harbor seals are also common but have limited occurrence in the project 
area in comparison with sea lions. Gray whales may be observed in San 
Diego Bay sporadically during migration periods. Common dolphins are 
known to occur in nearshore waters outside San Diego Bay, but are only 
rarely observed near or in the bay.
    This would be the second such IHA, if issued, following the IHA 
issued effective from September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014 (78 FR 
44539). A monitoring report is available on the Internet at 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm and provides environmental 
information related to proposed issuance of this IHA for public review 
and comment.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    NBPL provides berthing and support services for Navy submarines and 
other fleet assets. The existing fuel pier serves as a fuel depot for 
loading and unloading tankers and Navy underway replenishment vessels 
that refuel ships at sea (``oilers''), as well as transferring fuel to 
local replenishment vessels and other small craft operating in San 
Diego Bay, and is the only active Navy fueling facility in southern 
California. Portions of the pier are over one hundred years old, while 
the newer segment was constructed in 1942. The pier as a whole is 
significantly past its design service life and does not meet current 
construction standards.
    Over the course of four years, the Navy plans to demolish and 
remove the existing pier and associated pipelines and appurtenances 
while simultaneously replacing it with a generally similar structure 
that meets relevant standards for seismic strength and is designed to 
better accommodate modern Navy ships. Demolition and construction are 
planned to occur in two phases to maintain the fueling capabilities of 
the existing pier while the new pier is being constructed. During the 
second year of construction (the specified activity considered under 
this proposed IHA), approximately 272 piles (18- to 36-in steel pipe 
piles) would be installed and 402 piles would be removed (via multiple 
methods) over the course of a maximum 135 in-water construction days. 
All steel piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer for their 
initial embedment depths and finished with an impact hammer, as 
necessary.
    The proposed actions with the potential to incidentally harass 
marine mammals within the waters adjacent to NBPL are vibratory and 
impact pile installation and removal of piles via vibratory hammer or 
pneumatic chipper. Concurrent use of multiple pile driving rigs is not 
planned; however, pile removal conducted as part of demolition 
activities (which could occur via a number of techniques other than use 
of a vibratory hammer) is expected to occur concurrently with pile 
installation conducted as part of construction activities.

Dates and Duration

    The entire project is scheduled to occur from 2013-17; the proposed 
activities that would be authorized by this IHA, during the second year 
of work, would occur for one year from the date of issuance of this 
proposed IHA. Under the terms of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) 
between the Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), all 
noise- and turbidity-producing in-water activities in designated least 
tern foraging habitat are to be avoided during the period when least 
terns are present and engaged in nesting and foraging (a window from 
approximately September 15 through April 1). However, the Navy is 
currently negotiating with FWS to extend that window and it is possible 
that in-water work, as described below, could occur at any time during 
the period of validity of this proposed IHA. The conduct of any such 
work would be subject to approval from FWS under the terms of

[[Page 53028]]

the MOU. We expect that in-water work would primarily occur during the 
October 1-April 1 period. In-water pile driving work would be limited 
to 135 days in total under this proposed IHA. Pile driving would occur 
during normal working hours (approximately 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.).

Specific Geographic Region

    NBPL is located on the peninsula of Point Loma near the mouth and 
along the northern edge of San Diego Bay (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in 
the Navy's application). San Diego Bay is a narrow, crescent-shaped 
natural embayment oriented northwest-southeast with an approximate 
length of 24 km and a total area of roughly 4,500 ha. The width of the 
bay ranges from 0.3 to 5.8 km, and depths range from 23 m mean lower 
low water (MLLW) near the tip of Ballast Point to less than 2 m at the 
southern end (see Figure 2-1 of the Navy's application). San Diego Bay 
is a heavily urbanized area with a mix of industrial, military, and 
recreational uses. The northern and central portions of the bay have 
been shaped by historic dredging to support large ship navigation. 
Dredging occurs as necessary to maintain constant depth within the 
navigation channel. Outside the navigation channel, the bay floor 
consists of platforms at depths that vary slightly. Sediments in 
northern San Diego Bay are relatively sandy as tidal currents tend to 
keep the finer silt and clay fractions in suspension, except in harbors 
and elsewhere in the lee of structures where water movement is 
diminished. Much of the shoreline consists of riprap and manmade 
structures. San Diego Bay is heavily used by commercial, recreational, 
and military vessels, with an average of over 80,000 vessel movements 
(in or out of the bay) per year (not including recreational boating 
within the Bay) (see Table 2-2 of the Navy's application). For more 
information about the specific geographic region, please see section 
2.3 of the Navy's application.

Detailed Description of Activities

    In order to provide context, we described the entire project in our 
Federal Register notice of proposed authorization associated with the 
first-year IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013). Please see that document 
for an overview of the entire fuel pier replacement project, or see the 
Navy's Environmental Assessment (2013) for more detail. Here, we 
provide an overview of relevant construction methods before describing 
only the specific project portions scheduled for completion during the 
second work window. Approximately 498 piles in total are planned to be 
installed for the project, including steel, concrete, and plastic 
piles. For the second year of work, approximately 272 piles would be 
installed (all steel pipe piles, 18- to 36-in). Tables 1 and 2 detail 
the piles to be installed and removed, respectively, under this 
proposed IHA.
    Methods, Pile Installation--Vibratory hammers, which can be used to 
either install or extract a pile, contain a system of counter-rotating 
eccentric weights powered by hydraulic motors and are designed in such 
a way that horizontal vibrations cancel out, while vertical vibrations 
are transmitted into the pile. The pile driving machine is lifted and 
positioned over the pile by means of an excavator or crane, and is 
fastened to the pile by a clamp and/or bolts. The vibrations produced 
cause liquefaction of the substrate surrounding the pile, enabling the 
pile to be extracted or driven into the ground using the weight of the 
pile plus the hammer. Impact hammers use a rising and falling piston to 
repeatedly strike a pile and drive it into the ground.
    We generally require that vibratory driving be used to the maximum 
extent feasible, considering project design requirements and site 
conditions. Steel piles are typically vibratory-driven for their 
initial embedment depths or to refusal and finished with an impact 
hammer for proofing or until the pile meets structural requirements 
(potentially an approximate 25-125 blows), as necessary. Proofing 
involves striking a driven pile with an impact hammer to verify that it 
provides the required load-bearing capacity, as indicated by the number 
of hammer blows per foot of pile advancement. Non-steel piles--not 
planned for installation during this proposed activity--are typically 
impact-driven for their entire embedment depth, in part because non-
steel piles are often displacement piles (as opposed to pipe piles) and 
require some impact to allow substrate penetration.
    The Navy assumes that the contractor will drive approximately two 
steel piles per day, with each pile assumed to require up to two hours 
of driving, including 1-1.5 hours of vibratory pile driving and up to 
0.5 hour of impact pile driving (if necessary).
    Methods, Pile Removal--There are multiple methods for pile removal, 
including dry pulling, cutting at the mudline, jetting, and vibratory 
removal. Typically piles will be cut off at the mudline; however, the 
full length of the piles would be pulled at the area where the new 
approach segment would be constructed. An attempt will first be made to 
dry pull the piles with a barge-mounted crane. A vibratory hammer or a 
pneumatic chipper may be used to loosen the piles. Jetting (the 
application of a focused stream of water under high pressure) would be 
another option to loosen piles that could not be removed through the 
previous procedures. Existing caisson elements would be removed with a 
clamshell, which is a dredging bucket consisting of two similar halves 
that open/close at the bottom and are hinged at the top. The clamshell 
would be used to grasp and lift large components. When a wooden pile 
cannot be completely pulled out, the pile may be cut at the mudline 
using the clamshell's hydraulic jaws and/or a diver-operated underwater 
chainsaw, except for piles that are within the footprint of the 
approach pier, which may require jetting to remove. The majority of 
pile removal will likely not require the use of vibratory extraction 
and/or pneumatic chipping, and these methods are included here as 
contingency in the event other methods of extraction are not 
successful.
    Indicator Pile Program (Fall 2014)--The Indicator Pile Program 
(IPP) was designed to validate the length of pile required and the 
method of installation (vibratory and impact). The original plan called 
for approximately twelve steel pipe piles (36- and 48-in diameter) to 
be driven in the new pier alignment to verify the driving conditions 
and establish the final driving lengths prior to fabrication of the 
final production piles that would be used to construct the new pier. 
However, the Navy determined that 36-in piles would likely be 
sufficient for structural requirements of the new fuel pier and 
conducted the IPP under the previous IHA with 30- and 36-in piles (see 
``Results of Previous Monitoring'' below). The Navy drove nine piles 
(two 30-in and seven 36-in piles) and plans to conclude the IPP under 
this proposed IHA by driving an additional two 36-in steel pipe piles.

[[Page 53029]]



                                    Table 1--Details of Piles To Be Installed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Number per pile diameter
                                                                      Planned number             (in)
            Purpose                  Location        Planned timing       of days    ---------------------------
                                                                                        18     24     30     36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator Pile Program........  Outboard side of   Fall 2014........               1      0      0      0      2
                                 existing pier.
Temporary dolphin.............  South of existing  Fall 2014........               5      0      0     10      0
                                 pier.
Temporary shoring piles.......  Existing pier      Fall 2014........               5      4      0      0      0
                                 approach and
                                 intersection.
Temporary trestle piles.......  North of new       Fall 2014........              14      0     16      0      0
                                 approach trestle.
Abutment piles................  New pier, along    Winter 2014-15...              10      0      0      0     18
                                 shoreline.
Approach pier.................  New pier           Fall 2014-Spring               90      0      0      0    104
                                 footprint.         2015.
Fuel pier.....................  New pier           Fall 2014........  ..............      0      0      0     95
                                 footprint.
Permanent dolphins............  North of existing  Spring 2015......              10      0      0     23      0
                                 pier.
                                                                     =================
    Totals--272 piles.........  .................  Fall 2014-Spring           \1\135      4     16     33    219
                                                    2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers of piles, timing, and number of days associated with any particular component of work are subject to
  change. However, the total of 135 days in-water pile driving is an absolute maximum.

