[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54867-54892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XR040


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Long Beach Cruise Terminal 
Improvement Project in the Port of Long Beach, California

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

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

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Carnival Corporation & PLC 
(Carnival) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the 
Port of Long Beach Cruise Terminal Improvement Project in Port of Long 
Beach, California. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 
NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental 
harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals 
during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a 
possible one-year renewal that could be issued under certain 
circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request 
for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider 
public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of 
the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be 
summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than November 
12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments 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

[[Page 54868]]

received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted 
online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities 
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: Wendy Piniak, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: chttps://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems 
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public 
for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. The definitions 
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the 
relevant sections below.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with 
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for 
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or 
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality 
of the human environment and for which we have not identified any 
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical 
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the 
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review.
    We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice 
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the 
IHA request.

Summary of Request

    On February 15, 2019, NMFS received a request from Carnival for an 
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the Port of Long Beach Cruise 
Terminal Improvement Project in Port of Long Beach (POLB), California. 
The application was deemed adequate and complete on July 12, 2019. 
Subsequent revisions to the application were submitted by Carnival on 
September 13, 2019. Carnival's request is for take of five species of 
marine mammals by Level B harassment and one of these five species by 
Level A harassment. Neither Carnival nor NMFS expects serious injury or 
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 
appropriate. In-water activities (pile installation and dredging) 
associated with the project are anticipated to require five months.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    Carnival has requested authorization for take of marine mammals 
incidental to in-water activities associated with the Port of Long 
Beach Cruise Terminal Improvement Project in POLB, California. The 
purpose of the project is to make improvements to its existing berthing 
facilities at the Long Beach Cruise Terminal at the Queen Mary located 
at Pier H in the POLB, in order to accommodate a new, larger class of 
cruise ships. The project would also resolve safety issues in the 
existing parking structure and vessel mooring. Implementation of the 
project requires installation of two high-capacity mooring dolphins, 
fenders, and a new passenger bridge system, and dredging at the 
existing berth and the immediate surrounding area. In-water 
construction will include installation of a maximum of 49 permanent, 
36-inch (91.4 centimeters (cm)) steel pipe piles using impact and 
vibratory pile driving. Sounds produced by these activities may result 
in take, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, of marine 
mammals located in the POLB, California.

Dates and Duration

    In-water activities (pile installation and dredging) associated 
with the project are anticipated to begin November 15, 2019, and be 
completed by April 15, 2020, however Carnival is requesting the IHA for 
one year from November 15, 2019 through November 14, 2020. Pile driving 
activities would occur for 26 days and dredging activities would occur 
for 30 days during the proposed project dates. In-water activities will 
occur during daylight hours only.

Specific Geographic Region

    The activities would occur in the POLB, which is located in San 
Pedro Bay within the southwest portion of the City of Long Beach in 
southern Los Angeles County, California (Figure 1). The POLB is bounded 
to the south by hard structure breakwaters, and is a highly 
industrialized port and the second-busiest container seaport in the 
United States. The POLB is administered by the City of Long Beach 
Harbor Department and encompasses 3,200 acres, with 31 miles (50 
kilometers (km)) of waterfront, 10 piers, and 80 berths.

[[Page 54869]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11OC19.002

    The site of the project is located adjacent to Royal Mail Ship 
Queen Mary (Pier J), at Pier H within the Queen Mary Seaport at 231 
Windsor Way (see Appendix A of the application for detailed maps of the 
Project Area). The Queen Mary Seaport is located at the south end of 
the Interstate 710 Freeway, directly across Queensway Bay from downtown 
Long Beach (see Appendix C of the application for detailed photographs 
of the project area and surrounding vicinity). The project site is 
located near the mouth of the Los Angeles River and several miles from 
the mouth of the San Gabriel River. The project site is approximately 
2.5 miles (4 km) from Queens Gate, the southern entrance to the Port 
Complex and approximately 3 miles (5 km) from the entrance to Alamitos 
Bay. The project site lies adjacent to the main navigational channel 
used by commercial and recreational vessels transiting to the City of 
Long Beach's shoreline facilities and marinas. The area east of the 
project site supports an expansive mooring field for cargo ships and 
barges, with a broad sand beach

[[Page 54870]]

area extending from downtown Long Beach to Belmont Shores.
    Current bathymetric data for the area indicates the water depth 
ranges from approximately 28 feet (ft) to 47 ft (8.5 to 14.3 meters 
(m)) Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) within the existing berth perimeter. 
Water depths in this area generally slope from slightly lower 
bathymetry in the west (near the pier) to deeper depths to the east 
(see Figure 3 of the application for a detailed benthic map of the Port 
of Long Beach). Bathymetry at the Port Complex has been significantly 
altered by filling and dredging. The Port Complex bottom has been 
dredged to a depth of approximately 20-40 ft (6.1 to 12.2 m) MLLW, 
while the bathymetry of the east basin retains a more gradual downward 
slope moving offshore. Adjacent and inshore of the existing berthing 
structure, the bottom was dredged to depths of roughly 30 to 50 ft (9.1 
to 15.2 m), and the bottom slopes downward from Pier H to the 
southeast. Beyond the berthing structure, the depth increases sharply 
from roughly 20 to 40 ft (6.1 to 12.2 m) out to the navigation channel, 
where depths exceed 50 ft (15.2 m) (navigation channel depths between 
75 and 90 ft (22.9 to 27.4 m) MLLW) (NOS 2018). Sediments in northern 
Port Complex are composed of relatively sandy silt and clay and much of 
the shoreline consists of riprap and manmade structures (MBC Applied 
Environmental Sciences 2016). Narrow linear strips of kelp are 
associated with some of the rock protection features; however submerged 
vegetation and natural rocky substrate are rare. No known eelgrass beds 
occur at the project site as water depth and turbidity preclude 
presence in most areas. Adjacent terrestrial habitat is predominantly 
industrial or recreational including considerable hardscape. Several 
small parks and beaches bordering the harbor can have heavy human usage 
and have limited habitat structure or value as haul-out sites (GHD 
2019a).
    Although water quality in the POLB and San Pedro Bay has improved 
in the past several decades, it remains degraded and impacted by many 
anthropogenic sources such as industrial effluent and vessel discharge 
and untreated run-off. Turbidity is high in the POLB, particularly in 
the rainy season. The Environmental Protection Agency California State 
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have listed many areas within the 
Port Complex as impaired waterbodies under Section 303(d) of the Clean 
Water Act.
    The Port Complex is heavily used by commercial, recreational, and 
military vessels. Tetra Tech (2011) reported the underwater ambient 
noise levels in active shipping areas of the POLB were approximately 
140 decibels (dB) re: 1 micropascal ([micro]Pa) root mean square (rms) 
and noise levels in non-shipping areas (Terminal Island) were between 
120 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa (rms) and 132 re: 1 [micro]Pa (rms). These 
underwater ambient noise levels are typical of a large marine bay with 
heavy commercial boat traffic (Buehler et al. 2015). Ship noise in the 
POLB may mask underwater sounds produced by the proposed activities, 
and continuous sources of in-water noise (vibratory pile driving and 
dredging) will likely become indistinguishable from other background 
noise as they attenuate to near ambient sound pressure levels moving 
away from the project site.

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    The proposed activities will make improvements to the existing 
berthing facilities at the Long Beach Cruise Terminal at the Queen Mary 
located at Pier H in the POLB, in order to accommodate safe and secure 
moorage for a new, larger class of cruise ships. The project would also 
resolve safety issues in the existing, adjacent parking structure and 
vessel mooring. These improvements and activities would include the 
addition of two high-capacity, pile-founded mooring dolphins to allow 
for adequate mooring capacity during reasonably anticipated dockside 
conditions, often including high winds and long-period wave swell 
actions, which have been anecdotally observed more frequently than in 
the past. The new dolphins will structurally follow the design of the 
existing dolphins, which are located off the north and south ends of 
the dock. All dolphins will connect back to the wharf deck of the 
marine structure via installed catwalk bridge elements.
    A maximum of 49 permanent, 36-inch (91.4 cm) steel pipe piles would 
be installed using a derrick barge with a pile driver. Piles would be 
installed approximately two-thirds of the way using a vibratory pile 
driver, and would be installed the remaining one-third and proofed 
using an impact pile driver. Proposed active pile driving is planned to 
occur from November 15, 2019 through April 15, 2020, and may be 
concurrent with the dredging workdays. The total number of pile driving 
days would not exceed 26 days (working days may be non-continuous and 
are expected to be limited to the in water work window proposed for 
pile driving: November 15, 2019 to April 15, 2020).
    Above water, an extension to the existing passenger bridge system 
for an added ramp section would be constructed to include an additional 
tower element on the existing wharf deck. This new tower and platform 
deck would be constructed using the new proposed piles or current piles 
just south of the existing wharf deck. These new structures would 
connect to the existing gangway, be approximately 63 ft (19.2 m) above 
the water's surface, and designed to follow the specifications and 
design criteria of the existing gangway (adjustable for tidal 
conditions while remaining compliant with the Americans with 
Disabilities Act).
    Dredging would be conducted to deepen the existing berth from the 
current depth of 30 ft (9.1 m) MLLW plus 1 foot (0.3 m) of over-dredge 
to a new depth of 36 ft (11 m) MLLW plus 1 foot (0.3 m) of over-dredge 
for a total depth of 37 ft (11.3 m) MLLW. Over-dredge is a standard 
construction design method to compensate for physical conditions and 
inaccuracies in the dredging process, and allow for efficient dredging 
practices. Dredging would be conducted with two tugboats and a 
clamshell dredge. The applicant estimates 30 days of dredging will be 
required during the proposed November 15, 2019 to April 15, 2020 
project dates. Working days may be non-continuous and may be concurrent 
with pile driving work days. The new depth will increase navigable and 
mooring margins, accommodate for pitch and roll movement of vessels due 
to long period wave swells, and assist in managing mooring loads on the 
dock structure. Because the loudest sound associated with dredging is 
produced by the tugboat engine, the activity would occur an 
industrialized port where marine mammals are continuously exposed to 
vessel engine sounds, and sounds produced by dredging would primarily 
occur on the same days as pile driving, no authorization for incidental 
take resulting from dredging is proposed for authorization.
    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed 
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS' Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports

[[Page 54871]]

(SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general 
information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral 
descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
the POLB and summarizes information related to the population or stock, 
including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential 
biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow 
Committee on Taxonomy (2018). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum 
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' 
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS' U.S. Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2019). All values 
presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of 
publication and are available in the 2018 Final SARs (Carretta et al., 
2019) (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments).

                     Table 1--Marine Mammals Potentially Present Within Port of Long Beach, California During the Specified Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -, -, N             26,960 (0.05, 25,849,         801        139
                                                                                                             2016).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
    Blue whale......................  Balaenoptera musculus..  Eastern North Pacific..  E, D, Y             1,647 (0.07, 1,551,           2.3       >=19
                                                                                                             2011).
    Fin whale.......................  Balaenoptera physalus..  California/Oregon/       E, D, Y             9,029 (0.12, 8,127,            81     >=43.5
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  California/Oregon/       -, -, Y             2,900 (0.05, 2,784,          16.7     >=40.2
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Short-beaked common dolphin.....  Delphinus delphis......  California/Oregon/       -, -, N             969,861 (0.17,              8,393       >=40
                                                                Washington.                                  839,325, 2014).
    Long-beaked common dolphin......  Delphinus capensis.....  California.............  -, -, N             101,305 (0.49, 68,432,        657     >=35.4
                                                                                                             2014).
    Common bottlenose dolphin.......  Tursiops truncates.....  Coastal California.....  -, -, N             453 (0.06, 346, 2011).        2.7      >=2.0
    Risso's dolphin.................  Grampus griseus........  California/Oregon/       -, -, N             6,336 (0.32, 4,817,            46      >=3.7
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
    Pacific white-sided dolphin.....  Lagenorhynchus           California/Oregon/       -, -, N             26,814 (0.28, 21,195,         191        7.5
                                       obliquidens.             Washington.                                  2014).
    Northern right whale dolphin....  Lissodelphis borealis..  California/Oregon/       -, -, N             26,556 (0.44, 18,608,         179        3.8
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California sea lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -, -, N             257,606 (N/A, 233,515,     14,011       >320
                                                                                                             2014).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  California.............  -, -, N             30,968 (0.157, 27,348,      1,641         43
                                                                                                             2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. California sea lion
  population size was estimated from a 1975-2014 time series of pup counts (Lowry et al. 2017), combined with mark-recapture estimates of survival rates
  (DeLong et al. 2017, Laake et al. 2018).
3 These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
  fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated
  with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
NOTE--Italicized species are not expected to be taken or proposed for authorization.

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 1. However, the temporal and/or spatial 
occurrence of the blue whale, fin whale, Risso's dolphin, Pacific 
white-sided dolphin, and northern right whale dolphin is such that take 
is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the 
explanation provided here. Blue whales have been observed in the 
Southern California Bight during their fall migration, however the 
closest live blue whale sighting record is 4.1 km south of the POLB 
breakwater (8.5 km

[[Page 54872]]

from the project site; OBIS SEAMAP 2019). Given that blue whales are 
more commonly observed in higher concentrations around the Channel 
Islands in southern California (Irvine et al. 2014), the rarity of live 
sightings in POLB (five reports of deceased individuals in 20 years, 
and no live sightings) and all deceased individuals), and that the 
noise produced by the proposed project's in-water activities are not 
anticipated to propagate large distances outside the POLB, no takes are 
anticipated for blue whales. Fin whales occur in the Southern 
California Bight year round, although they also seasonally range to 
central California and Baja California before returning to the Southern 
California Bight (Falcone and Schorr 2013). The closest live fin whale 
sighting record is 1.5 km south of the Port of Los Angeles breakwater 
(8.8 km from the project site; OBIS SEAMAP 2019). Given the rarity of 
live sightings in POLB (in recent past only one dead juvenile has been 
sighted in POLB and was believed to have been struck by a whale outside 
the POLB), and that the noise produced by the proposed project's in-
water activities are not anticipated to propagate large distances 
outside the POLB, no takes are anticipated for fin whales. The 
California, Oregon, and Washington (CA/OR/WA) stock of Risso's dolphins 
is commonly observed in the Southern California Bight (Carretta et al. 
2019), however they are infrequently observed very close to shore and 
no known records exist for this species in the POLB. The closest 
Risso's dolphin sighting record is 7.2 km south of the Port of Los 
Angeles breakwater (12.6 km from the project site; OBIS SEAMAP 2019). 
Given that there have been no sightings of Risso's dolphins in the POLB 
and that the noise produced by the proposed project's in-water 
activities are not anticipated to propagate large distances outside the 
POLB, no takes are anticipated for Risso's dolphins. The CA/OR/WA stock 
of Pacific white-sided dolphin is seasonally present in colder months 
outside the POLB breakwater in offshore water. The species was reported 
by USACE (1992) as present in the POLB, however there are no known 
occurrence data. The closest Pacific white-sided dolphin sighting 
record is 2.1 km west of the Port of Los Angeles breakwater (13.8 km 
from the project site; OBIS SEAMAP 2019). Given that there have been no 
sightings of Pacific white-sided dolphins in the POLB and that the 
noise produced by the proposed project's in-water activities are not 
anticipated to propagate large distances outside the POLB, no takes are 
anticipated for Pacific white-sided dolphins. The CA/OR/WA stock of 
northern right whale dolphins rarely occurs nearshore in the Southern 
California Bight (Carretta et al. 2019), and no sightings have occurred 
in the POLB. The closest northern right whale dolphin sighting record 
is 26.5 km southwest of the Port of Los Angeles breakwater (32.5 km 
from the project site; OBIS SEAMAP 2019). Given that there have been no 
sightings of northern right whale dolphins in the POLB and that the 
noise produced by the proposed project's in-water activities are not 
anticipated to propagate large distances outside the POLB, no takes are 
anticipated for northern right whale dolphins.

Cetaceans

Humpback Whale
    The humpback whale is distributed worldwide in all ocean basins. In 
winter, most humpback whales are found in the subtropical and tropical 
waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and then migrate to 
high latitudes in the summer to feed. The historic summer feeding range 
of humpback whales in the North Pacific encompassed coastal and inland 
waters around the Pacific Rim from Point Conception, California, north 
to the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west along the Aleutian 
Islands to the Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea of Okhotsk and 
north of the Bering Strait (Johnson and Wolman 1984).
    Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) as an endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 
global status review (Bettridge et al. 2015), NMFS established 14 
distinct population segments (DPSs) with different listing statuses (81 
FR 62259; September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. The DPSs that occur 
in U.S. waters do not necessarily equate to the existing stocks 
designated under the MMPA and shown in Table 2. Because MMPA stocks 
cannot be portioned, i.e., parts managed as ESA-listed while other 
parts managed as not ESA-listed, until such time as the MMPA stock 
delineations are reviewed in light of the DPS designations, NMFS 
considers the existing humpback whale stocks under the MMPA to be 
endangered and depleted for MMPA management purposes (e.g., selection 
of a recovery factor, stock status).
    Within U.S. west coast waters, three current DPSs may occur: The 
Hawaii DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central America 
DPS (endangered). The CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales along the U.S. 
west coast includes two feeding groups: The California/Oregon feeding 
group that includes whales from the Central American and Mexican DPSs 
defined under the ESA (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016), and the 
northern Washington and southern British Columbia feeding group that 
primarily includes whales from the Mexican DPS, but also includes small 
numbers of whales from the Hawaii and Central America DPSs 
(Calambokidis et al. 2008, Barlow et al. 2011, Wade et al. 2016). 
Humpback whales occurring in the project area would include animals 
from the California/Oregon feeding group. These whales spend the 
winter/spring in breeding grounds in the coastal waters of Central 
America and Mexico and migrate to the coast of California and Oregon in 
the summer/fall to forage on small crustaceans and fish (Calambokidis 
et al. 1989; Steiger et al. 1991; Calambokidis et al. 1993).
    The CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales showed an increase in 
abundance from 1990 through approximately 2008 (8 percent growth per 
year, Calambokidis et al. 1999), however more recent estimates using 
data collected through 2014 indicate a leveling-off of the population 
size (Calambokidis et al. 2017). Threats to the CA/OR/WA stock include 
entanglements, interactions with fishing gear, ship strike, and impacts 
of anthropogenic sound on habitat (Carretta et al. 2019).
    Humpback whales seasonally migrate (spring and fall) past the POLB 
and are frequently observed in waters outside the POLB outer harbor 
(MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 2016). Two live humpback whales 
have been documented in the neighboring Port of Los Angeles (one in 
June of 2016 and one in April of 2017) in by Harbor Breeze Cruises 
(HappyWhale 2019, OBIS SEAMAP 2019). Based on humpback whale migration 
patterns, humpback whales could be present near the project site during 
near the end of the proposed construction timeline in the spring of 
2020, but are most likely to observed outside the POLB.
Gray Whale
    Gray whales are commonly observed in the North Pacific Ocean 
(Carretta et al. 2019). Genetic studies indicate there are two 
population stocks: The Eastern North Pacific stock and the Western 
North Pacific stock (LeDuc et al. 2002; Lang et al. 2011a; Weller et 
al. 2013). Most Eastern North Pacific gray whales spend the summer and 
fall foraging on benthic and epibenthic invertebrates in the Chukchi, 
Beaufort, and

[[Page 54873]]