    Temporary Structures--The Navy plans to install a number of 
temporary piles in order to maintain fuel pier function during the 
demolition/construction work. A temporary mooring dolphin (a structure 
that extends above the water level and is not connected to shore or 
other structures, and are often used to extend mooring capacity of a 
pier) will be constructed to allow vessels to berth and load/unload 
fuel on the existing south segment while the north segment of the 
existing pier is under demolition.
    Permanent Structures--Initial work for construction of the new pier 
is planned to begin during the period of this proposed IHA, including 
construction of abutments at the shoreside end of the approach segment 
for the new fuel pier and construction of the pier itself. The latter 
will include work on the ramped approach pier (lower and upper deck), 
two mooring dolphins, and the double-deck fueling pier.
    Demolition--Following construction of temporary structures and as 
construction of the new pier proceeds, demolition of the north segment 
of the existing pier will be conducted. Much of the demolition work 
will be above-water, involving removal of decking, utilities, and 
appurtenances, but in-water structure removal will also occur, as 
described above under ``Methods, Pile Removal.'' Demolition work 
planned during the period of this proposed IHA is expected to require 
84 days in total. Any of the previously-described methodologies could 
be employed for in-water demolition work; however, the Navy anticipates 
that those methodologies producing underwater sound with the potential 
to cause incidental harassment of marine mammals would only be required 
for approximately one-quarter of the total effort. In-water demolition 
would always occur concurrently with in-water pile installation; 
therefore, sound produced through in-water demolition would always be 
subsumed by that produced through in-water pile installation. Pile 
removal activities are not carried forward through the take estimation 
process (see ``Estimated Incidental Take''). Pile removal using no-
impact methods (e.g., dry pull) may continue outside the in-water work 
window.

                 Table 2--Details of Piles To Be Removed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Pile type                             Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concrete fender piles (14-, 18-, and 24-in)...................        65
Plastic fender piles (13-in)..................................        29
Timber piles (12-in)..........................................       286
Concrete-filled steel caissons................................        22
                                                               =========
  Total.......................................................       402
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Work Accomplished

    During the first in-water work season, two primary activities were 
conducted: Relocation of the Marine Mammal Program and the IPP.
    The Navy Marine Mammal Program, administered by Space and Naval 
Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) Systems Center (SSC), was moved 
approximately three kilometers to the Naval Mine and Anti-submarine 
Warfare Command (NMAWC; see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 of the Navy's 
monitoring report). Although not subject to the MMPA, SSC's working 
animals were temporarily relocated so that they will not be affected by 
the project. Over the course of 25 in-water construction days from 
January 28 to March 13, 2014, the Navy removed thirty and installed 81 
concrete piles (12- and 16-in). See Table 3-2 of the Navy's monitoring 
report for details. Installation was accomplished via a D19-42 American 
Pile Driving Equipment, Inc. (APE) diesel hammer with energy capacity 
of 23,566-42,800 ft-lbs and fitted with a hydraulic tripping cylinder 
with four adjustable power settings that could be reset while driving. 
Pile removal was accomplished by jetting and dead pull.
    The IPP was described above. Nine steel pipe test piles were 
vibratory- and impact-driven over ten work days from April 28 to May 
15, 2014, including two 30-in and seven 36-in piles. For the IPP all 
piles were initially installed initially using an APE Variable Moment 
250 VM Vibratory Hammer Extractor powered by a model 765 hydraulic 
power source creating a maximum driving force of 2,389 kilonewtons (269 
tons). Impact pile driving equipment consisted of a single acting 
diesel impact hammer model D62-22 DELMAG with energy capacity of 
76,899-153,799 ft-lbs and fitted with a hydraulic tripping cylinder 
with four adjustable power settings that could be reset while driving. 
Two more 36-in piles are planned under the currently proposed IHA for 
conclusion of the IPP.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    There are five marine mammal species which are either resident, 
have known seasonal occurrence, or have been observed recently in San 
Diego Bay, including the California sea lion, harbor seal, bottlenose 
dolphin, common dolphin, and gray whale. Note that common dolphins 
could be either short-beaked (Delphinus delphis delphis) or long-beaked 
(D. capensis capensis). While it is likely that common dolphins 
observed in the project area would be long-beaked, as it is the most 
frequently stranded species in the area from San Diego Bay to the

[[Page 53030]]

U.S.-Mexico border (Danil and St. Leger, 2011), the species 
distributions overlap and it is unlikely that observers would be able 
to differentiate them in the field. Therefore, we consider that any 
common dolphins observed--and any incidental take of common dolphins--
could be either species. Navy records and other survey results indicate 
that other species that occur in the Southern California Bight may have 
the potential for isolated occurrence within San Diego Bay or just 
offshore. The Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) 
has been sighted along a previously used transect on the opposite side 
of the Point Loma peninsula (Merkel and Associates, 2008). Risso's 
dolphin (Grampus griseus) is fairly common in southern California 
coastal waters (e.g., Campbell et al., 2010), but has not been seen in 
San Diego Bay. These species have not been observed near the project 
area and are not expected to occur there, and, given the unlikelihood 
of their exposure to sound generated from the project, are not 
considered further.
    We have reviewed the Navy's detailed species descriptions, 
including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and 
refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy's application instead 
of reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site 
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts 
and to the Navy's Marine Resource Assessment for the Southern 
California and Point Mugu Operating Areas, which provides information 
regarding the biology and behavior of the marine resources that may 
occur in those operating areas (DoN, 2008). The document is publicly 
available at www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html (accessed August 23, 
2014). In addition, we provided information for the potentially 
affected stocks, including details of stock-wide status, trends, and 
threats, in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization 
associated with the first-year IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013) and 
refer the reader to that document rather than reprinting the 
information here.
    Table 3 lists the marine mammal species with expected potential for 
occurrence in the vicinity of NBPL during the project timeframe and 
summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. See 
also Figure 3-2 of the Navy's application for observed occurrence of 
marine mammals in the project area. Taxonomically, we follow Committee 
on Taxonomy (2014). Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), 
available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of 
these stocks' status and abundance. All potentially affected species 
are addressed in the Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 2014).

                                           Table 3--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of NBPL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      ESA/MMPA
                                                                       status;        Stock abundance (CV,      PBR   Annual M/  Relative occurrence in
                Species                           Stock             strategic (Y/      Nmin, most recent        \3\    SI \4\   San Diego Bay; season of
                                                                       N) \1\        abundance survey) \2\                             occurrence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale........................  Eastern North Pacific....           --; N  19,126 (0.071; 18,017;        558   \6\ 127  Rare migratory visitor;
                                                                                    2007).                                       late winter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Bottlenose dolphin................  California coastal.......           --; N  323 \5\ (0.13; 290; 2005)     2.4       0.2  Occasional; year-round.
    Short-beaked common dolphin.......  California/Oregon/                  --; N  411,211 (0.21; 343,990;     3,440        64  Rare; year-round (but
                                         Washington.                                2008).                                       more common in warm
                                                                                                                                 season).
    Long-beaked common dolphin........  California...............           --; N  107,016 (0.42; 76,224;        610      13.8  Rare; year-round (but
                                                                                    2009).                                       more common in warm
                                                                                                                                 season).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea
 lions):
    California sea lion...............  U.S......................           --; N  296,750 (n/a; 153,337;      9,200     >=431  Abundant; year-round.
                                                                                    2008).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor seal.......................  California...............           --; N  30,196 (0.157; 26,667;      1,600        31  Uncommon and localized;
                                                                                    2009).                                       year-round.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 (see footnote 3) 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\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks of
  pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge
  of the specie's (or similar species') life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the
  minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore.
\3\ Potential biological removal, 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 size (OSP).
\4\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
  fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value.

[[Page 53031]]

 
\5\ This value is based on photographic mark-recapture surveys conducted along the San Diego coast in 2004-05, but is considered a likely underestimate,
  as it does not reflect that approximately 35 percent of dolphins encountered lack identifiable dorsal fin marks (Defran and Weller, 1999). If 35
  percent of all animals lack distinguishing marks, then the true population size would be closer to 450-500 animals (Carretta et al., 2014).
\6\ Includes annual Russian harvest of 123 whales.

California Sea Lion

    The California sea lion is by far the most commonly-sighted 
pinniped species at sea or on land in the vicinity of NBPL and northern 
San Diego Bay, where there is a resident non-breeding population. 
California sea lions regularly occur on rocks, buoys and other 
structures, and especially on the bait barges present in the bay 
adjacent to NBPL (see Figure 4-1 of the Navy's application), although 
numbers vary greatly as individuals move between the bay and rookeries 
on offshore islands. Different age classes of California sea lions are 
found in the San Diego region throughout the year (Lowry et al., 1992), 
although Navy surveys show that the local population comprises adult 
females and subadult males and females, with adult males being 
uncommon. The Navy has conducted marine mammal surveys throughout the 
north San Diego Bay project area (Merkel and Associates, 2008; Johnson, 
2010, 2011; Lerma, 2012, 2014). Sightings include all animals observed 
and their locations (using geographical positioning systems). The 
majority of observations are of animals hauled out.

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals are relatively uncommon within San Diego Bay, and do 
not have a significant mainland California distribution south of Point 
Mugu. Sightings in the Navy transect surveys of northern San Diego Bay 
cited above have generally been limited to individuals outside of the 
project area, on the south side of Ballast Point. The haul-out area 
south of Ballast Point is only temporary with overwash of the rocks 
occurring daily; primary local harbor seal haul-outs are in La Jolla. 
With heavy vessel traffic and noise in the project area, it is likely 
that harbor seals seen outside the project area at Ballast Point move 
toward Point Loma and preferred foraging habitat rather than actively 
foraging in or transiting the project area on a frequent basis. 
However, Navy marine mammal monitoring for another project conducted 
intermittently from 2010-12 documented several harbor seals near Pier 
122 (within the project area) at various times, with the greatest 
number of sightings during April and May. Subsequently, Navy monitoring 
conducted during year one of the fuel pier project documented increased 
numbers of harbor seals in the project area (Lerma, 2014). 
Approximately three-quarters of these observations were of animals 
hauled out along the NBPL shoreline.