northwestern Bering Seas, with a small group foraging between Kodiak 
Island, Alaska and northern California in the summer months (Darling 
1984, Gosho et al. 2011, Calambokidis et al. 2017) and utilize 
wintering lagoons in Baja California, Mexico.
    The population size of the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray 
whales has increased over the last several decades despite Unusual 
Mortality Events (UMEs) in 1999 and 2000. Abundance estimates of the 
Pacific Coast Feeding Group of gray whales which forages along the 
along the coastal waters of the Pacific coast of North America from 
California to southeast Alaska, increased from 1998 through 2004, 
remained stable from 2005-2010, and steadily increased from 2011-2015 
(Calambokidis et al. 2017). This stock is currently experiencing an 
UME. As of September 5, 2019, 208 whales have been observed stranded in 
the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Preliminary findings from partial 
necropsies have shown evidence of emaciation. Additional information 
about this UME can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast.
    Subsistence hunters in Russia and the U.S. have traditionally 
hunted whales from the Eastern North Pacific stock in the Bering Sea. 
From 2012-2016 the average annual subsistence take was 128 whales 
(captured during the Russian hunts). The International Whaling 
Commission approved a 7-year quota (2019-2025) or 980 gray whales, with 
an annual limit of 140 whales for both Russia and the U.S. Threats to 
the Eastern North Pacific stock include entanglements, interactions 
with fishing gear, ship strike, marine debris, and climate change 
(Carretta et al. 2019).
    Gray whales seasonally migrate past the POLB. They migrate 
southward in January and February and northward in March and April 
(Hildebrand et al. 2012). Jefferson et al. (2013) estimated an 
abundance of 221 gray whales in the waters around nearby San Clemente 
Island, California in the cold water season. At least 19 documented 
occurrences of gray whales have been recorded in the POLB. Almost all 
records are from the late winter (February) and early spring (March 
through April), however, one gray whale was observed near the Southeast 
Basin in the POLB in December of 2017. Most available records of this 
species are from just outside the POLB in San Pedro Bay, with three 
records from August through November and over 40 records in December 
(HappyWhale 2019, OBIS SEAMAP 2019). Based on gray whale migration 
patterns, gray whales could be present near the project site during 
much of the proposed construction time from November through April, but 
they are more likely to be observed outside the POLB.
Short-Beaked Common Dolphin
    Short-beaked common dolphins occur in temperate and tropical waters 
globally. Short beaked common dolphins from the CA/WA/OR stock are the 
most common cetacean off the coast of California, occurring year-round 
and ranging from the coast to at least 300 nautical miles offshore 
(Carretta et al. 2019). They travel in large social pods and are 
generally associated with oceanic and offshore waters, prey-rich ocean 
upwellings, and underwater landscape features such as seamounts, 
continental shelves, and oceanic ridges. Though they are present off 
the coast of California year-round, their abundance varies with 
seasonal and interannual changes in oceanographic conditions 
(increasing with higher temperatures) with peak abundance in the summer 
and fall (Forney and Barlow 1998, Barlow 2016). Short-beaked common 
dolphins largely forage on schooling fish and squid. Off the California 
coast, calving takes place in winter months.
    Abundance of the CA/OR/WA stock short-beaked common dolphins has 
increased since large-scale surveys began in 1991. This stock is known 
to increase in abundance in California during warm water periods. The 
most recent survey in 2014 survey was conducted during extremely warm 
oceanic conditions (Bond et al. 2015) and recorded the highest 
abundance estimate since large-scale surveys began. This observed 
increase in abundance of short-beaked common dolphins off California 
likely reflects a northward movement of this transboundary stock from 
waters off Mexico (distributional shift), rather than an overall 
population increase due to growth shift (Anganuzzi et al. 1993; Barlow 
1995; Barlow 2016; Forney and Barlow 1998; Forney et al. 1995). The 
largest threat to the CA/OR/WA stock is interactions with fishing gear, 
however cooperative international management programs have dramatically 
reduced overall dolphin mortality in recent decades (IATTC 2015).
    Both short- and long-beaked common dolphins have been observed in 
the vicinity of the project action area. It is often difficult to 
distinguish between these two species in the field, but generally 
short-beaked common dolphins are more abundant, making up an estimated 
72 percent of individuals observed in the Southern California Bight 
during a 2008-2013 monitoring efforts (Jefferson et al. 2013). In 
monthly marine mammal monitoring in the POLB from 2013-2014, MBC 
Applied Environmental Sciences (2016) reported only one pod of common 
dolphins (40 individuals) in February, 2014. OBIS SEAMAP (2019) has 
records of common dolphins within 6.7 km of the POLB breakwater and 
17.6 km from the project site. Based on the available observations in 
and surrounding the POLB (all in winter months), common dolphins may be 
present within the project action area but their presence is likely 
occasional and of short duration.
Long-Beaked Common Dolphin
    Long-beaked common dolphins are found in the Atlantic, Pacific, and 
Indian Oceans. The distribution of long-beaked common dolphins in the 
California stock along the U.S. west coast overlaps with that of the 
short-beaked common dolphin, however long-beaked common dolphins are 
commonly found only within 50 nautical miles of the coast, from Baja 
California (including the Gulf of California) northward to central 
California (Carretta et al. 2019). They travel in large social pods and 
are generally associated with shallow, subtropical, and warm temperate 
waters close to the coast and on the continental shelf. Though they can 
be found of the California coast year-round, California represents the 
northern limit for this stock and animals likely move between U.S. and 
Mexican waters, with the distribution and abundance varying inter-
annually and seasonally with oceanographic conditions (Heyning and 
Perrin 1994). Off the California coast, calving takes place in winter 
and spring months. Like short-beaked common dolphins, long-beaked 
common dolphins largely forage on schooling fish and squid.
    While there is no trend analysis available for the California stock 
of long-beaked common dolphins, abundance estimates for California 
waters from vessel-based line-transect surveys have been greater in 
recent years as water conditions have been warmer (Barlow 2016) and 
long-beaked common dolphins appear to be increasing in abundance in 
California waters over the last 30 years (Moore and Barlow 2011, 2013). 
The ratio of strandings and visual observations of long-beaked to 
short-beaked common dolphin in southern California has varied, 
suggesting that varying oceanographic conditions affect the proportions 
of each species present (Heyning and Perrin 1994, Danil et al. 2010). 
The largest threat to the

[[Page 54874]]

California stock is interactions with fishing gear, however other 
mortalities caused by blast trauma from explosions, ingestion of marine 
debris. Additionally, NMFS has documented long-beaked common dolphin 
UMEs due to domoic acid toxicity as recently as 2007, and Tatters et 
al. (2012) suggest that increasing anthropogenic CO2 levels 
and ocean acidification may increase the toxicity of the diatom 
responsible for these UMEs.
    As previously described, both short- and long-beaked common 
dolphins have been observed (though infrequently) in the vicinity of 
the project action area during winter months.
Common bottlenose dolphin
    Common bottlenose dolphins are found in temperate and tropical 
waters throughout the world in offshore and coastal waters including 
harbors, bays, gulfs, and estuaries. Common bottlenose dolphins in the 
California coastal stock inhabit waters within one kilometer of shore 
(Hansen, 1990; Carretta et al. 1998; Defran and Weller 1999) from 
central California south into Mexican waters (at least as far south as 
San Quintin, Mexico). In southern California near the project action 
area, individuals are found even closer to shore and are found within 
500 meters (m) of the shoreline 99 percent of the time and within 250 m 
90 percent of the time (Hanson and Defran 1993). Photo-identification 
studies show little site fidelity and documented north-south movements 
with 80 percent of dolphins identified in Santa Barbara, Monterey, and 
Ensenada have also been identified off San Diego (Defran et al. 1999, 
Feinholz 1996, Defran et al. 2015). Bottlenose dolphins forage on a 
wide variety of fishes, cephalopods, and shrimps (Wells and Scott 
1999). The peak periods of calving for the California coastal stock 
occur in spring and fall.
    Mark-recapture abundance estimates from 1987-89, 1996-98, and 2004-
05 indicated that the population size remained stable during this 
period (Dudzik et al. 2006). Recent higher estimates based on surveys 
from 2009-2011 suggest the population may be growing, however it 
whether this increase is due to population increase or immigration 
(Weller et al. 2016). Threats to the California coastal stock include 
interactions with fisheries and coastal pollution (Carretta et al. 
2019).
    Common bottlenose dolphins have been observed in both the inner and 
outer harbors of POLB. They were observed during five of 12 monthly 
sampling events during the most recent (2013-2014) biological surveys 
(MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 2016), including the months of 
November, December, and March which are within the proposed project 
timeframe. Common bottlenose dolphins were recently sighted near the 
Queen Mary Dock and elsewhere in the project action area (MBC Applied 
Environmental Sciences 2016, Laura McCue NOAA, personal communication).

Pinnipeds

California Sea Lion
    California sea lions inhabit the eastern North Pacific Ocean from 
Islas Marias north of Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, north throughout the 
Gulf of California, and along the Baja California Peninsula north to 
the Gulf of Alaska. The U.S. stock ranges from the U.S./Mexico border 
to Canada. They occupy shallow ocean waters and prefer sandy beaches or 
rocky coves for breeding and haul-out sites, however they also commonly 
haul out on marina docks, jetties, and buoys. Pupping and breeding 
occur from May through July outside of the proposed project timeframe. 
Rookery sites in Southern California include San Miguel Island and to 
the more southerly Channel Islands of San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and 
San Clemente (Lowry et al. 2017). California sea lions commonly forage 
on a variety of prey including fish and squid, and exhibit annual 
migratory movements between breeding and foraging habitats. From August 
to December, adult and sub-adult males migrate north along the U.S. 
west coast to foraging areas along the coasts of California, Oregon, 
Washington, British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska. In the 
spring, males migrate southward to breeding rookeries in the Channel 
Islands and Mexico. Females and pups/juveniles commonly stay near 
breeding areas (Lowry et al. 2017), but some females may migrate as far 
north as San Francisco Bay in winter, and during El Ni[ntilde]o events, 
have been observed as far north as central Oregon. The California sea 
lion molts gradually over several months during late summer and fall.
    As with most sea lions, a complete population count of all harbor 
seals in California is not possible as all members of the population 
are not ashore simultaneously. Population estimates for the U.S. stock 
have increased since the 1970s and are derived from 3 primary data 
sources: (1) Annual pup counts (Lowry et al. 2017); (2) annual 
survivorship estimates from mark-recapture data (DeLong et al. 2017); 
and (3) estimates of human-caused serious injuries, mortalities, and 
bycatch (Carretta and Enriquez 2012a, 2012b, Carretta et al. 2016, 
Carretta et al. 2018a, 2018b). Using a logistic growth model and 
reconstructed population size estimates from 1975-2014, Laake et al. 
(2018) estimated a net productivity rate of 7 percent per year. The 
population is considered within the range of its optimum sustainable 
population (OSP) size (Laake et al. 2018). From January 2013 through 
September 2016, a greater than expected number of young malnourished 
California sea lions stranded along the coast of California and NMFS 
declared this an UME. Sea lions stranding from an early age (6-8 months 
old) through two years of age (hereafter referred to as juveniles) were 
consistently underweight without other disease processes detected. The 
proposed primary cause of the UME was malnutrition of sea lion pups and 
yearlings due to ecological factors. These factors included shifts in 
distribution, abundance and/or quality of sea lion prey items around 
the Channel Island rookeries during critical sea lion life history 
events (nursing by adult females, and transitioning from milk to prey 
by young sea lions). Threats to the U.S. stock include interactions 
with fisheries, entanglement in marine debris, entrainment in power 
plant intakes, oil exposure, vessel strikes, dog attacks, and human 
interactions/harassment (shootings, direct removals) (Carretta et al. 
2019).
    California sea lions have been observed year round in POLB, and 
they have recently been observed in both the inner and outer harbors of 
POLB (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 2016, Laura McCue NOAA, 
personal communication). The closest known pinniped regular use haul-
out site used for basking is along the breakwater approximately 3 km 
south of the project site, however pinnipeds may also haul out on buoys 
or rip rap that are less than 1 km from the project site (see Appendix 
A, Figure 4 of the application).
Harbor Seal
    Harbor seals are widely distributed in the North Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans. In the North Pacific Ocean two sub-species occur: Phoca 
vitulina stejnegeri in the western North Pacific near Japan and Phoca 
vitulina richardii in the eastern North Pacific, including areas around 
the project site (Carretta et al. 2019). Three stocks are currently 
recognized along the west coast of the continental U.S.: 1) California, 
2) Oregon and Washington outer coast waters, and 3) inland waters of 
Washington (Carretta et al. 2019). The

[[Page 54875]]

California stock of Pacific harbor seals is found in the project action 
area and inhabits coastal and estuarine areas including sand bars, 
rocky shores, and beaches along the entire coast of California, 
including the offshore islands, forming small, relatively stable 
populations. Pacific harbor seals are do not make extensive pelagic 
migrations like other pinnipeds, but do travel distances of 300-500 km 
to forage or find appropriate breeding habitat (Herder 1986; Harvey and 
Goley 2011). Harbor seals are rarely found more than 10.8 nm from shore 
(Baird 2001) and are generally are non-migratory (Burns 2002; Jefferson 
et al. 2008) and solitary at sea. Harbor seals spend more than 80 
percent of their time in the upper 164 ft (50 m) of the water column 
(Womble et al. 2014) and forage most commonly on fish, shellfish, and 
crustaceans.
    The California stock of harbor seals breeds along the California 
coast between from March to May and pupping occurs between April and 
May (Alden et al. 2002; Reeves et al. 2002). Molting occurs from late 
May through July or August and lasts approximately 6 weeks. Between 
fall and winter, harbor seals spend less time on land, but they usually 
remain relatively close to shore while at sea. The peak haul-out period 
for harbor seals in California is May through July (Carretta et al. 
2019).
    As with most seals, a complete population count of all harbor seals 
in California is not possible as all seals do not haul out 
simultaneously. A complete pup count (as is done for other pinnipeds in 
California) is also not possible because harbor seals enter the water 
almost immediately after birth. Population size is estimated by 
counting the number of seals hauled out during the peak haul-out period 
(May to July) and by multiplying this count by a correction factor 
equal to the inverse of the estimated fraction of seals on land 
(Carretta et al. 2019). Harvey and Goley (2011) calculated a correction 
factor of 1.54 (CV=0.157) based on 180 seals radio-tagged in 
California. Population counts of harbor seals increased from 1981 to 
2004, when the maximum count in California was recorded. More recent 
counts in 2009 and 2012 have lower than the 2004 maximum count. Threats 
to the California stock include interactions with fisheries, 
entanglement in marine debris, ship strikes, research-related deaths, 
entrainment in power plants, and human interactions/harassment 
(shootings, stabbing/gaff wounds, human-induced abandonment of pups) 
(Carretta et al. 2019).
    Harbor seals have been observed year round in POLB and have been 
observed occasionally following cruise ships to forage on organisms 
churned up from the benthos by ship propellors and food thrown from 
decks by passengers (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 2016, M. 
Peters, Carnival Cruise Lines, personal communication). The closest 
known pinniped regular use haul-out site used for basking is along the 
breakwater approximately 3 km south of the project site, however 
pinnipeds may also haul out on buoys or rip rap that are less than 1 km 
from the project site (see Appendix A, Figure 4 of the application).
    Additional information on the biology and local distribution of 
these species can be found in the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment 
Reports, which may be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

Habitat

    No ESA-designated critical habitat overlaps with the project area. 
A migration Biologically Important Area (BIA) for gray whales overlaps 
with the project area, however as previously described, gray whales are 
rarely observed in the POLB and the proposed project's in-water 
activities are not anticipated to propagate large distances outside the 
POLB.

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine 
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect 
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided 
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated 
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, 
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with 
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the 
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower 
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing 
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 2.

                  Table 2--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
                              [NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Hearing group                 Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen   7 Hz to 35 kHz.
 whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans           150 Hz to 160 kHz.
 (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
 whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true    275 Hz to 160 kHz.
 porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
 cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
 cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater)     50 Hz to 86 kHz.
 (true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater)    60 Hz to 39 kHz.
 (sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
  composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
  species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
  hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
  composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
  cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids,

[[Page 54876]]

especially in the higher frequency range (Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; 
Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. 
Seven marine mammal species (5 cetacean and 2 pinniped (1 otariid and 1 
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the 
proposed activities (Table 1). Of the cetacean species that may be 
present, two are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all 
mysticete species), three are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 
(i.e., all delphinid species), and none are classified as high-
frequency cetaceans.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section 
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number 
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the 
content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment 
section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 
regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive 
success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on 
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.

Description of Sound Sources

    The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and 
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing 
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many 
sources both near and far (ANSI 1994 1995). The sound level of an area 
is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and 
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind, 
precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and 
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at 
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or 
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as 
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and 
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate 
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the 
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea 
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a 
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected 
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. 
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB 
from day to day (Richardson et al. 1995). The result is that, depending 
on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity 
may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a 
distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.
    In-water construction activities associated with the project would 
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and dredging. The 
sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound 
types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 
gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are typically transient, 
brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist of high peak sound 
pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI 1986; NIOSH 1998; 
ANSI 2005; NMFS 2018). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g. aircraft, vessels, 
machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile 
driving, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or 
tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically 
do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that 
impulsive sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018). The distinction 
between these two sound types is important because they have differing 
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to 
hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et al. 2007).
    Two types of pile hammers would be used on this project: Impact and 
vibratory. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston 
onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by 
impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak 
levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper 2005). 
Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the 
weight of the hammer to push the pile into the sediment. Vibratory 
hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak 
sound pressure level (SPL) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 
10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the 
same-sized pile (Oestman et al. 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing 
the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed 
over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards 2002; Carlson et al. 
2005).
    The likely or possible impacts of Carnival's proposed activity on 
marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. 
Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical 
presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine 
mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Acoustic 
stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile 
installation and dredging.

Acoustic Impacts

    The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic 
environment from pile driving and dredging is the primary means by 
which marine mammals may be harassed from Carnival's specified 
activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound 
may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude 
from none to severe (Southall et al. 2007). Exposure to in-water 
construction noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold 
shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation 
of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior) and/or lead to 
non-observable physiological responses such an increase in stress 
hormones ((Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et 
al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Gotz et al., 2009). Additional noise 
in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine 
mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and predator 
and prey detection. The effects of pile driving and dredging noise on 
marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not 
limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the 
species, age and sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), 
duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, 
received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history 
with exposure (Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall et al. 2007). Here we 
discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts), followed by 
behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.
    Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of 
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a 
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing 
range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be 
audible (potentially perceived) to the animal, but not strong enough to 
elicit any overt behavioral or physiological

[[Page 54877]]

response. The next zone corresponds with the area where the signal is 
audible to the animal and of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral 
or physiological responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for 
signals of high intensity, the received level is sufficient to 
potentially cause discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other 
systems. Overlaying these zones to a certain extent is the area within 
which masking (i.e., when a sound interferes with or masks the ability 
of an animal to detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute 
hearing threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable 
in size.
    We describe the more severe effects (i.e., permanent hearing 
impairment, certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects) 
only briefly as we do not expect that there is a reasonable likelihood 
that Carnival's activities would result in such effects (see below for 
further discussion). NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) 
as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a 
specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). The amount of 
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent 
or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors 
to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not 
limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-
impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough 
duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the 
TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the 
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing 
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the 
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the 
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al. 2014b), and the 
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and 
spectral).
    Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold 
shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al. 1958, 1959; Ward 1960; 
Kryter et al. 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; Henderson et al. 
2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the 
exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor 
seal (Kastak et al. 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in 
marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical 
reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels 
inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS 2018).
    Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--A temporary, reversible increase 
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of 
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference 
level (NMFS 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see 
Southall et al. 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum 
threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-
session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et 
al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2016), 
marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with 
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 
low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small 
and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher 
higher SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and approach linear 
relationships with the noise SEL.
    Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration 
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in 
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging 
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory 
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily 
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal 
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and 
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well 
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al. 2007), so we can infer that 
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though 
likely not without cost.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus 
leucas), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and Yangtze finless 
porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and five species of pinnipeds 
exposed to a limited number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and 
octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). TTS was not 
observed in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) 
seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching previous 
predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al. 2016). In general, harbor 
seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured 
pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran 2015). Additionally, the 
existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of 
individuals within these species. No data are available on noise-
induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in 
marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 
please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), 
Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing piles requires 
a combination of impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. For 
the project, these activities would not occur at the same time and 
there would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound during 
each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely 
moving through the action area and not remaining for extended periods 
of time, the potential for TS declines.
    Behavioral Harassment--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety 
of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous 
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or 
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment 
of high-quality habitat. Disturbance may result in changing durations 
of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving 
direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/
cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or 
feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as 
tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound 
sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, 
possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). 
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific 
and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors 
(e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, 
reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the 
interplay between factors

[[Page 54878]]

(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2003; Southall et al. 
2007; Weilgart 2007; Archer et al. 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary 
not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on 
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other 
factors (Ellison et al. 2012), and can vary depending on 
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is 
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In 
general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more 
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, 
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial 
sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. 
(2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral 
responses to sound.
    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes 
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated 
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to 
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that 
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in 
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor 
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to 
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is 
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent 
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of 
exposure.
    As noted above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. 
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral 
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are 
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with 
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, 
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to 
loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic 
harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance 
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and 
Symonds 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater 
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given 
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving 
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater 
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts 
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces 
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a 
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be 
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 
However, there are broad categories of potential response, which we 
describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive 
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
    Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of 
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as 
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel 
and Clark 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung 2003; Nowacek et al., 
2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). Variations in dive behavior may 
reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., 
foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact 
of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure 
depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the 
type and magnitude of the response.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al. 
2001; Nowacek et al. 2004; Madsen et al. 2006; Yazvenko et al. 2007). A 
determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between 
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 
stage of the animal.
    Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors 
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure 
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a 
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates 
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute 
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may 
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and 
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in 
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise 
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic 
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005b, 2006; Gailey et 
al., 2007).
    Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple 
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and 
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic 
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to 
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased 
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of 
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have 
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales 
(Eubalaena glacialis) have been observed to shift the frequency content 
of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of 
increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007b). In some cases, 
animals may cease sound production during production of aversive 
signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or 
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other 
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance 
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales 
(Eschrictius robustus) are known to change direction--deflecting from 
customary migratory paths--in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys 
(Malme et al., 1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals 
returning to the area once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 
1994; Goold 1996; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey 
et al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may 
lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected 
species in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the 
sound does not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 
2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).
    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a 
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound 
source. The flight response differs from other