Gray Whale

    Two populations of gray whales are recognized, Eastern and Western 
North Pacific (ENP and WNP). ENP whales breed and calve primarily in 
areas off Baja California and in the Gulf of California. From February 
to May, whales typically migrate northbound to summer/fall feeding 
areas in the Chukchi and northern Bering Seas, with the southbound 
return to calving areas typically occurring in November and December. 
WNP whales are known to feed in the Okhotsk Sea and off of Kamchatka 
before migrating south to poorly known wintering grounds, possibly in 
the South China Sea.
    The two populations have historically been considered 
geographically isolated from each other; however, recent data from 
satellite-tracked whales indicates that there is some overlap between 
the stocks. Two WNP whales were tracked from Russian foraging areas 
along the Pacific rim to Baja California (Mate et al., 2011), and, in 
one case where the satellite tag remained attached to the whale for a 
longer period, a WNP whale was tracked from Russia to Mexico and back 
again (IWC, 2012). Between 22-24 WNP whales are known to have occurred 
in the eastern Pacific through comparisons of ENP and WNP photo-
identification catalogs (IWC, 2012; Weller et al., 2011; Burdin et al., 
2011), and WNP animals comprised 8.1 percent of gray whales identified 
during a recent field season off of Vancouver Island (Weller et al., 
2012). In addition, two genetic matches of WNP whales have been 
recorded off of Santa Barbara, CA (Lang et al., 2011). More recently, 
Urban et al. (2013) compared catalogs of photo-identified individuals 
from Mexico with photographs of whales off Russia and reported a total 
of 21 matches. Therefore, a portion of the WNP population is assumed to 
migrate, at least in some years, to the eastern Pacific during the 
winter breeding season.
    However, only ENP whales are expected to occur in the project area. 
The likelihood of any gray whale being exposed to project sound to the 
degree considered in this document is already low, as it would require 
a migrating whale to linger for an extended period of time, or for 
multiple migrating whales to linger for shorter periods of time. While 
such an occurrence is not unknown, it is uncommon. Further, of the 
approximately 20,000 gray whales migrating through the Southern 
California Bight, it is extremely unlikely that one found in San Diego 
Bay would be one of the approximately twenty WNP whales that have been 
documented in the eastern Pacific (less than one percent probability). 
The likelihood that a WNP whale would be exposed to elevated levels of 
sound from the specified activities is insignificant and discountable 
and WNP whales are not considered further in this document.
    Peak abundance of gray whales off the coast of San Diego is 
typically during January during the southbound migration and in March 
as whales return north, although females with calves, which depart 
Mexico later than males or females without calves, can be sighted from 
March through May or June (Leatherwood, 1974; Poole, 1984; Rugh et al., 
2001). Gray whales are not expected in the project area except during 
the northward migration, when they are closest to the coast and may be 
infrequently observed offshore of San Diego Bay (Rice et al., 1981). 
Migrating gray whales that do transit nearshore waters would likely be 
traveling, rather than foraging, and would likely be present only 
briefly at typical travel speeds of 3 kn (Perryman et al., 1999, Mate 
and Urb[aacute]n-Ramirez, 2003). Gray whales are known to occur near 
the mouth of San Diego Bay, and occasionally enter the bay. However, 
their occurrence in San Diego Bay is sporadic and unpredictable. In 
recent years, local records show that solitary individuals have entered 
the bay and remained for varying lengths of time during March 2009, 
April 2010, and July 2011. Navy field notes show an occurrence of one 
gray whale that lingered in the northern part of the bay for two weeks.

Bottlenose Dolphin

    As seen in the Navy's marine mammal surveys of San Diego Bay, cited 
above, coastal bottlenose dolphins have occurred within San Diego Bay 
sporadically and in variable numbers and locations. California coastal 
bottlenose dolphins show little site fidelity and likely move within 
their

[[Page 53032]]

home range in response to patchy concentrations of nearshore prey 
(Defran et al., 1999, Bearzi et al., 2009). After finding 
concentrations of prey, animals may then forage within a more limited 
spatial extent to take advantage of this local accumulation until such 
time that prey abundance is reduced, likely then shifting location once 
again and possibly covering larger distances. Navy surveys frequently 
result in no observations of bottlenose dolphins, and sightings have 
ranged from 0-8 groups observed (0-40 individuals).

Common Dolphin

    Common dolphins are present in the coastal waters outside of San 
Diego Bay, but are considered to be an intermittent and transient 
visitor to the bay itself and had not been observed within the bay 
during Navy surveys conducted prior to the project. However, common 
dolphins were observed within the bay on three occasions (twelve, five, 
and two individuals) on two separate days during monitoring conducted 
during the IPP. Sightings of long-beaked common dolphins are 
predominantly near shore, whereas those of short-beaked common dolphins 
extend throughout the coastal and offshore waters (Carretta et al. 
2014). The long-beaked common dolphin has been documented during Navy 
training exercises just offshore and to the south of San Diego Bay 
(Danil and St. Leger, 2011), whereas the short-beaked species has not.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    This section is intended to provide a summary and discussion of the 
ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine 
mammals. This discussion includes 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 information is 
provided 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.
    In our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization associated 
with the first-year IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013), we described in 
detail the potential effects of the Navy's proposed activity on marine 
mammals, including general background information on sound and marine 
mammal hearing and a description of sound sources and ambient sound. 
Rather than reprint the information here, we refer the reader to that 
document. However, because these terms are used frequently in this 
document, we provide brief definitions of relevant acoustic terminology 
below:
     Sound Pressure Level (SPL): Sound pressure is the force 
per unit area, usually expressed in microPascals ([mu]Pa), where one 
Pascal equals one Newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The 
SPL is expressed in decibels (dB) as twenty times the logarithm to the 
base ten of the ratio between the pressure exerted by the sound to a 
referenced sound pressure. SPL is the quantity that is directly 
measured by a sound level meter. For underwater sound, SPL in dB is 
referenced to one microPascal (re 1 [mu]Pa), unless otherwise stated. 
For airborne sound, SPL in dB is referenced to 20 microPascals (re 20 
[mu]Pa), unless otherwise stated.
     Frequency: Frequency is expressed in terms of 
oscillations, or cycles, per second. Cycles per second are commonly 
referred to as hertz (Hz). Typical human hearing ranges from 20 Hz to 
20 kilohertz (kHz).
     Peak sound pressure: The instantaneous maximum of the 
absolute positive or negative pressure over the frequency range from 20 
Hz to 20 kHz and presented in dB.
     Root mean square SPL: For impact pile driving, overall dB 
rms levels are characterized by integrating sound for each waveform 
across ninety percent of the acoustic energy in each wave and averaging 
all waves in the pile driving event. This value is referred to as the 
rms 90%. With this method, the time averaging per pulse varies.
     Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A measure of energy, 
specifically the dB level of the time integral of the squared-
instantaneous sound pressure, normalized to a one second period. It is 
a useful metric for assessing cumulative exposure because it enables 
sounds of differing duration, to be compared in terms of total energy. 
The accumulated SEL (SELcum) is used to describe the SEL 
from multiple events (e.g., many pile strikes). This can be calculated 
directly as a logarithmic sum of the individual single-strike SELs for 
the pile strikes that were used to install the pile.
     Level Z weighted (unweighted), equivalent 
(LZeq): LZeq is a value recorded by the SLM that 
represents SEL SPL over a specified time period or interval. The LZeq 
is most typically referred to in one-second intervals or over an entire 
event.
     Level Z weighted (unweighted), fast (LZFmax): 
LZFmax is a value recorded by the SLM that represents the 
maximum rms value recorded for any 125 millisecond time frame during 
each individual recording.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    In our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization associated 
with the first-year IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013), we described in 
detail the anticipated effects of the Navy's proposed activity on 
marine mammal habitat, including effects to prey and to foraging 
habitat. Rather than reprint the information here, we refer the reader 
to that document.
    In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with 
individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being 
affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action 
are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, 
or populations of fish species. The area around NBPL is heavily altered 
with significant levels of industrial and recreational activity, and is 
unlikely to harbor significant amounts of forage fish. Thus, any 
impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant 
or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their 
populations.

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.
    The mitigation strategies described below largely follow those 
required and successfully implemented under the first-year IHA. For 
this proposed IHA,

[[Page 53033]]

data from acoustic monitoring conducted during the first year of work 
was used to estimate zones of influence (ZOIs; see ``Estimated Take by 
Incidental Harassment''); these values were used to develop mitigation 
measures for pile driving activities at NBPL. The ZOIs effectively 
represent the mitigation zone that would be established around each 
pile to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals, while providing 
estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur. In 
addition to the measures described later in this section, the Navy 
would employ the following standard mitigation measures:
    (a) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, 
marine mammal monitoring team, acoustical monitoring team, and Navy 
staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new 
personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, 
communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and 
operational procedures.
    (b) For in-water heavy machinery work with the potential to affect 
marine mammals (other than pile driving), if a marine mammal comes 
within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to 
the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working 
conditions. This type of work could include the following activities: 
(1) Movement of the barge to the pile location and (2) removal of the 
pile from the water column/substrate via a crane (i.e., dead pull). For 
these activities, monitoring would take place from 15 minutes prior to 
initiation until the action is complete.

Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving

    The following measures would apply to the Navy's mitigation through 
shutdown and disturbance zones:
    Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving and removal activities, the 
Navy will establish a shutdown zone intended to contain the area in 
which SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 decibel (dB) root mean square 
(rms) acoustic injury criteria. The purpose of a shutdown zone is to 
define an area within which shutdown of activity would occur upon 
sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering 
the defined area), thus preventing injury of marine mammals (serious 
injury or death are unlikely outcomes even in the absence of mitigation 
measures). Radial distances for shutdown zones are shown in Table 7. 
For certain activities, the shutdown zone would not exist because 
source levels are lower than the threshold, or the source levels 
indicate that the radial distance to the threshold would be less than 
10 m. However, a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m will be established 
during all pile driving and removal activities, regardless of the 
estimated zone. These precautionary measures are intended to prevent 
the already unlikely possibility of physical interaction with 
construction equipment and to establish a precautionary minimum zone 
with regard to acoustic effects.
    Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs 
equal or exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for impulse and continuous sound, 
respectively). Disturbance zones provide utility for monitoring 
conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by 
establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown 
zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of 
and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area but 
outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of 
activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring 
is for documenting incidents of Level B harassment; disturbance zone 
monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see ``Proposed 
Monitoring and Reporting''). Nominal radial distances for disturbance 
zones are shown in Table 7.
    In order to document observed incidences of harassment, monitors 
record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The 
observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, 
is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a 
distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from 
the pile. If acoustic monitoring is being conducted for that pile, a 
received SPL may be estimated, or the received level may be estimated 
on the basis of past or subsequent acoustic monitoring. It may then be 
determined whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting 
incidental harassment in post-processing of observational and acoustic 
data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment 
created. Therefore, although the predicted distances to behavioral 
harassment thresholds are useful for estimating incidental harassment 
for purposes of authorizing levels of incidental take, actual take may 
be determined in part through the use of empirical data.
    Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring would be conducted before, during, 
and after pile driving activities. In addition, observers shall record 
all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from 
activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with 
distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the 
shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile segment would be 
completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the 
shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities would be 
halted. Monitoring will take place from fifteen minutes prior to 
initiation through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving 
activities. Pile driving activities include the time to remove a single 
pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of 
the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes. Please see 
the Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan (available at 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm) for full details of the 
monitoring protocols.
    The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
    (1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will 
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable (as defined in the 
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan) to monitor for marine mammals and 
implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the 
shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained 
biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
     Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) 
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface 
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars 
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
     Advanced education in biological science or related field 
(undergraduate degree or higher is required);
     Experience and ability to conduct field observations and 
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic 
experience);
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from 
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown

[[Page 53034]]

zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
     Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary.
    (2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone 
will be monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure that it is clear of 
marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have 
declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be 
allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own 
volition) and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The 
shutdown zone may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, 
when the entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by 
dark, rain, fog, etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise 
during impact pile driving that is already underway, the activity would 
be halted.
    (3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone 
during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted 
and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been 
visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have 
passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted 
throughout the time required to drive a pile.