[[Page 54879]]

avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (e.g., directed 
movement, rate of travel). Relatively little information on flight 
responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although 
observations of flight responses to the presence of predators have 
occurred (Connor and Heithaus 1996). The result of a flight response 
could range from brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the 
area where the signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine 
mammal strandings (Evans and England 2001). However, it should be noted 
that response to a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke 
flight (Ford and Reeves 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or 
in groups may influence the response.
    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more 
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to 
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of 
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to 
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects 
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies 
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased 
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and 
Livoreil 1997; Fritz et al,, 2002; Purser and Radford 2011). In 
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through 
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent 
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington 
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, 
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose 
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any 
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption 
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound 
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one 
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not 
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe 
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et 
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day 
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic 
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple 
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either 
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, 
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive 
behavioral responses.
    Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be 
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination 
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, 
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg 
2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical 
(in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the 
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress 
typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short 
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an 
animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been 
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune 
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated 
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of 
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores 
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such 
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious 
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient 
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, 
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of 
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves 
sufficient to restore normal function.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through 
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals 
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; 
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to 
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects 
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano 
et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g., 
Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that 
noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These 
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine 
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to 
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be 
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS 
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
    Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering 
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between 
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator 
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995). Masking occurs when 
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound 
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may 
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar, 
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask 
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both 
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise 
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and 
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, 
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, 
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation 
conditions.
    Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities produce 
high levels of background sound at frequencies important to marine 
mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound is 
high (e.g. on a day with strong wind and high waves), an anthropogenic 
sound source would not be detectable as far away as would be possible 
under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. POLB is an active, 
industrialized harbor. POLB is an active port of call for not only 
cruise ships, but hosts numerous recreational and commercial vessels; 
therefore, background sound levels in the POLB are already elevated by 
these activities.
    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important 
in determining any potential behavioral

[[Page 54880]]

impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on 
high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more 
likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other 
potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and 
some prey species. The masking of communication signals by 
anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the 
communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and may 
result in energetic or other costs as animals change their vocalization 
behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 
2007b; Di Iorio and Clark 2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be 
reduced in situations where the signal and noise come from different 
directions (Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of 
the signal, or through other compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore 
2014). Masking can be tested directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe 
2008), but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred 
from evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing 
real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in 
the wild (e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013).
    Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and 
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the 
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency 
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial 
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping 
(Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially 
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.

Underwater Acoustic Effects

Potential Effects of Dredging Sound
    Based on existing reference values, the dredge/tug engine would 
produce the highest SPLs during dredging activities. Tugboat engine 
noise was estimated to be 170  5 dB (rms) at 1 m (Veirs et 
al. 2016). As previously described, POLB is an industrialized harbor. 
POLB is an active port of call for not only cruise ships, but hosts 
numerous recreational and commercial vessels including tugboats; 
therefore, background sound levels in the POLB are elevated by sounds 
produced by these vessels. The sounds produced by tugboat engines are 
of similar frequencies to the sounds produced by other vessel engines, 
and are anticipated to diminish to background noise levels (or be 
masked by background noise levels) in the Port relatively close to the 
project site. Further, any marine mammals inhabiting the POLB are 
exposed nearly continuously to the sounds produced by vessels. The 
dredging area is located close to the dock (See Figure 8 of the 
application), and the applicants plan to implement a 10 m shutdown zone 
around dredging activities. Finally, the applicants note that sounds 
produced by tugboats associated with dredging would primarily occur on 
the same days as pile driving, and therefore would potentially impact 
the same individuals. These animals would previously have been `taken' 
because of exposure to underwater sounds produced by pile driving. 
Thus, in these cases, behavioral harassment of these animals would 
already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, 
for the reasons described above, we do not believe that authorization 
of incidental take resulting from dredging is warranted, and impacts of 
dredging are not discussed further.
Potential Effects of Pile Driving Sound
    The effects of sounds from pile driving might include one or more 
of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-
auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and 
masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 
2007; Southall et al., 2007). The effects of pile driving on marine 
mammals are dependent on several factors, including the type and depth 
of the animal; the pile size and type, and the intensity and duration 
of the pile driving sound; the substrate; the standoff distance between 
the pile and the animal; and the sound propagation properties of the 
environment. Impacts to marine mammals from pile driving activities are 
expected to result primarily from acoustic pathways. As such, the 
degree of effect is intrinsically related to the frequency, received 
level, and duration of the sound exposure, which are in turn influenced 
by the distance between the animal and the source. The further away 
from the source, the less intense the exposure should be. The substrate 
and depth of the habitat affect the sound propagation properties of the 
environment. In addition, substrates that are soft (e.g., sand) would 
absorb or attenuate the sound more readily than hard substrates (e.g., 
rock), which may reflect the acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates 
would also likely require less time to drive the pile, and possibly 
less forceful equipment, which would ultimately decrease the intensity 
of the acoustic source.
    In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species could be 
expected to include physiological and behavioral responses to the 
acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008). Potential effects from 
impulsive sound sources like pile driving can range in severity from 
effects such as behavioral disturbance to temporary or permanent 
hearing impairment (Yelverton et al., 1973). Due to the nature of the 
pile driving sounds in the project, behavioral disturbance is the most 
likely effect from the proposed activity. Marine mammals exposed to 
high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience 
hearing threshold shifts. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS does not 
(Southall et al., 2007).
Non-Auditory Physiological Effects
    Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically 
might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound 
include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance 
effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; 
Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining such effects are limited. In 
general, little is known about the potential for pile driving to cause 
non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest 
that such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to 
short distances from the sound source and to activities that extend 
over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification 
of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be 
expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful quantitative 
predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be 
affected in those ways. We do not expect any non-auditory physiological 
effects because of mitigation that prevents animals from approach the 
source too closely, as well as source levels with very small Level A 
harassment isopleths. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of 
pile driving, including some odontocetes and some pinnipeds, are 
especially unlikely to incur on-auditory physical effects.
Disturbance Reactions
    Responses to continuous sound, such as vibratory pile installation, 
have not been documented as well as responses to pulsed sounds. With 
both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of pile driving 
could result in temporary,

[[Page 54881]]

short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of 
the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et 
al., 1995): Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows 
per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased 
vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities 
(such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or 
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); 
avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight 
responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haul-outs or 
rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to 
avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). 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, and if so potentially on the stock or species, could 
potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 
2007).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the 
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant 
behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on 
growth, survival, or reproduction include:
     Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as 
those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to 
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
     Longer-term habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable 
acoustic environment; and
     Longer-term cessation of feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and 
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals 
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007).
Auditory Masking
    Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking. The 
frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in 
determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated 
from in-water pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency 
ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds 
made by porpoises. The most intense underwater sounds in the proposed 
action are those produced by impact pile driving. Given that the energy 
distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound 
from these sources would likely be within the audible range of marine 
mammals present in the project area. Impact pile driving activity is 
relatively short-term, with rapid pulses occurring for less than 
fifteen minutes per pile. The probability for impact pile driving 
resulting from this proposed action masking acoustic signals important 
to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species is low. Vibratory 
pile driving is also relatively short-term, with rapid oscillations 
occurring for approximately 31.5 minutes per pile. It is possible that 
vibratory pile driving resulting from this proposed action may mask 
acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine 
mammal species, but the short-term duration and limited affected area 
would result in insignificant impacts from masking. Any masking event 
that could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would 
occur concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already 
estimated for vibratory and impact pile driving, and which have already 
been taken into account in the exposure analysis. Active pile driving 
is anticipated to occur for less than four hours per day and for 26 
days between November 15, 2019 and April 15, 2020, so we do not 
anticipate masking to significantly affect marine mammals.

Airborne Acoustic Effects

    Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to 
airborne sounds associated with pile driving that have the potential to 
cause behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from pile 
driving activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to 
airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the 
MMPA.
    Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are 
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise 
levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. Based on the location of 
the construction for the parking garage, levels of expected 
construction noise, and lack any pinniped haul-outs in the immediate 
vicinity of the project site, airborne noise associated with parking 
facility renovation are not expected to have any impact on pinnipeds. 
We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne 
sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their 
heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral 
responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater 
sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled out 
pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as 
reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the 
area and move further from the source. However, these animals would 
previously have been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound 
above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases 
larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral 
harassment of these animals would already accounted for in these 
estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that 
authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for 
pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further 
here.

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects

    The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small 
compared to the available habitat for all impacted species and stocks, 
and does not include any ESA-designated critical habitat. As previously 
mentioned a migration BIA for gray whales overlaps with the project 
area, however gray whales are rarely observed in the POLB and the 
proposed project's in-water activities are not anticipated to propagate 
large distances outside the POLB. Carnival's proposed construction 
activities in the POLB are of short duration and would not result in 
permanent negative impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, 
but could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat 
and their prey by increasing underwater and airborne SPLs and slightly 
decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic 
habitat (see masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine 
mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). 
During pile driving, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify 
the POLB where both fish and mammals occur and could affect foraging 
success. Airborne sounds produced by construction activities would not 
be detectable at the nearest known pinniped regular use haul-out site 
used for basking is along the breakwater

[[Page 54882]]

(approximately 3 km south of the project site).
    There are no known foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom 
structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals 
present in the marine waters of the project area. Therefore, the main 
impact issue associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily 
elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine 
mammals, as discussed previously in this document. The primary 
potential acoustic impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with 
elevated sound levels produced by vibratory and impact pile driving in 
the area. Physical impacts to the environment such as construction 
debris are unlikely.
    In-water pile driving and dredging activities would also cause 
short-term effects on water quality due to increased turbidity. The 
POLB is degraded and turbidity levels are generally high in the POLB, 
particularly in the rainy season. Carnival would employ standard 
construction best management practices (BMPs; see Section 11 of the 
application), and deploy silt fences for onshore activities, thereby 
reducing any potential impacts. Therefore, the impact from increased 
turbidity levels is expected to be discountable.
In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat
    Pile installation and dredging may temporarily increase turbidity 
resulting from suspended sediments. Any increases would be temporary, 
localized, and minimal. In general, turbidity associated with pile 
installation is localized to about a 25-foot (7.6 m) radius around the 
pile (Everitt et al. 1980). Large cetaceans are not expected to be 
close enough to the project activity areas to experience effects of 
turbidity, and any small cetaceans and pinnipeds could avoid localized 
areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity 
levels is expected to be discountable to marine mammals.
    Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for several species or groups of 
species overlaps with the project area including: Groundfish, coastal 
pelagic species, krill, finfish, dorado, and common thresher shark. 
NMFS (West Coast Region) reviewed the proposed action for potential 
effects to EFH pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act. The consultation identified project related 
activities that may adversely affect EFH including direct impacts to 
benthic habitat and organisms including dredging, increased turbidity, 
and underwater noise generation associated with pile installation and 
related construction work. However, they noted that the proposed 
project includes adequate conservation measures to address these 
impacts. For example, surveys for Caulerpa taxifolia will be performed 
in accordance with the Caulerpa Control Protocol to avoid the potential 
spread of that invasive alga. In addition, a ``soft start'' procedure 
and the use of bubble curtains will reduce the impacts of underwater 
acoustic noise associated with pile driving activities. In addition to 
the adverse effects identified above, the proposed project will 
increase overwater coverage by 5,340 square feet (1,628 square m) and 
will increase the amount of artificial hard structure within the marine 
environment. In general, increased overwater coverage would permanently 
reduce the quality of EFH and aquatic functions of waters of the United 
States. NMFS has completed an EFH Programmatic Consultation for 
Overwater Structures with the USACE Los Angeles District South Coast 
Branch, which summarizes the various adverse impacts to EFH and aquatic 
resources. NMFS does not believe the proposed project would result in a 
substantial adverse effect to EFH on an individual basis. However, NMFS 
noted in the consultation that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should 
consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and explicitly 
identify the conditions for which compensatory mitigation for lost 
aquatic functions would be deemed appropriate.
    Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) of the immediate area due 
to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is also possible. The 
duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving or dredging 
stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, 
distribution and behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by 
fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas 
of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity.
    The duration of the construction activities is relatively short. 
Pile driving activities would occur for 26 days and dredging activities 
would occur for 30 days during the proposed project dates. These 
activities are anticipated to overlap, reducing the total number of 
construction days, and in-water activities will occur during daylight 
hours only. Impacts to habitat and prey are expected to be minimal 
based on the short duration of activities.
    In-water Construction Effects on Potential Prey (Fish)--
Construction activities would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile 
driving and dredging) and pulsed (i.e. impact driving) sounds. Fish 
react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-
frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or 
subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution (summarized in 
Popper and Hastings 2009). Hastings and Popper (2005) reviewed several 
studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound 
energy. Additional studies have documented physical and behavioral 
effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based on studies 
in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects (e.g., 
Scholik and Yan 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings 2009). Sound pulses at 
received levels of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in fish behavior. 
SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson et al. 
1992; Skalski et al. 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been known 
to cause injury to fish and fish mortality (summarized in Popper et al. 
2014).
    The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the 
project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The 
duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is 
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and 
behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey 
species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the short 
timeframe for the project.
    In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with 
individual pile driving and dredging events and the relatively small 
and currently industrialized areas being affected, pile driving and 
dredging activities associated with the proposed action are not likely 
to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations 
of fish species. Thus, we conclude that impacts of the specified 
activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on 
any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts 
to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or 
long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute 
to adverse impacts on their populations.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities

[[Page 54883]]

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as 
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential 
to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A 
harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral 
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, 
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use 
of the acoustic sources (i.e., pile driving) has the potential to 
result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine 
mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A 
harassment) to result, for phocids (harbor seals) because predicted 
auditory injury zones are larger than for mid-frequency species and 
otariids. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency 
cetaceans and otariids. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures 
(see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting sections below) are 
expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent 
practicable. With implementation of the proposed mitigation and 
monitoring measures (see Proposed Mitigation section), no Level B 
harassment or Level A harassment is anticipated for low-frequency 
cetaceans (humpback whales and gray whales). As described previously, 
no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this 
activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take 
estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g., 
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Carnival's proposed activity includes 
the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact 
pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) thresholds are applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual 
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five 
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a 
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources 
(impulsive or non-impulsive). Carnival's proposed activity includes the 
use includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and 
impulsive (impact pile driving) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

                     Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        PTS onset thresholds \*\ (received level)
             Hearing group             -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Impulsive                          Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans..........  L,0-pk,flat: 219 dB;       LE,,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                         LE,,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans..........  L,0-pk,flat: 230 dB;       LE,,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                         LE,,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.........  L,0-pk,flat: 202 dB;       LE,,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                         LE,,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)....  L,0-pk,flat: 218 dB;       LE,,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                         LE,,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)...  L,0-pk,flat: 232 dB;       LE,,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                         LE,,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS
  onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds
  associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended for consideration.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (L,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and weighted cumulative sound
  exposure level (LE,) has a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to be
  more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ``flat''
  is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound
  exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
  cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted
  cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure
  levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the
  conditions under which these thresholds will be exceeded.


[[Page 54884]]

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    The sound field in the project area is the existing background 
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. 
Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in 
disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. The maximum 
(underwater) area ensonified is determined by the topography of the 
POLB including hard structure breakwaters which bound the southern 
portion of the POLB and preclude sound from transmitting beyond the 
outer harbor of the POLB (see Figure 5 of the application). 
Additionally, vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial 
activities in the project area may contribute to elevated background 
noise levels which may mask sounds produced by the project.
    Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an 
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary 
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and 
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition 
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),

Where
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven 
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial 
measurement

    This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which 
is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound 
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of 
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of 
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and 
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed 
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, 
resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of 
distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs 
in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water 
surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level 
for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A 
practical spreading value of fifteen is often used under conditions, 
such as the project site at Pier H in the POLB where water increases 
with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in 
an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical 
and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is 
assumed here.
    The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by 
factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical 
environment in which the activity takes place. In order to calculate 
distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds 
for the 36 inch steel piles proposed in this project, NMFS used 
acoustic monitoring data from other locations. In their application, 
Carnival presented several reference sound levels based on underwater 
sound measurements documented for other pile driving projects of the 
west coast of the U.S. (see Tables 1.3 and 1.5 of the application). 
Empirical data from a recent sound source verification (SSV) study 
conducted as part of the Anacortes Ferry Terminal Project, in the state 
of Washington were used to estimate the sound source levels (SSLs) for 
impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. The Anacortes Ferry 
Terminal Project were generally assumed to best approximate the 
construction activities and environmental conditions found in the 
Carnival's proposed project in that the Anacortes Ferry Terminal 
Project also involved driving 36 inch piles into a similar substrate 
type (sand and silt) with a diesel hammer of similar power (ft-lbs) 
(WSDOT 2018). Carnival also presented several references for the number 
of piles installed per day and the number of strikes (impact pile 
driving) or minutes (vibratory pile driving) required to install each 
pile from similar projects on the U.S. west coast. As the Anacortes 
Ferry Terminal Project was assumed to be most similar to Carnival's 
proposed project (and generally had the highest values), number of 
strikes (impact pile driving) or minutes (vibratory pile driving) 
required to install each pile from this Anacortes Ferry Terminal 
Project were used to calculate Level A harassment and Level B 
harassment isopleths (WSDOT 2018). Based on data from these projects, 
the applicant anticipates that a maximum of 5 piles could be installed 
via impact pile driving per day and 5 piles could be installed via 
vibratory pile driving per day.
    Carnival used NMFS' Optional User Spreadsheet, available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance, to input project-specific 
parameters and calculate the isopleths for the Level A harassment and 
Level B harassment zones for impact and vibratory pile driving. When 
the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the 
fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging 
to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we 
developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a 
simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal 
density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of 
some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, 
we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be 
overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of 
overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the 
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways 
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address 
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources pile driving, the 
NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the distance at which, if a marine 
mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it 
would incur PTS.
    Table 4 provides the sound source values and input used in the User 
Spreadsheet to calculate harassment isopleths for each source type. For 
the impact pile driving source level, Carnival used levels measured at 
the Anacortes Ferry Terminal Project (peak SPL [SPLpk]: 207 dB re: 1 
[mu]Pa at 10 m and single strike sound exposure level [SELs-s]: 175 dB 
re: 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m at the 90th percentile) as reported in WSDOT 
(2019, Table 7-14). For the vibratory pile driving source level, 
Carnival also used levels measured at the Anacortes Ferry Terminal 
Project (SPL: 170 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa (rms) at 11 m 175 dB) as reported in 
WSDOT (2019, Table 7-15). Carnival has proposed to implement bubble 
curtains (e.g. pneumatic barrier typically comprised of hosing or PVC 
piping that disrupts underwater noise propagation; see Proposed 
Mitigation section below) and has reduced the source levels of both 
impact and vibratory pile driving by 7 dB (a conservative estimate 
based on several studies including Austin et al. 2016). For impact pile 
driving, isopleths calculated using the cumulative SEL metric (SELs-s) 
will be used as it produces larger isopleths than SPLpk. Isopleths for 
Level B harassment

[[Page 54885]]

associated with impact pile driving (160 dB) and vibratory pile driving 
(120 dB) were also calculated and are can be found in Table 5.

                                  Table 4--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating Harassment Isopleths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       User spreadsheet parameter                           Impact pile driving                                   Vibratory pile driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used....................  (E.1) Impact pile driving.............................  (A.1) Drilling/Vibratory pile driving.
Source Level (SELs-s or SPL rms)........  168 SELs-s a b........................................  163 dB SPL rms\a,b\.
Source Level (SPLpk)....................  207...................................................  N/A.
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz).......  2.....................................................  2.5.
Number of piles.........................  5.....................................................  5.
Number of strikes per pile..............  675...................................................  N/A.
Number of strikes per day...............  2,700.................................................  N/A.
Estimate driving duration (min) per pile  N/A...................................................  31.5.
Activity Duration (h) within 24-h period  N/A...................................................  2.625.
Propagation (xLogR).....................  15 Log R..............................................  15 Log R.
Distance of source level measurement      10....................................................  11.
 (meters).
Other factors...........................  Using bubble curtain..................................  Using bubble curtain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. WSDOT (2019).
b. Austin et al. 2016.