Sound Attenuation Devices

    The use of bubble curtains to reduce underwater sound from impact 
pile driving was considered prior to the start of the project but was 
determined to not be practicable. Use of a bubble curtain in a channel 
with substantial current may not be effective, as unconfined bubbles 
are likely to be swept away and confined curtain systems may be 
difficult to deploy effectively in high currents. Data gathered during 
monitoring of construction on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge 
indicated that no reduction in the overall linear sound level resulted 
from use of a bubble curtain in deep water with relatively strong 
current, and the distance to the 190 dB zone was considered to be the 
same with and without the bubble curtain (Illingworth & Rodkin, 2001). 
During project monitoring for pile driving associated with the 
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, also in San Francisco Bay, it was observed 
that performance in moderate current was significantly reduced (Oestman 
et al., 2009). Lucke et al. (2011) also note that the effectiveness of 
most currently used curtain designs may be compromised in stronger 
currents and greater water depths. We believe that conditions 
(relatively deep water and strong tidal currents of up to 3 kn) at the 
project site would disperse the bubbles and compromise the 
effectiveness of sound attenuation.

Timing Restrictions

    In-order to avoid impacts to least tern populations when they are 
most likely to be foraging and nesting, in-water work will be 
concentrated from October 1-March 31. However, this limitation is in 
accordance with agreements between the Navy and FWS, and is not a 
requirement of this proposed IHA. All in-water construction activities 
would occur only during daylight hours (sunrise to sunset).

Soft-Start

    The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional 
protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave 
the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically 
involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced 
energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two 
additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy 
for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for 
impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will 
vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in 
``bouncing'' of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in 
multiple ``strikes.'' The project will utilize soft start techniques 
for both impact and vibratory pile driving. We require the Navy to 
initiate sound from vibratory hammers for fifteen seconds at reduced 
energy followed by a thirty-second waiting period, with the procedure 
repeated two additional times. For impact driving, we require an 
initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, 
followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent three 
strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's 
pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile driving 
of thirty minutes or longer (specific to either vibratory or impact 
driving).
    We have carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures 
and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to 
preliminarily determine whether they are likely to effect 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: (1) 
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts 
to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific 
measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the 
practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe 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 number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals 
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may 
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment 
only).
    (3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine 
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental 
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by 
behavioral harassment only).
    (4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to 
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
    (5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or 
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary 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 Navy's proposed measures, as well as 
any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified 
activity, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation 
measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

[[Page 53035]]

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 
incidental take 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.
    Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our 
understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (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 responses to acute stressors, or impacts of 
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, 
species, or stock.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to 
marine mammals.
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    Please see the Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan 
(available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm) for full 
details of the requirements for monitoring and reporting. Notional 
monitoring locations (for biological and acoustic monitoring) are shown 
in Figure 3-1 of the Plan. The purpose of this Plan is to provide 
protocols for acoustic and marine mammal monitoring implemented during 
pile driving and removal activities associated with the completion of 
the IPP, as well as the initial production phase of the fuel pier 
replacement. We have preliminarily determined this monitoring plan, 
which is summarized here and which largely follows the monitoring 
strategies required and successfully implemented under the first-year 
IHA, to be sufficient to meet the MMPA's monitoring and reporting 
requirements. The previous monitoring plan was modified to integrate 
adaptive changes to the monitoring methodologies as well as updates to 
the scheduled construction activities. Monitoring objectives are as 
follows:
     Monitor in-water construction activities: (1) Implement 
in-situ acoustic monitoring efforts to continue to measure SPLs from 
in-water construction activities not previously monitored or validated 
during the previous IHA; (2) collect and evaluate acoustic sound levels 
for ten percent of the pile driving activities conducted along the 
outboard section of the fuel pier sufficient to confirm measured 
contours associated with the acoustic ZOIs; (3) collect acoustic sound 
recordings sufficient to document sound source levels for vibratory and 
pneumatic chipping activities for the first ten percent of the proposed 
piles to be removed along the outboard section.
     Monitor marine mammal occurrence and behavior during in-
water construction activities to minimize marine mammal impacts and 
effectively document marine mammals occurring within ZOI boundaries.
     Continue the collection of ambient underwater sound 
measurements in the absence of project activities to develop a rigorous 
baseline for the project area.

Acoustic Measurements

    The primary purpose of acoustic monitoring is to empirically verify 
modeled injury and behavioral disturbance zones (defined at radial 
distances to NMFS-specified thresholds of 160-, 180-, and 190-dB (rms) 
for underwater sound (where applicable) and 90- and 100-dB (unweighted) 
for airborne sound; see ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' 
below). For non-pulsed sound, distances will be determined for 
attenuation to the point at which sound becomes indistinguishable from 
background levels. Empirical acoustic monitoring data will be used to 
document transmission loss values determined from measurements 
collected during the IPP and examine site-specific differences in SPL 
and affected ZOIs on an as needed basis.
    Should monitoring results indicate it is appropriate to do so, 
marine mammal mitigation zones would be revised as necessary to 
encompass actual ZOIs in subsequent years of the fuel pier replacement 
project. Acoustic monitoring will be conducted as specified in the 
approved Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan. Please see Table 
2-2 of the Plan for a list of equipment to be used during acoustic 
monitoring.
    Some details of the methodology include:
     Hydroacoustic monitoring for vibratory and impact driving 
of steel piles in areas bayward of the existing fuel pier will occur 
during the first ten percent of all pile driving events in order to 
document SPLs at the measured distances to the injury isopleths. In 
conjunction with measurements of SPLs at the source (10 m) and shutdown 
(approximately 300 m, or intermediate of the pinniped and cetacean 
shutdown ZOIs) monitoring locations, there will also be intermittent 
verification of the disturbance ZOIs throughout pile driving. Of the 
ten percent of pile driving events acoustically measured, one hundred 
percent of the data will be analyzed. The resulting data set will be 
analyzed to examine and confirm SPLs and rates of transmission loss for 
each separate in-water construction activity. The Navy will also 
conduct acoustic monitoring for pile removal activities that utilize 
equipment and/or methods not previously evaluated (e.g., vibratory 
removal and pneumatic chipping).
     For underwater recordings, sound level meter systems will 
follow methods in accordance with NMFS' 2012 guidance for the 
collection of source levels.
     For airborne recordings, to the extent that logistics and 
security allow, reference recordings will be collected at approximately 
15 m from the source via a sound meter with integrated microphone. 
Other distances may also be utilized to obtain better data if the 
signal cannot be isolated clearly due to other sound sources (e.g., 
barges or generators).
     Hydrophones will be placed using a static line deployed 
from a stationary (temporarily moored) vessel. Locations of acoustic 
recordings will be collected via GPS. A depth sounder and/or weighted 
tape measure will be used to determine the depth of the water. The 
hydrophone will be attached to a weighted nylon cord to maintain a 
constant depth.
     Each hydrophone (underwater) and microphone (airborne) 
will be calibrated at the start of the monitoring time frame and 
applicable systems will be checked at the beginning of each day of 
monitoring activity.
     For each monitored location, a hydrophone will be deployed 
at mid-depth in order to evaluate site specific attenuation and 
propagation characteristics.

[[Page 53036]]

     In order to determining the area encompassed by the 
relevant isopleths for marine mammals, hydrophones will collect data at 
various distances from the source to accurately capture deviations in 
the pressure levels as well as examine geospatial differences in the 
spreading loss model caused by physical conditions and bathymetric 
properties throughout the sound field.
     Ambient conditions, both airborne and underwater, will be 
measured at the project site in the absence of construction activities 
to determine background sound levels. Ambient levels will be recorded 
over the frequency range from 7 Hz to 20 kHz. Ambient conditions will 
be recorded at least three times during the IHA period consistent with 
NMFS' 2012 guidance for the measurement of ambient sound. Each time, 
data will be collected for eight-hour periods for three days during 
typical working hours (7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) 
in the absence of in-water construction activities. The three recording 
periods will be spaced to adequately capture variation across the 
notional work window (October-March).
     Underwater SPLs would be measured at the source and at the 
shutdown ZOIs for the entire duration of each recoded event. The SPLs 
will be monitored in real time by observing the LZeq (1 sec) 
expressed in dB during each pile driving event. Acoustic data 
recordings will be post-processed to determine maximum rms SPLs. Sound 
levels will be measured in Pascals (a unit of pressure), which are 
easily converted to dB.
     Airborne levels would be recorded as unweighted in dB and 
the distance to marine mammal behavioral disturbance thresholds would 
be calculated.
     Environmental data would be collected including but not 
limited to: Wind speed and direction, air temperature, humidity, 
surface water temperature, water depth, wave height, weather conditions 
and other factors that could contribute to influencing the airborne and 
underwater sound levels (e.g., aircraft, boats).
     The monitoring coordinator will supply the acoustics 
specialist with the substrate composition, hammer model and size, 
hammer energy settings and any changes to those settings during the 
piles being monitored, depth of the pile being driven, and blows per 
foot for the piles monitored.
     For acoustically monitored piles, data from the continuous 
monitoring locations (10 m and ~300 m from source) will be post-
processed to obtain the maximum peak pressure level recorded for all 
the strikes associated with each pile, expressed in dB. This maximum 
value will originate from the phase of pile driving during which hammer 
energy was also at maximum (referred to as Level 4).
     From all the strikes associated with each pile occurring 
during the Level 4 phase these additional measures will be made:
    [cir] Mean, minimum, and maximum rms pressure level in dB
    [cir] mean duration of a pile strike (based on the ninety percent 
energy criterion)
    [cir] number of hammer strikes
    [cir] mean, minimum, and maximum single strike Sound Exposure Level 
(SEL) in [dB re [mu]Pa\2\ sec]
    [cir] cumulative SEL as defined by the mean single strike SEL + 
10*log (# hammer strikes) in [dB re [mu]Pa\2\ sec]
    [cir] A frequency spectrum (pressure spectral density) in [dB re 
[mu]Pa\2\ per Hz] based on the average of up to eight successive 
strikes with similar sound. Spectral resolution will be 1 Hz and the 
spectrum will cover nominal range from 7 Hz to 20 kHz.