                        Table 5--Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment Isopleths During Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Level A harassment zone  (meters)                              Level B           Level B
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- harassment  zone   harassment zone
                                                                                                                           (meters)      ensonified area
               Source                                                                                                ------------------      (km\2\)
                                      Low-frequency   Mid-frequency   High-frequency      Phocid          Otariid                      -----------------
                                        cetacean        cetacean         cetacean        pinniped        pinniped        Cetaceans &       Cetaceans &
                                                                                                                          Pinnipeds         Pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving................           224.7             8.0            267.6           120.2             8.8             292.7              0.39
Vibratory Pile Driving.............            19.4             1.7             28.7            11.8             0.8           8,092.1             27.42
                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.............................                         PTS Onset Isopleth--Peak (meters)
                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving................             1.6             N/A             21.5             1.8             N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations. Marine mammal densities were obtained from MBC Applied 
Environmental Sciences (2016) and Jefferson et al. (2013). MBC Applied 
Environmental Sciences (2016) conducted marine mammal and bird visual 
surveys in the POLB over a 12-month period from September, 2013 to 
August, 2014. The survey area included a substantial portion of the 
project action area. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (2016) 
conducted point count surveys on one day each month within a number of 
distinct study units including one encompassing approximately half of 
the existing Carnival dock. These data are relatively recent, and 
occurred in the POLB in the habitats and locations potentially impacted 
by the proposed activity, and as such as they are the best available 
survey data for the project action area. MBC Applied Environmental 
Sciences (2016) reported raw sightings numbers per month per species. 
To estimate density from the MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (2016) 
data, the two-dimensional area of their combined survey area (based on 
their sampling quadrants) was calculated using GIS and graphics in 
their report showing the limits of each sampling quadrant. The maximum 
monthly observed number of observations for each species observed and 
the total study area (30.35 km\2\) was used to calculate density (Table 
6). During POLB surveys, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (2016) 
observed common dolphins (not identified to species, however to be 
conservative, this number was used for both species), common bottlenose 
dolphins, California sea lions, and harbor seals.
    Jefferson et al. (2013) reported the results of aerial visual 
marine mammal surveys from 2008-2013 in the Southern California Bight, 
including areas around the Channel Islands. Although the survey area 
did not include the POLB, it did include nearshore waters not far to 
the south of the Port. Density estimates were based on airborne 
transects and utilized distance sampling methods. Jefferson et al. 
(2013) provided data for all observed marine mammal species including 
some not likely to occur nearshore or in the project area; however it 
represents the most detailed, recent, and comprehensive long term 
dataset for the region and the best information available on densities 
for gray and humpback whales in southern California (Jefferson et al. 
2013) (Table 6). The density estimates for the remaining species for 
which take is anticipated were higher in the POLB MBC Applied 
Environmental Sciences (2016) surveys, and these higher density 
estimates were used to estimate takes (presented in bold in Table 6).

[[Page 54886]]



                                   Table 6--Marine Mammal Density Information
                    [Species densities used for take calculations are denoted by asterisks *]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     POLB Max
                                                                      monthly       Max density
                                                                   number  2013-   (km\2\)  (MBC    Max density
              Common name                         Stock             2014  (MBC        applied         (km\2\)
                                                                      applied      environmental   (Jefferson et
                                                                   environmental  sciences 2016)     al. 2013)
                                                                  sciences 2016)        \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale............................  Eastern North Pacific...               0               0       * 0.00142
Humpback whale........................  CA/OR/WA................               0               0       * 0.01162
Short-beaked common dolphin...........  CA/OR/WA................           40\2\          * 1.32         1.26097
Long-beaked common dolphin............  California..............           40\2\          * 1.32         0.50897
Common bottlenose dolphin.............  Coastal California......               5          * 0.17         0.02584
California sea lion...................  U.S.....................              95          * 3.13         0.10345
Harbor seal...........................  California..............              42          * 1.38               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Surface area of MBC Applied Environmental Sciences survey region estimated as 30.35 km\2\ via GIS. Density
  as # marine mammals/km\2\.
\2\ Only identified as ``Common Dolphin'' and not identified to the species level.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Level B Harassment Calculations
    The following equation was used to calculate potential take due to 
Level B harassment per species: Level B harassment zone/pile 
installation method * density * # of pile driving days. As described 
above, there will be a maximum of 26 days of pile driving and it is 
anticipated that a maximum of 5 piles could be installed via impact 
pile driving per day and 5 piles could be installed via vibratory pile 
driving per day. We used the maximum density estimate reported by 
either MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (2016) or Jefferson et al. 
(2013) (Table 6). Therefore, the resulting take estimates assume all 
pile driving conducted when species are in their highest densities in 
the POLB producing conservative estimates (see Table 7). We present the 
number of estimated takes due to Level B harassment by impact and 
vibratory pile driving separately in Table 7, however as these 
activities are anticipated to occur on the same day (but not at the 
same time), individuals impacted by impact pile driving are also 
impacted by vibratory pile driving. As each individual can only be 
taken once in 24 hours, we conservatively propose to authorize the 
larger estimate of takes due to vibratory pile driving. Note that while 
a small number of takes by Level B harassment are estimated using these 
calculations for gray whales and humpback whales, no takes are proposed 
for authorization as the applicants have proposed mitigation measures 
(shutdowns; see Proposed Mitigation section below) that would preclude 
take of these species.
Level A Harassment Calculations
    Carnival intends to avoid Level A harassment take by shutting down 
pile driving activities at approach of any marine mammal to the 
representative Level A harassment (PTS onset) ensonification zone up to 
a practical shutdown monitoring distance. As small and cryptic harbor 
seals may enter the Level A harassment zone (120.2 m for impact pile 
driving) before shutdown mitigation procedures can be implemented, and 
some animals may occur between the maximum Level A harassment 
ensonification zone (120.2 m for impact pile driving) and the maximum 
shutdown zone (50 m, see Proposed Mitigation section), we 
conservatively estimate that 5 of the Level B harassment takes 
calculated above for harbor seals have the potential to be takes by 
Level A harassment (Table 7).

                              Table 7--Estimated Take by Level A and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock, Resulting From Proposed Carnival Project Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Level B                                                                 Proposed
                                                                       Density                                harassment   Estimated    Days of   Total level   Level A     Total      take as
              Common name                           Stock              (km\2\)             Activity              zone      take daily   activity     B take       take     Proposed   percentage
                                                                                                               (km\2\)                                                       take      of stock
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.............................  Eastern North Pacific.....      0.00142  Impact pile driving......         0.39        <0.01         26         0.01          0          0         0.00
                                                                                  Vibratory pile driving...        27.42         0.04         26         1.01
Humpback whale.........................  CA/OR/WA..................      0.01162  Impact pile driving......         0.39         0.00         26         0.12          0          0         0.00
                                                                                  Vibratory pile driving...        27.42         0.32         26         8.28
Short-beaked common dolphin............  CA/OR/WA..................         1.32  Impact pile driving......         0.39         0.51         26        13.38          0        942         0.10
                                                                                  Vibratory pile driving...        27.42        36.19         26       941.05
Long-beaked common dolphin.............  California................         1.32  Impact pile driving......         0.39         0.51         26        13.38          0        942         0.92
                                                                                  Vibratory pile driving...        27.42        36.19         26       941.05
Common bottlenose dolphin..............  Coastal California........         0.17  Impact pile driving......         0.39         0.07         26         1.72          0        122        26.93

[[Page 54887]]

 
                                                                                  Vibratory pile driving...        27.42         4.66         26       121.20
California sea lion....................  U.S.......................         3.13  Impact pile driving......         0.39         1.22         26        31.74          0      2,232         0.87
                                                                                  Vibratory pile driving...        27.42        85.82         26      2231.44
Harbor seal............................  California................         1.38  Impact pile driving......         0.39         0.54         26        13.99          5        984         3.18
                                                                                  Vibratory pile driving...        27.42        37.84         26       983.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a number of reasons why the estimates of potential 
incidents of take are likely to be conservative. We used conservative 
estimates of density to calculate takes for each species. Additionally, 
in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving, and in 
areas where resident animals may be present, this number represents the 
number of instances of take that may occur to a small number of 
individuals, with a notably smaller number of animals being exposed 
more than once. While pile driving can occur any day throughout the in-
water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, 
only a fraction of that time is actually spent pile driving. The 
potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number 
of takes is also not quantified in the take estimation process. For 
these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative, especially if 
each take is considered a separate individual animal.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned), and;
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    In addition to the measures described later in this section, 
Carnival will employ the following standard mitigation measures:
     Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and 
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all 
pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, to explain 
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring 
protocol, and operational procedures;
     For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving 
(e.g., standard barges, etc.), 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; or (2) positioning of the pile on the 
substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);
     Work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual 
monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted;
     For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take 
has not been requested, in-water pile driving will shut down 
immediately if such species are observed within or entering the 
monitoring zone (i.e., Level B harassment zone); and
     If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized 
species, pile installation will be stopped as these species approach 
the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
    The following measures would apply to Carnival's mitigation 
requirements:
    Establishment of Shutdown Zone for Level A Harassment--For all pile 
driving activities, Carnival would establish a shutdown zone. The 
purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which 
shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or 
in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Conservative 
shutdown zones of 300 m and 8,100 m for impact and vibratory pile 
driving respectively would be implemented for low-frequency cetaceans 
to prevent incidental harassment exposure for these activities. 
Monitoring of such a large area is practicable in the POLB because the 
jetties create confined entrances to the Port and Protected Species 
Observers (PSOs) monitoring at these entrances can ensure no animals 
enter to Port and shutdown zones (see Figures 3 and 4 of the 
applicant's Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for proposed 
location of PSOs). For impact and vibratory pile driving, Carnival 
would implement shutdown zones of 10 m for mid-frequency cetaceans and 
otariid pinnipeds and 50 m for phocid

[[Page 54888]]

pinnipeds. These shutdown zones would be used to prevent incidental 
Level A harassment exposures from impact pile driving for mid-frequency 
cetaceans and otariid pinnipeds, and to reduce the potential for such 
take for phocid pinnipeds (Table 8). The placement of PSOs during all 
pile driving activities (described in detail in the Monitoring and 
Reporting Section) will ensure shutdown zones are visible. The 50 m 
zone is the practical distance Carnival anticipates phocid pinnipeds 
can be effectively observed in the project area.