Visual Marine Mammal Observations

    The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to 
construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of 
activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained 
in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have 
no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The 
Navy will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, 
during, and after pile driving as described under ``Proposed 
Mitigation'' and in the Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan, 
with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Notional 
monitoring locations are shown in Figures 3-1 of the Navy's Plan. 
Please see that plan, available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm, for full details of the required marine mammal 
monitoring. Based on our requirements, the Navy would implement the 
following procedures for pile driving:
     MMOs would be located at the best vantage point(s) in 
order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the 
disturbance zone as possible.
     During all observation periods, observers will use 
binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.
     If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting 
conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until 
that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving 
is underway, the activity would be halted.
     The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be 
monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after 
any pile driving or removal activity.
    One MMO will be placed on the active pile driving rig in order to 
observe the respective shutdown zones for vibratory and impact pile 
driving. Monitoring would be primarily dedicated to observing the 
shutdown zone; however, MMOs would record all marine mammal sightings 
beyond these distances provided it did not interfere with their 
effectiveness at carrying out the shutdown procedures. Additionally, 
three to seven land, pier, or vessel-based MMOs will be positioned to 
monitor the shutdown zones and the buffer zones (one to the northeast 
and one to the south at the mouth of San Diego Bay). Because there are 
different threshold distances for different types of marine mammals 
(pinniped and cetacean), the observation platform at the shutdown zone 
will concentrate on the 190 dB rms and 180 dB rms isopleths locations 
and station the observers and vessels accordingly. The MMOs associated 
with these platforms will record all visible marine mammal sightings. 
Confirmed takes will be registered once the sightings data has been 
overlaid with the isopleths identified in Table 7 and visualized in 
Figure 6-2 of the Navy's application, or based on refined acoustic 
data, if amendments to the ZOIs are needed. The acousticians on board 
will be noting SPLs in real-time, but, to avoid biasing the 
observations, will not communicate that information directly to the 
MMOs. These platforms may move closer to, or farther from, the source 
depending on whether received SPLs are less than or greater than the 
regulatory threshold values. All MMOs will be in radio communication 
with each other so that the MMOs will know when to anticipate incoming 
marine mammal species and when they are tracking the same animals 
observed elsewhere.
    Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its 
effectiveness using an adaptive approach. Monitoring biologists will 
use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek 
improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any 
modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the 
Navy.

Data Collection

    We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other 
pieces of information, the Navy will

[[Page 53037]]

record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, 
including the distance of animals to the pile and description of 
specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if 
any. In addition, the Navy will attempt to distinguish between the 
number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. 
We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected 
on the sighting forms:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
     Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
     Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
     Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
     Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
     Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from 
pile driving activity, and if possible, the correlation to measured 
SPLs;
     Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals 
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
     Description of implementation of mitigation measures 
(e.g., shutdown or delay);
     Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
     Other human activity in the area.
    In addition, photographs would be taken of any gray whales 
observed. These photographs would be submitted to NMFS' West Coast 
Regional Office for comparison with photo-identification catalogs to 
determine whether the whale is a member of the WNP population.

Reporting

    A draft report would be submitted to NMFS within 45 calendar days 
of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to 
the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes 
first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, 
during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and will 
also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction 
activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all 
mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions. A final report 
would be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution 
of comments on the draft report. Required contents of the monitoring 
reports are described in more detail in the Navy's Acoustic and Marine 
Species Monitoring Plan.

Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities

    The Navy complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under 
the previous authorization for this project. Acoustic and marine mammal 
monitoring was implemented as required, with marine mammal monitoring 
occurring before, during, and after each pile driving event. During the 
course of these activities, the Navy did not exceed the take levels 
authorized under the IHA. However, the Navy did record one observation 
of a California sea lion within the defined 190-dB shutdown zone (see 
below for further discussion).
    The objectives of the monitoring plan were largely similar to those 
described above for the year two monitoring plan. For acoustic 
monitoring, the primary goal was to validate the acoustic ZOI contours 
utilizing hydroacoustic measurements collected during the IPP to update 
estimated SPL contours (isopleths) developed from the transmission loss 
modeling effort conducted prior to the start of the project and to 
collect more data to validate the transmission loss model. In addition, 
acoustic monitoring was conducted for pile driving of concrete piles 
associated with the temporary relocation of the Navy's Marine Mammal 
Program (see ``Description of Work Accomplished'').
    Acoustic Monitoring Results--For a full description of acoustic 
monitoring methodology, please see section 2.1.2 of the Navy's 
monitoring report, including Figure 2-1 for representative monitoring 
locations. Results are displayed in Table 4.
    For acoustic monitoring associated with the marine mammal 
relocation at NMAWC, a continuous hydroacoustic monitoring system was 
positioned at source (10 m from the pile being installed or removed) 
and at the edge of the predicted outer limit of the 160-dB behavioral 
ZOI for impact driving of concrete piles, which was estimated to be 
approximately 74 m. Hydrophones were deployed from the dock, barge, or 
moored vessel at half the water depth measured by a weighed measuring 
tape or calibrated depth sounder. The depth in which pile driving took 
place ranged between 2.4 and 4.7 m. SPLs measured at the far-field 
varied in distance from 25 to 400 m from the installed pile to 
determine variations in transmission loss for individual piles and 
sites. Airborne sound was collected at 15.2 m and also at distances 
ranging from 30.5 to 122 m using SLMs mounted on tripods at 1.5 m 
elevation above the dock. Airborne sound measurements were collected 
intermittently, but in sufficient amounts to determine airborne ZOIs 
for pinniped species.
    For monitoring associated with the IPP at the fuel pier site, 
hydroacoustic monitoring systems recorded underwater sound levels from 
piers, barges, or anchored vessels at source (10 m), shutdown (125 to 
300 m), and at the predicted far-field behavioral threshold ZOI 
locations. Pile driving water depth was <4.7 m for piles driven on the 
shore side of the pier and ranged from 12-17 m for piles driven on the 
bay side of the pier. The far-field locations were located near Harbor 
Island to the northeast and adjacent to the Zuniga Jetty to the 
southeast (offshore) approximately 1,500 to 4,000 m from source from 
the pile driving activities. For vibratory driving, differences in 
average SPLs between pile locations (inside versus outside) was 
approximately 5 dB rms less for same-sized inside piles, and average 
maximum SPLs recorded for the nine individual piles monitored varied 
approximately 5 dB rms among all piles with no measurable differences 
between pile sizes. For impact driving, 36-in piles produced on average 
approximately 5 dB rms louder SPLs than did 30-in piles. Measured zones 
for impact driving were smaller for same-sized inside piles due to 
increased attenuation in shallower water and increased acoustic 
interference from existing piles. Airborne sound level recordings were 
collected at 15.2 m and at distances ranging from 93 to 400 m, 
following the methodology described above.
    Maximum and average hydroacoustic dB rms SPLs for concrete piles 
were approximately 6 to 10 dB rms greater than levels reported for 
similar piles and methods elsewhere (e.g., Oestman et al., 2009). The 
NMAWC project site was relatively shallow at 2-4 m depth, and acoustic 
boundary conditions created by construction barges, existing marina 
structures, and the narrow width of the channel likely contributed to 
variability in acoustic sound level recording results. During the IPP, 
measured SPLs for driving of 30- and 36-in steel pipe piles fell 
outside of expected levels. SPLs for impact and vibratory driving of 
48-in steel pipe piles and were reported to be 195 and 190 dB rms at 
source (10 m), respectively (Oestman et al., 2009). Hydroacoustic sound 
level recordings collected and analyzed during the IPP for vibratory 
and impact pile driving recorded lower than expected values for 
vibratory pile driving (approximately 170 dB rms) for both 30- and 36-
in steel pipe piles and greater than expected (approximately 202 dB 
rms) values for

[[Page 53038]]

impact pile driving. For further discussion of these results, please 
see the Navy's monitoring report.

                                                          Table 4--Acoustic Monitoring Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Average    Average    Measured distances to relevant zones  (dB rms/dB
                                                                      Number   underwater   airborne                  unweighted) (m) \1\
           Location                 Activity          Pile type      of piles   SPL at 10  SPL at 15 ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                     measured    m  (dB        m
                                                                                  rms)      (LZFmax)     120       160      180     190     90      100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMAWC.........................  Impact..........  12- and 16-in            58         182        108       n/a       126      13     <10     728     105
                                                   concrete.
IPP...........................  Vibratory.......  30- and 36-in             9         167        113       \2\       n/a     <10     <10     233      71
                                                   steel pipe.                                           3,000
IPP...........................  Impact..........  30-in steel pipe          2         195  .........       n/a       \3\     \3\  \3\ 75
                                                                                                                   2,500     450
IPP...........................  Impact..........  36-in steel pipe          7         200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Site-specific measured transmission loss values (both underwater and airborne) were used to calculate zone distances. See monitoring report for more
  detail.
\2\ The 120-dB disturbance zone was initially modeled to be 6,470 m; however, ambient sound in the vicinity of the project site was measured at
  approximately 128 dB rms (see below). This value was used in conjunction with a site-specific propagation model to arrive at a predicted distance of
  3,000 m at which sound should attenuate to background levels. This was supported by collection of measured dB rms values for vibratory pile driving
  during the IPP, as signal could not be distinguished from background at similar distance.
\3\ These values are for outside piles. Measured distances to the 160/180/190 dB ZOIs for inside piles were 2,000/100/40 m (see above for discussion).
  Zones calculated on the basis of SPLs from 36-in piles.