    Table 8--Monitoring and Shutdown Zones for Each Project Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Monitoring
             Source                 zone  (m)       Shutdown zone  (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving............             300  Low-frequency
                                                  cetaceans: 300.
                                                 Phocid pinnipeds: 50.
                                                 Mid-frequency cetaceans
                                                  and otariid pinnipeds:
                                                  10.
Vibratory Pile Driving.........           8,100  Low-frequency
                                                  cetaceans: 8,100.
                                                 Phocid pinnipeds: 50.
                                                 Mid-frequency cetaceans
                                                  and otariid pinnipeds:
                                                  10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishment of Monitoring Zones for Level B Harassment--Carnival 
would establish monitoring zones to correlate with Level B harassment 
zones which are areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed the 160 dB re: 
1 [micro]Pa (rms) threshold for impact pile driving and the 120 dB re: 
1 [micro]Pa (rms) threshold during vibratory pile driving. Monitoring 
zones provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring 
protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones 
enable observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine 
mammals in the project area outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare 
for a potential cease of activity should the animal enter the shutdown 
zone. Carnival would implement a 300 m monitoring zone for impact pile 
driving and an 8,100 m monitoring zone for vibratory pile driving 
(Table 8). Placement of PSOs on vessels at entrances to POLB outside 
the breakwaters will allow PSOs to observe marine mammals traveling 
into the POLB (see Figures 3 and 4 of the applicant's Marine Mammal 
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for proposed location of PSOs). As the 
applicants anticipate impact and vibratory pile driving to occur in 
close temporal succession, the applicants propose to use a total of 7 
observers for all pile driving activities.
    Soft Start--The use of soft-start procedures are believed to 
provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning 
and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the 
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors 
would be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer 
at reduced energy, with each strike followed by a 30-second waiting 
period. This procedure would be conducted a total of three times before 
impact pile driving begins. Soft start would be implemented at the 
start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following 
cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer. 
Soft start is not required during vibratory pile driving activities.
    Pile driving energy attenuator--Use of a marine pile-driving energy 
attenuator (i.e., air bubble curtain system) would be implemented by 
Carnival during impact and vibratory pile driving of all steel pipe 
piles. The use of sound attenuation will reduce SPLs and the size of 
the zones of influence for Level A harassment and Level B harassment. 
Bubble curtains would meet the following requirements:
     The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 
percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
     The lowest bubble ring shall be in contact with the 
mudline for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights 
attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent mudline contact. 
No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline 
contact.
     The bubble curtain shall be operated such that there is 
proper (equal) balancing of air flow to all bubblers.
     The applicant shall require that construction contractors 
train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers and 
corrections to the attenuation device to meet the performance 
standards. This shall occur prior to the initiation of pile driving 
activities.
    Pre-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water 
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 
minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown and monitoring 
zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be cleared 
when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-
minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, 
a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal has left the zone or has 
not been observed for 15 minutes. If the Level B harassment zone has 
been observed for 30 minutes and non-permitted species are not present 
within the zone, soft start procedures can commence and work can 
continue even if visibility becomes impaired within the Level B 
harassment monitoring zone. When a marine mammal permitted for take by 
Level B harassment is present in the Level B harassment zone, 
activities may begin and Level B harassment take will be recorded. If 
work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of 
both the Level B harassment and shutdown zone will commence again.
    Timing and Environmental Restrictions--Carnival would only conduct 
pile driving activities during daylight hours. To ensure the monitoring 
zone for low-frequency cetaceans can be adequately monitored to 
preclude all incidental take of these species, pile driving activities 
may not be conducted in conditions with limited visibility (heavy fog, 
heavy rain, and Beaufort sea states above 4) that would diminish the 
PSOs ability to adequately monitor this zone.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS 
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures 
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the 
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth

[[Page 54889]]

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

Marine Mammal Visual Monitoring

    Monitoring shall be conducted by NMFS-approved observers. 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. 
Observer training must be provided prior to project start, and shall 
include instruction on species identification (sufficient to 
distinguish the species in the project area), description and 
categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors 
that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity, 
proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of 
biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups 
of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to 
individuals (to the extent possible).
    Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 
minutes 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. Pile driving activities 
include the time to install a single pile or series of piles, as long 
as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no 
more than 30 minutes.
    A total of seven PSOs would be based on land and vessels. During 
all pile driving activities observers will be stationed at the project 
site (Pier H) and six other locations in the POLB and at the entrance 
to the POLB (see Figures 3 and 4 of the applicant's Marine Mammal 
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for proposed location of PSOs). These 
stations will allow full monitoring of the impact and vibratory pile 
driving monitoring zones.
    PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting 
scopes, and would use a handheld GPS or range-finder device to verify 
the distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs would be 
trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required 
to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In 
addition, monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will 
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for 
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable 
by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Carnival would 
adhere to the following PSO qualifications:
    (i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required.
    (ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    (iii) Other observers may substitute education (degree in 
biological science or related field) or training for experience.
    (iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer shall be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    (v) Carnival shall submit observer CVs for approval by NMFS.
    Additional standard observer qualifications include:
     Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols Experience or training in the field 
identification of marine mammals, including the identification of 
behaviors;
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates 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 
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.
    Observers will be required to use approved data forms (see proposed 
data collection forms in the applicant's Marine Mammal Mitigation and 
Monitoring Plan). Among other pieces of information, Carnival will 
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, Carnival will attempt to distinguish between the 
number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences 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 SPLs;
     Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals 
and distance from

[[Page 54890]]

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.
    A draft report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the 
completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the 
requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same 
location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal 
observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during 
pile driving days (and associated PSO data sheets), 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 and an 
extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals 
observed during the course of construction. A final report must be 
submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft 
report.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA 
(if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, Carnival 
would immediately cease the specified activities and report the 
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office 
of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding 
Coordinator. The report would include the following information:
     Description of the incident;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state, 
visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Carnival to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Carnival would not be able 
to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 
telephone.
    In the event that Carnival discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
Carnival would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
and the NMFS West Coast Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the West 
Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the same 
information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able 
to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS 
would work with Carnival to determine whether modifications in the 
activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Carnival discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Carnival would report the incident 
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS West Coast Stranding Hotline 
and/or by email to the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, 
within 24 hours of the discovery. Carnival would provide photographs, 
video footage (if available), or other documentation of the stranded 
animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    Pile driving activities associated with the Port of Long Beach 
Cruise Terminal Improvement 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) or Level A harassment (auditory 
injury), incidental to underwater sounds generated from pile driving. 
Potential takes could occur if individuals are present in the 
ensonified zone when pile driving occurs. Level A harassment is only 
anticipated for harbor seals.
    No serious injury or mortality is anticipated given the nature of 
the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of 
injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized 
through the construction method and the implementation of the planned 
mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory and impact hammers will be 
the primary methods of installation. Piles will first be installed 
using vibratory pile driving. Vibratory pile driving produces lower 
SPLs than impact pile driving. The rise time of the sound produced by 
vibratory pile driving is slower, reducing the probability and severity 
of injury. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher 
peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. When 
impact pile driving is used, implementation of soft start and shutdown 
zones significantly reduces any possibility of injury. Given sufficient 
``notice'' through use of soft starts (for impact driving), marine 
mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying 
prior to it becoming potentially injurious. Carnival will use seven 
PSOs stationed strategically to increase detectability of marine 
mammals, enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns 
to avoid injury for most species.
    Carnival's proposed activities are localized and of relatively 
short duration (a maximum of 26 days of pile driving for 49 piles). The 
project area is also very limited in scope spatially, as all work is 
concentrated on a single pier.

[[Page 54891]]

Localized and short-term noise exposures produced by project activities 
may cause short-term behavioral modifications in pinnipeds and mid-
frequency cetaceans. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring 
measures are expected to further reduce the likelihood of injury, as it 
is unlikely an animal would remain in close proximity to the sound 
source, as well as reduce behavioral disturbances.
    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, Inc. 2012; Lerma 2014; ABR 2016). 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. The pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or 
less impactful than, numerous other construction activities conducted 
in Southern California, which have taken place with no known long-term 
adverse consequences from behavioral harassment. Level B harassment 
will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact 
through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound 
produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are 
likely to simply avoid the area while the activity is occurring. While 
vibratory pile driving associated with the proposed project may produce 
sounds above ambient at greater distances from the project site, thus 
intruding on some habitat, the project site itself is located in an 
industrialized port, the majority of the ensonified area is within in 
the POLB, and sounds produced by the proposed activities are 
anticipated to quickly become indistinguishable from other background 
noise in port as they attenuate to near ambient SPLs moving away from 
the project site. Therefore, we expect that animals annoyed by project 
sound would simply avoid the area and use more-preferred habitats.
    In addition to the expected effects resulting from authorized Level 
B harassment, we anticipate that a small number of harbor seals may 
sustain some limited Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury. 
However, animals that experience PTS would likely only receive slight 
PTS, i.e. minor degradation of hearing capabilities within regions of 
hearing that align most completely with the energy produced by pile 
driving (i.e., the low-frequency region below 2 kHz), not severe 
hearing impairment or impairment in the regions of greatest hearing 
sensitivity. If hearing impairment occurs, it is most likely that the 
affected animal's threshold would increase by a few dBs, which in most 
cases is not likely to meaningfully affect its ability to forage and 
communicate with conspecifics. As described above, we expect that 
marine mammals would be likely to move away from a sound source that 
represents an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would be 
expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice through use of soft 
start.
    The project also is not expected to have significant adverse 
effects on affected marine mammal habitat. The project activities would 
not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of 
time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of 
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammal foraging 
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range. However, 
because of the short duration of the activities, the relatively small 
area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal 
habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative 
consequences.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from 
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality is anticipated or authorized.
     The Level A harassment exposures (harbor seals only) are 
anticipated to result only in slight PTS, within the lower frequencies 
associated with pile driving;
     The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist 
of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior that would not result 
in fitness impacts to individuals;
     The specified activity and ensonification area is very 
small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and does 
not include habitat areas of special significance (BIAs or ESA-
designated critical habitat); and
     The presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures 
in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least 
practicable adverse impact.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine 
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on 
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA 
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated 
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to 
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or 
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to 
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative 
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or 
spatial scale of the activities.
    Table 7 demonstrates the number of animals that could be exposed to 
received noise levels that could cause Level B harassment and Level A 
harassment (harbor seals only) for Carnival's proposed activities in 
the project area site relative to the total stock abundance. Our 
analysis shows that less than one-third of each affected stock could be 
taken by harassment (Table 7). The numbers of animals proposed to be 
taken for these stocks would be considered small relative to the 
relevant stock's abundances even if each estimated taking occurred to a 
new individual--an extremely unlikely scenario.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small 
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size 
of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
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)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal

[[Page 54892]]

agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of designated critical habitat.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for 
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS 
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is 
not required for this action.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to Carnival for conducting Port of Long Beach Cruise 
Terminal Improvement Project in Port of Long Beach, California from 
November 15, 2019 to November 14, 2020, provided the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are 
incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed Port 
of Long Beach Cruise Terminal Improvement Project. We also request at 
this time comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as 
described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any 
supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the 
request for this IHA or a subsequent Renewal.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year IHA renewal with 
an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) another year of 
identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified 
Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as 
described in the Specified Activities section of this notice would not 
be completed by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal would allow for 
completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and 
Duration section of this notice, provided all of the following 
conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the 
requested Renewal are identical to the activities analyzed under the 
initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so 
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the 
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take 
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take 
because only a subset of the initially analyzed activities remain to be 
completed under the Renewal).
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
    Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the affected 
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines 
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the 
mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and 
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

    Dated: October 7, 2019.
Catherine G. Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-22252 Filed 10-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P