    Ambient data collection was conducted in a manner consistent with 
NMFS' 2012 guidance for measurement of background sound. Ambient 
underwater and airborne sound level recordings were collected for three 
eight-hour days at NMAWC between March 20-27, 2014, and for the IPP 
from April 24 to May 23, 2014. Ambient sound level recordings were 
collected in the absence of construction activities, and during typical 
construction time periods (7 a.m. to 4 p.m.), at locations that were 
between 400 and 1,000 m from each site. Sites were chosen to minimize 
boat traffic effects that might impact results.
    Ambient hydroacoustic sound level recordings conducted adjacent to 
the fuel pier IPP project site during the week prior to and following 
IPP pile driving activities documented daily LZF averages of 
approximately 128 dB (see Figure 3-20 of the monitoring report). The 
area adjacent to the project site is a high traffic area supporting 
Navy fuel operations and is within 500 m of the main San Diego Bay 
navigation channel. Spike measurements eclipsed 140 dB with one 
instance reaching near 155 dB (Figure 3-20). Values were consistent 
with previous measured values and were recorded within expected ranges.
    Marine Mammal Monitoring Results--Marine mammal monitoring was 
conducted as required under the IHA and as described in the first-year 
monitoring plan and in our Federal Register notice of proposed 
authorization associated with the first-year IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 
2013). For a full description of monitoring methodology, please see 
section 2.1.3 of the Navy's monitoring report, including Figure 2-1 for 
representative monitoring locations. Monitoring protocols were managed 
adaptively during the course of the first-year IHA. For example, as the 
IPP project progressed, the Navy realized that there were areas that 
were within close proximity to pile driving activities that could not 
be adequately observed by a single MMO, and a pier-based secondary MMO 
was added. As a result, three dock-, pier-, and barge-based MMOs (one 
in close proximity to the pile being driven, and two in close proximity 
to known haul out locations for seals and sea lions to the north and 
south of the pier) were used to provide complete coverage for the 
shutdown zones.
    Monitoring results are presented in Table 5. The Navy recorded all 
observations of marine mammals, including pre- and post-construction 
monitoring efforts. Animals observed during these periods or that were 
determined to be outside relevant ZOIs were not considered to represent 
incidents of take. Please see Figures 3-8, 3-11, 3-22, 3-26, and 3-28 
for locations of observations and incidents of take relative to the 
project sites. Take authorization for the first-year authorization was 
informed by an assumption that 66 days of in-water construction would 
occur, whereas only 35 total days actually occurred. However, the 
actual observed rates per day were in all cases lower than what was 
assumed. Therefore, we expect that the Navy would not have exceeded the 
take allowances even if the full 66 days had been reached.
    As noted above, an individual California sea lion was observed 
within the defined 190-dB shutdown zone. After correcting for animal 
location based on distance and bearing relative to the observer, the 
distance from the animal to the pile was determined to be approximately 
30 m. The barge location on that day may have impacted the observer's 
ability to judge distance relative to the pile. Although the sea lion 
was sighted relatively close to the shutdown zone, the MMO assumed 
that, since it was seen passing the 49 x 12 m barge, it was outside of 
the shutdown zone. The animal continued swimming and no behavioral 
changes were noted.

[[Page 53039]]



                                    Table 5--Marine Mammal Monitoring Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Total incidents
             Species                     Location         Total sightings   Total individuals   of Level B take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion..............  NMAWC...............                 24                 25                  1
                                   IPP.................              1,061              2,299                387
Harbor seal......................  NMAWC...............                  6                  6                  1
                                   IPP.................                 23                 25                  6
Bottlenose dolphin...............  NMAWC...............                  1                  1                  0
                                   IPP.................                 34                 83                 13
Gray whale \1\...................  IPP.................                  1                  1                  0
Common dolphin \2\...............  IPP.................                  3                 19                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One large cetacean was observed just to the east of the Zuniga Jetty. It could not be positively identified
  but was likely a gray whale. See Figure 3-28 of the monitoring report.
\2\ No take was authorized for common dolphins.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    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].''
    All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from 
vibratory and impact pile driving or pneumatic chipping and involving 
temporary changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation and monitoring 
measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or 
lethal takes such that take by Level A harassment, serious injury, or 
mortality is considered discountable. However, it is unlikely that 
injurious or lethal takes would occur even in the absence of the 
planned mitigation and monitoring measures.
    If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior 
(e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed 
or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute 
taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or 
the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine 
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged 
period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially 
be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given 
the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts 
of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many 
animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a 
given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. This 
practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine mammals taken. 
In addition, it is often difficult to distinguish between the 
individuals harassed and incidences of harassment. In particular, for 
stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of 
individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per 
individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, 
especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or 
site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of 
foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by 
the harassing activity.
    The project area is not believed to be particularly important 
habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by 
marine mammals (with the exception of California sea lions, which are 
attracted to nearby haul-out opportunities). Sightings of other species 
are relatively rare. Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could 
result from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are 
expected to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine 
mammals, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the 
project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity.
    The Navy has requested authorization for the potential taking of 
small numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, bottlenose 
dolphins, common dolphins, and gray whales in San Diego Bay and nearby 
waters that may result from pile driving during construction activities 
associated with the fuel pier replacement project described previously 
in this document. In order to estimate the potential incidents of take 
that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we typically first 
estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the 
activity and then consider in combination with information about marine 
mammal density or abundance in the project area. In this case, we have 
acoustic data from project monitoring that provides empirical 
information regarding the sound fields likely produced by project 
activities. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds 
for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the 
measured sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance 
information, and the method of estimating potential incidents of take.

Sound Thresholds

    We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an 
activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal 
such that a take by harassment might occur. To date, no studies have 
been conducted that explicitly examine impacts to marine mammals from 
pile driving sounds or from which empirical sound thresholds have been 
established. These thresholds (Table 6) are used to estimate when 
harassment may occur (i.e., when an animal is exposed to levels equal 
to or exceeding the relevant criterion) in specific contexts; however, 
useful contextual information that may inform our assessment of effects 
is typically lacking and we consider these thresholds as step 
functions. NMFS is working to revise these acoustic guidelines; for 
more information on that process, please visit www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

[[Page 53040]]



               Table 6--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Criterion                Definition           Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment              Injury (PTS--any   180 dB (cetaceans)/
 (underwater).                   level above that   190 dB (pinnipeds)
                                 which is known     (rms).
                                 to cause TTS).
Level B harassment              Behavioral         160 dB (impulsive
 (underwater).                   disruption.        source)/120 dB
                                                    (continuous source)
                                                    (rms).
Level B harassment (airborne).  Behavioral         90 dB (harbor seals)/
                                 disruption.        100 dB (other
                                                    pinnipeds)
                                                    (unweighted).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distance to Sound Thresholds

    Background information on underwater sound propagation and the 
calculation of range to relevant thresholds was provided in our Federal 
Register notice of proposed authorization associated with the first-
year IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013). For the first-year IHA, the Navy 
estimated sound fields using a site-specific model for transmission 
loss (TL) from pile driving at a central point at the project site in 
combination with proxy source levels (as described in the 
aforementioned Federal Register notice). The model is based on 
historical temperature-salinity data and location-dependent bathymetry. 
In the model, TL is the same for different sound source levels and is 
applied to each of the different activities to determine the point at 
which the applicable thresholds are reached as a function of distance 
from the source. The model's predictions result in a slightly lower 
average rate of TL than practical spreading, and hence are 
conservative. The model has been further validated using acoustic 
monitoring data collected under the first-year IHA (see Figure 6-1 of 
the Navy's application).
    Only impact and vibratory driving of steel pipe piles is planned 
for the next phase of work. Demolition activities, including vibratory 
pile removal and pneumatic chipping, are also planned but would always 
occur concurrently with impact and vibratory driving and the resulting 
sound fields would be subsumed by those activities. Acoustic monitoring 
results that inform both the take estimates as well as the mitigation 
monitoring zones were reported in Table 4. We present the measured 
distances again here (Table 7) and compare to the modeled zones used in 
estimating potential incidents of take for the first year IHA. See also 
Figure 6-2 of the Navy's application for visual representation of these 
sound fields and their interaction with local topography. Assumed proxy 
source levels for the first-year IHA were 195 dB rms and 180 dB rms for 
impact and vibratory driving of steel piles, respectively. Measured 
source levels, used to produce the values labeled as ``measured'' 
below, were 200 dB rms and 170 dB rms for impact and vibratory driving, 
respectively. For impact driving, distances to the 160/180/190-dB ZOIs 
are 5,484, 452, and 36 m. For vibratory driving, background sound has 
been determined to be approximately 128 dB rms. The distance at which 
continuous sound produced by vibratory driving would attenuate to 
background levels is approximately 3,000 m. For airborne sound, we 
assume a single, precautionary zone here that is based on measured 
values for impact driving (approximately 110 dB [unweighted]).

                       Table 7--Predicted Versus Measured Distances to Relevant Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Distance to threshold in meters
             Activity              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       190 dB       180 dB       160 dB       120 dB       100 dB       90 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact driving, steel piles                  36          452        5,484          n/a          113          358
 (predicted)......................
Impact driving, steel piles                  75          450        2,500          n/a           71          233
 (measured) \1\...................
Vibratory driving, steel piles              <10           14          n/a        6,470            9           28
 (predicted)......................
Vibratory driving, steel piles              <10          <10          n/a        3,000          n/a          n/a
 (measured).......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that these values are based on data for bayside piles and will be precautionary for shoreside piles.
  See discussion at Table 4.

Airborne Sound

    Although sea lions are known to haul-out regularly on man-made 
objects in the vicinity of the project site (see Figure 4-1 of the 
Navy's application), and harbor seals are occasionally observed hauled 
out on rocks along the shoreline in the vicinity of the project site, 
none of these are within the ZOIs for airborne sound, and we believe 
that incidents of incidental take resulting solely from airborne sound 
are unlikely. The zones for sea lions are within the minimum shutdown 
zone defined for underwater sound and, although the zones for harbor 
seals are larger, they have not been observed to haul out as readily on 
man-made structure in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There 
is a remote possibility that an animal could surface in-water, but with 
head out, within one of the defined zones and thereby be exposed to 
levels of airborne sound that we associate with harassment, but any 
such occurrence would likely be accounted for in our estimation of 
incidental take from underwater sound.
    In summary, we generally recognize that pinnipeds occurring within 
an estimated airborne harassment zone, whether in the water or hauled 
out, could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral 
harassment. However, any animal exposed to airborne sound above the 
behavioral harassment threshold is likely to also be exposed to 
underwater sound above relevant thresholds (which are typically in all 
cases larger zones than those associated with airborne sound). Thus, 
the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in 
these estimates of potential take. Multiple incidents of exposure to 
sound above NMFS' thresholds for behavioral harassment are not believed 
to result in increased behavioral disturbance, in either nature or 
intensity of disturbance reaction. Therefore, we do not believe that 
authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for 
pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further 
here.

Marine Mammal Densities

    For all species, the best scientific information available was 
considered for use in the marine mammal take assessment calculations. 
Although various regional offshore surveys for marine mammals have been 
conducted, it is unlikely that these data would be

[[Page 53041]]

representative of the species or numbers that may be encountered in San 
Diego Bay. However, the Navy has conducted a large number of site-
specific marine mammal surveys, from 2007-14 (Merkel and Associates, 
2008; Johnson, 2010, 2011; Lerma, 2012, 2014). Whereas analyses for the 
previous IHA relied on surveys conducted from 2007-12, continuing 
surveys by the Navy have generally indicated increasing abundance of 
all species. Accordingly, we use here data from surveys of the project 
area that were conducted between September 2012 and April 2014 in order 
to provide the most up-to-date estimates for marine mammal abundances 
during the period of this proposed IHA. These data are from dedicated 
line-transect surveys, or from opportunistic observations for more 
rarely observed species (see Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of the Navy's 
application). Boat survey transects established within northern San 
Diego Bay in 2007 have been resurveyed on 46 occasions, 35 of which 
were conducted between September and April. Observational data from the 
most recent 22 of these surveys inform this analysis.
    In addition, the Navy has developed estimates of marine mammal 
densities in waters associated with training and testing areas 
(including Hawaii-Southern California) for the Navy Marine Species 
Density Database (NMSDD). A technical report (Hanser et al., 2014) 
describes methodologies and available information used to derive these 
densities, which are based upon the best available information, except 
where specific local abundance information is available and applicable 
to a specific action area. Density information is shown in Table 8; the 
document is publicly available on the Internet at: nwtteis.com/DocumentsandReferences/NWTTDocuments/SupportingTechnicalDocuments.aspx 
(accessed August 26, 2014).

Description of Take Calculation

    The following assumptions are made when estimating potential 
incidences of take:
     All marine mammal individuals potentially available are 
assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally 
taken;
     An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period;
     There were will be 135 total days of activity;
     The maximum ZOI is approximately 5.7 km\2\;
     Vibratory and impact driving of steel pipe piles will 
occur on each day; and,
     Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant 
thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
    The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following 
calculation:

Exposure estimate = (n * ZOI) * days of total activity

where:
n = density estimate used for each species/season
ZOI = sound threshold ZOI area; the area encompassed by all 
locations where the SPLs equal or exceed the threshold being 
evaluated
n * ZOI produces an estimate of the abundance of animals that could 
be present in the area for exposure, and is rounded to the nearest 
whole number before multiplying by days of total activity.

    The ZOI impact area is estimated using the relevant distances in 
Table 7, assuming that sound radiates from a central point in the water 
column slightly offshore of the existing pier and taking into 
consideration the possible affected area due to topographical 
constraints of the action area (i.e., radial distances to thresholds 
are not always reached). When local abundance is the best available 
information, in lieu of the density-area method described above, we may 
simply multiply some number of animals (as determined through counts of 
animals hauled-out) by the number of days of activity, under the 
assumption that all of those animals will be present and incidentally 
taken on each day of activity.
    Where appropriate, we use average daily number of individuals 
observed within the project area (defined as the 120-dB ZOI for 
potential behavioral disturbance by vibratory pile driving calculated 
without consideration for background sound levels) during Navy marine 
mammal surveys, corrected to allow for a five percent contingency. It 
is the opinion of the professional biologists who conducted these 
surveys that detectability of animals during these surveys, at slow 
speeds and under calm weather and excellent viewing conditions, 
approached one hundred percent. However, to account for the possibility 
that some parts of the study area may not have been covered due to 
access limitations, and to allow for variation in the accuracy of 
counts of large numbers of animals, a 95 percent detection rate is 
assumed (equivalent to five percent precautionary contingency 
allowance).
    There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents 
of take may be conservative, assuming that available density or 
abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate (aside from 
the contingency correction discussed above). We assume, in the absence 
of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of 
the calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken 
by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary 
activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may 
be present, this number more realistically represents the number of 
incidents of take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals. 
While pile driving can occur any day throughout the period of validity, 
and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of 
that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually 
spent pile driving. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures 
in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take 
estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be 
conservative. See Table 8 for total estimated incidents of take.

California Sea Lion

    The NMSDD reports estimated densities for north and central San 
Diego Bay of 5.8 animals/km\2\ for the summer and fall periods and 2.5 
animals/km\2\ during the winter and spring (based on surveys conducted 
2007-11). For the first-year IHA, the Navy reported an average 
abundance of approximately sixty individuals per survey day 
(approximately equating to the reported density). However, when 
considering only more recent Navy vessel-based surveys (22 surveys 
between September 2012 and April 2014), an average of 175 individuals 
(adjusted for 95 percent detection as described above) has been 
observed within the maximum ZOI for the project during the seasonal 
period of in-water construction. This includes both hauled-out and 
swimming individuals. For California sea lions, the most common species 
in northern San Diego Bay and the only species with regular occurrence 
in the project area, we determined that this value--derived from more 
recent site-specific surveys--would be most appropriate for use in 
estimating potential incidences of take.

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals are relatively uncommon within San Diego Bay. 
Previously, sightings in the Navy transect surveys of northern San 
Diego Bay were limited to individuals outside of the ZOI, on the south 
side of Ballast Point. These individuals had not been observed entering 
or transiting the project area and were believed to move from this

[[Page 53042]]

location to haul-outs further north at La Jolla. Separately, marine 
mammal monitoring conducted by the Navy intermittently from 2010-14 had 
documented up to four harbor seals near Pier 122 (within the ZOI) at 
various times, with the greatest number of sightings during April and 
May. This information was used in the previous IHA analysis, wherein we 
assumed that three harbor seals could be present for up to thirty days 
of the project. However, more recent data from Navy transect surveys 
(September 2012 through April 2014) indicate an average abundance of 
6.17 within the maximum project ZOI (adjusted for 95 percent detection 
to an average of seven individuals). Animals were seen swimming as well 
as hauled out on rocks along the shoreline of NBPL. Although it is 
unknown whether this increase in abundance is a temporary phenomenon we 
use this new information on a precautionary basis as the best available 
information, and assume that this number of animals could be present on 
any day of the project. The NMSDD provides a maximum density estimate 
of 0.02 animals/km\2\ for southern California, but recent, site-
specific information indicates that harbor seals are more common within 
the northern San Diego Bay project area than this density would 
suggest.

Gray Whale

    The NMSDD provides a density of 0.1 animals/km\2\ for southern 
California waters from shore to 5 nm west of the Channel Islands 
(winter/spring only; density assumed to be zero during summer/fall), a 
value initially reported by Carretta et al. (2000) for gray whales 
around San Clemente Island in the Southern California Bight. Gray 
whales were seen only from January-April. In the project area, 
observational data for gray whales is limited and their occurrence 
considered infrequent and unpredictable. On the basis of limited 
information--in recent years, solitary individuals have entered the bay 
and remained for varying lengths of time in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014, 
and whales more regularly transit briefly past the mouth of San Diego 
Bay--we assume here that the NMSDD density may be applicable throughout 
the migration period (December-April), while acknowledging that it 
likely represents a precautionary estimate for waters within the Bay as 
opposed to those outside the mouth of the bay that whales are more 
likely to transit through. In order to determine how many of the 
maximum 135 days of in-water pile driving work it is appropriate to 
assume the potential for gray whale presence, we consider in-water work 
days (five days per week) that overlap the main part of the migration 
season (approximately eighteen weeks), for a total of ninety days. 
Incidental harassment of gray whales could result from some combination 
of individuals briefly transiting near the mouth of the Bay and from 
individuals entering the bay and lingering in the project area.

Bottlenose Dolphin

    Coastal bottlenose dolphins can occur at any time of year in San 
Diego Bay. Numbers sighted during Navy transect surveys have been 
highly variable, ranging from zero to forty individuals (observed 
dolphins are assumed to have been of the coastal stock). An uncorrected 
average of 2.1 bottlenose dolphins was observed during recent Navy 
surveys (September 2012 through April 2014), although nineteen animals 
were observed in a single survey. As reported in the NMSDD, Dudzik et 
al. (2006) provide a uniform density for California coastal dolphins of 
0.4 animals/km\2\ within 1 km of the coast from Baja to San Francisco 
in all four seasons. However, given the sporadic nature of bottlenose 
dolphin sightings (i.e., limited data) and the high variability 
observed in terms of numbers and locations, we believe it appropriate 
to take a precautionary approach to take estimation for bottlenose 
dolphins and assume that as many as three dolphins could occur per day 
of activity. We believe that this increase from the observed abundance 
is necessary and sufficient to account for the uncertainty described 
above.

Common Dolphin

    Common dolphins are present in the coastal waters outside of San 
Diego Bay, but have been observed in the bay only infrequently and were 
never seen during the Navy's surveys. However, the previously described 
observations of common dolphins in the project area during the IPP in 
2014 prompted their inclusion in this proposed IHA. There have not been 
enough sightings of common dolphins in San Diego Bay to develop a 
reliable estimate specific to the project area. Sightings of long-
beaked common dolphins are predominantly near shore, and have been 
documented during Navy training exercises just offshore and to the 
south of San Diego Bay, whereas those of short-beaked common dolphins 
extend throughout the coastal and offshore waters. The NMSDD provides 
an all-season density estimate of 0.1 animals/km\2\ for the long-beaked 
common dolphin within southern California waters (derived from Ferguson 
and Barlow [2003] and Barlow and Forney [2007]). Because short-beaked 
common dolphins are less common in nearshore waters than are long-
beaked, and are expected to be less likely to occur in the project 
area, we assign the value for long-beaked common dolphins to all common 
dolphins that may occur in the project area. However, use of this 
density value would result in an assumption that no common dolphins 
would be incidentally taken by project activities. We believe it 
appropriate to take a precautionary approach and, on the basis of the 
common dolphin observations from previous project monitoring (i.e., 
three observations with average group size of six), assume that a group 
of six dolphins could potentially be present on each day of activity. 
These incidents of take could be of either long-beaked or short-beaked 
common dolphins.

                              Table 8--Calculations for Incidental Take Estimation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Total proposed authorized takes \3\ (% of
                 Species                       Abundance \1\                        total stock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion.....................                      175  23,625 (8.0)
Harbor seal.............................                        7  945 (3.1)
Bottlenose dolphin......................                        3  405 (81.0) \4\
Common dolphin..........................                        6  810 (0.8 [LB]/0.2 [SB]) \5\
Gray whale..............................                    \2\ 1  90 (0.5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Best available species- and season-specific density estimate were described above. With the exception of the
  gray whale (see footnote 2 below), we have determined that in all cases a site-specific abundance estimate is
  the most appropriate information to use in estimating take. See discussions above.
\2\ Product of density (0.115 animals/km\2\) and largest ZOI (5.7 km\2\) rounded to nearest whole number.

[[Page 53043]]

 
\3\ Best abundance numbers multiplied by expected days of activity (135) to produce take estimate. Calculation
  for gray whale assumes ninety days rather than 135; see discussion above.
\4\ Total stock assumed to be 500 for purposes of calculation. See Table 3.
\5\ LB = long-beaked; SB = short-beaked.

Analyses and Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact Analysis

    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.'' 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, we consider 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 
the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number 
of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
    Pile driving activities associated with the pier replacement 
project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or 
displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may 
result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral 
disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. 
Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present 
in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.
    No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the 
nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the 
possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these 
outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the 
implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, 
vibratory hammers will be the primary method of installation, and this 
activity does not have significant potential to cause injury to marine 
mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced (site-specific 
acoustic monitoring data show no source level measurements above 180 dB 
rms) and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. 
Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak 
levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. When impact 
driving is necessary, required measures (implementation of shutdown 
zones) significantly reduce any possibility of injury. Given sufficient 
``notice'' through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine 
mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying 
prior to its becoming potentially injurious. The likelihood that marine 
mammal detection ability by trained observers is high under the 
environmental conditions described for San Diego Bay (approaching one 
hundred percent detection rate, as described by trained biologists 
conducting site-specific surveys) further enables the implementation of 
shutdowns to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality.
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the 
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other 
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as 
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased 
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 
2006; HDR, 2012; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply 
move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the 
areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed 
primarily only in association with impact pile driving. In response to 
vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which may become somewhat habituated to 
human activity in industrial or urban waterways) have been observed to 
orient towards and sometimes move towards the sound. The pile driving 
activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, 
numerous other construction activities conducted in San Francisco Bay 
and in the Puget Sound region, which have taken place with no reported 
injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse 
consequences from behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of 
individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are 
unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt 
foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small 
subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant 
realized decrease in fitness for the affected individuals, and thus 
would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B 
harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable impact 
through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound 
produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are 
likely to simply avoid the project area while the activity is 
occurring.
    In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the 
following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or 
mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the 
anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, 
temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant 
habitat within the project area, including rookeries, significant haul-
outs, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging 
or reproduction; (4) the presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation 
measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level 
of least practicable impact. In addition, these stocks are not listed 
under the ESA or considered depleted under the MMPA. In combination, we 
believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence 
from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects 
of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on 
individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of 
recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-
level impacts. 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, we preliminarily find that the 
total marine mammal take from Navy's pier replacement activities will 
have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or 
stocks.

Small Numbers Analysis

    The number of incidents of take proposed for authorization for 
these stocks, with the exception of the coastal bottlenose dolphin (see 
below), would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or 
populations (see Table 8) even if each estimated taking occurred to a 
new individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario as, for 
pinnipeds occurring at the NBPL waterfront, there will almost certainly 
be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day and in general, there 
is likely

[[Page 53044]]

to be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day for animals in 
estuarine/inland waters.
    The proposed numbers of authorized take for bottlenose dolphins are 
higher relative to the total stock abundance estimate and would not 
represent small numbers if a significant portion of the take was for a 
new individual. However, these numbers represent the estimated 
incidents of take, not the number of individuals taken. That is, it is 
likely that a relatively small subset of California coastal bottlenose 
dolphins would be incidentally harassed by project activities. 
California coastal bottlenose dolphins range from San Francisco Bay to 
San Diego (and south into Mexico) and the specified activity would be 
stationary within an enclosed water body that is not recognized as an 
area of any special significance for coastal bottlenose dolphins (and 
is therefore not an area of dolphin aggregation, as evident in Navy 
observational records). We therefore believe that the estimated numbers 
of takes, were they to occur, likely represent repeated exposures of a 
much smaller number of bottlenose dolphins and that, based on the 
limited region of exposure in comparison with the known distribution of 
the coastal bottlenose dolphin, these estimated incidents of take 
represent small numbers of bottlenose dolphins.
    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, we preliminarily find 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, we have 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)

    The Navy initiated informal consultation under section 7 of the ESA 
with NMFS Southwest Regional Office (now West Coast Regional Office) on 
March 5, 2013. NMFS concluded on May 16, 2013, that the proposed action 
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, WNP gray whales. The 
Navy has not requested authorization of the incidental take of WNP gray 
whales and no such authorization is proposed, and there are no other 
ESA-listed marine mammals found in the action area. Therefore, no 
consultation under the ESA is required.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published 
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the 
Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, 
indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from 
the pier replacement project. NMFS made the Navy's EA available to the 
public for review and comment, in relation to its suitability for 
adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the human 
environment of issuance of an IHA to the Navy. Also in compliance with 
NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6, NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA, determined it to be sufficient, and 
adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 
on July 8, 2013.
    We have reviewed the Navy's application for a renewed IHA for 
ongoing construction activities for 2014-15 and the 2013-14 monitoring 
report. Based on that review, we have determined that the proposed 
action is very similar to that considered in the previous IHA. In 
addition, no significant new circumstances or information relevant to 
environmental concerns have been identified. Thus, we have determined 
preliminarily that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA 
document is not necessary, and will, after review of public comments 
determine whether or not to reaffirm our 2013 FONSI. The 2013 NEPA 
documents are available for review at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to 
issue an IHA to the Navy for conducting the described pier replacement 
activities in San Diego Bay, for a period of one year from the date of 
issuance, 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 Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid for a 
period of one year from the date of issuance.
    2. This IHA is valid only for pile driving and removal activities 
associated with the fuel pier replacement project in San Diego Bay, 
California.
    3. General Conditions
    (a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the Navy, its 
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of 
this IHA.
    (b) The species authorized for taking are the harbor seal (Phoca 
vitulina richardii), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), 
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus truncatus), common dolphin 
(Delphinus sp.), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus).
    (c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the 
species listed in condition 3(b). See Table 1 (attached) for numbers of 
take authorized.
    (d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or 
death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the 
Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is 
prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or 
revocation of this IHA.
    (e) The Navy shall conduct briefings between construction 
supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, acoustic 
monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving 
activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain 
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring 
protocol, and operational procedures.
    4. Mitigation Measures
    The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the 
following mitigation measures:
    (a) For all pile driving, the Navy shall implement a minimum 
shutdown zone of 10 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes 
within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease. 
See Table 2 (attached) for minimum radial distances required for 
shutdown zones.
    (b) The Navy shall similarly avoid direct interaction with marine 
mammals during in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving 
that may occur in association with the specified activities. If a 
marine mammal comes within 10 m of such activity, operations shall 
cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to 
maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as appropriate.
    (c) The Navy shall establish monitoring locations as described 
below. Please also refer to the Acoustic

[[Page 53045]]

and Marine Species Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan; attached).
    i. For all pile driving activities, a minimum of one observer shall 
be stationed at the active pile driving rig in order to monitor the 
shutdown zones.
    ii. For all pile driving activities, at least three additional 
vessel-based observers shall be positioned for optimal monitoring of 
the surrounding waters. During impact driving of steel piles, one of 
these shall be stationed for optimal monitoring of the cetacean Level A 
injury zone (see Table 2), while two of these may be positioned at the 
discretion of the Navy for optimal fulfillment of both acoustic 
monitoring objectives and monitoring of the Level B harassment zone. 
During all other pile driving, all three vessel-based observers may be 
positioned at the discretion of the Navy for optimal fulfillment of 
both acoustic monitoring objectives and monitoring of the Level B 
harassment zone.
    iii. For all impact pile driving activities, a minimum of one 
shore-based observer shall be located at the pier work site.
    iv. These observers shall record all observations of marine 
mammals, regardless of distance from the pile being driven, as well as 
behavior and potential behavioral reactions of the animals. Photographs 
must be taken of any observed gray whales.
    v. All observers shall be equipped for communication of marine 
mammal observations amongst themselves and to other relevant personnel 
(e.g., those necessary to effect activity delay or shutdown).
    (d) Monitoring shall take place from fifteen minutes prior to 
initiation of pile driving activity through thirty minutes post-
completion of pile driving activity. Pre-activity monitoring shall be 
conducted for fifteen minutes to ensure that the shutdown zone is clear 
of marine mammals, and pile driving may commence when observers have 
declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals. In the event of a 
delay or shutdown of activity resulting from marine mammals in the 
shutdown zone, animals shall be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone 
(i.e., must leave of their own volition) and their behavior shall be 
monitored and documented. Monitoring shall occur throughout the time 
required to drive a pile. The shutdown zone must be determined to be 
clear during periods of good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown zone 
and surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye).
    (e) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, all 
pile driving activities at that location shall be halted. If pile 
driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, 
the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has 
voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone 
or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
    (f) Monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers, as 
described in the Monitoring Plan. Trained observers shall be placed 
from the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine 
mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable 
through communication with the equipment operator.
    (g) The Navy shall use soft start techniques recommended by NMFS 
for vibratory and impact pile driving. Soft start for vibratory drivers 
requires contractors to initiate sound for fifteen seconds at reduced 
energy followed by a thirty-second waiting period. This procedure is 
repeated two additional times. Soft start for impact drivers requires 
contractors to provide an initial set of strikes at reduced energy, 
followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced 
energy strike sets. Soft start shall be implemented at the start of 
each day's pile driving and at any time following cessation of pile 
driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer. Soft start for impact 
drivers must be implemented at any time following cessation of impact 
driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer.
    (h) Pile driving shall only be conducted during daylight hours.
    5. Monitoring
    The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine 
mammal monitoring during pile driving activity. Marine mammal 
monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the 
Monitoring Plan.
    (a) The Navy shall collect sighting data and behavioral responses 
to pile driving for marine mammal species observed in the region of 
activity during the period of activity. All observers shall be trained 
in marine mammal identification and behaviors, and shall have no other 
construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
    (b) For all marine mammal monitoring, the information shall be 
recorded as described in the Monitoring Plan.
    (c) The Navy shall conduct acoustic monitoring for representative 
scenarios of pile driving activity, as described in the Monitoring 
Plan.
    6. Reporting
    The holder of this Authorization is required to:
    (a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA 
within 45 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal and acoustic 
monitoring, or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA 
for this project, whichever comes first. A final 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 Monitoring Plan, at minimum 
(see attached), and shall also include:
    i. Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, 
including the distance of animals to the pile and description of 
specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if 
any.
    ii. Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of 
individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as 
ability to track groups or individuals.
    iii. Results of acoustic monitoring, including the information 
described in the Monitoring Plan.
    (b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
    i. 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 an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, 
Navy shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (301-427-8425), NMFS, and 
the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator (206-526-6550), NMFS. The 
report must include the following information:
    A. Time and date of the incident;
    B. Description of the incident;
    C. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    E. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
    F. Fate of the animal(s); and
    G. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Navy to 
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Navy may not resume 
their activities until notified by NMFS.
    i. In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the

[[Page 53046]]

cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively 
recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), Navy 
shall immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, 
NMFS.
    The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) 
of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the 
circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Navy to determine 
whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the 
activities are appropriate.
    ii. In the event that Navy 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 activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, scavenger damage), Navy shall report the incident to the 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. Navy 
shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
    7. 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.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for Navy's pier 
replacement activities. Please include with your comments any 
supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final 
decision on Navy's request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: August 29, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-21140 Filed 9-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P