[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23790-23813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09033]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XA126]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Alameda Marina Shoreline 
Improvement Project

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 Pacific Shops, Inc. (Pacific 
Shops) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the 
Alameda Marina Shoreline Improvement Project in Alameda, CA over two 
years. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 
requesting comments on its proposal to issue two incidental harassment 
authorizations (IHAs) to incidentally take marine mammals during the 
specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on possible one-
year renewals 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

[[Page 23791]]

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 May 29, 
2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization 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 the species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
    The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above 
are included in the relevant sections below.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Summary of Request

    On November 25, 2019, NMFS received a request from Pacific Shops, 
Inc. (Pacific Shops) for two IHAs to take marine mammals incidental to 
construction activities at the Alameda Marina in Alameda, CA over two 
years. The applicant expects to conduct vibratory pile removal and 
vibratory and impact installation during Year 1, and vibratory and 
impact pile installation during Year 2. The application was deemed 
adequate and complete on April 9, 2020. Pacific Shops' request is for 
take of a small number of six species of marine mammals, by Level B 
harassment. Neither Pacific Shops nor NMFS expects serious injury or 
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, IHAs are 
appropriate.
    The IHAs, if issued, will be effective from June 1, 2020 to May 31, 
2021 for Year 1 activities, and June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022 for Year 2 
activities.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    Pacific Shops is proposing to conduct improvements to the Alameda 
Marina and its shoreline in Alameda, CA over a two-year construction 
period. The project will address climate resiliency and rehabilitate 
existing shoreline and marina facilities so that the shoreline meets 
current seismic resistance criteria and addresses sea level rise risk. 
The project will update the existing marina facilities, reconfigure 
some of the existing marina piers, and provide the public with more 
aquatic recreational opportunities. The construction activities include 
vibratory and impact pile driving and removal which will ensonify the 
Oakland Estuary over approximately 68 days in year 1, and 98 days in 
year 2.

Dates and Duration

    Pacific Shops anticipates that construction for the Alameda Marina 
Shoreline Improvement Project will occur over two years. The proposed 
IHAs would each be effective for one year beginning June 2020 and June 
2021, respectively. Pile driving and/or removal are expected to occur 
on up to 200 minutes per day, depending on the pile type, and will 
occur primarily during daylight hours. Fishery regulatory authorities 
recommend that Pacific Shops close off the cofferdam (see details 
below) during low tide, which could occur outside of daylight hours. 
Pacific Shops estimates that in-water construction will occur over 
approximately 68 days in Year 1, and 98 days in Year 2.

Specific Geographic Region

    The project site is entirely within the Oakland Estuary (Estuary), 
in the City and County of Alameda, California. Alameda is southeast of 
Treasure Island, Yerba Buena Island, and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay 
Bridge, by approximately 3 km (1.9 mi). The Estuary is connected to the 
Central San Francisco Bay (Central Bay) on the west end and San Leandro 
Bay on the east end. From the Central Bay to the project area, the 
Estuary is only approximately

[[Page 23792]]

492 ft (150 m) wide, and is relatively shallow throughout (ranging from 
50 ft (15 m) in the shipping channel to 30 ft (9 m) deep in the project 
area (BCDC 1994, 2018)).
    The geographic, bathymetric, and ecological characteristics of the 
Estuary limit its use by marine mammals. The geography of the Estuary 
limits tidal flushing, and the industrial history of the Estuary has 
led to an accumulation of toxins in the sediment: substrates in the 
Oakland Inner Harbor and turning basin contain contaminants that are 
harmful to sensitive marine organisms (Shreffler et al. 1994). There 
are no eelgrass beds in the project area within the Estuary. This lack 
of foraging habitat along with the compromised substrate quality limit 
prey resources for marine mammals.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29AP20.001

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    Pacific Shops' planned construction includes work on many 
components of the Marina. Please see Figures 2 and 3 in the IHA 
application for a detailed map of Alameda Marina and the location of 
proposed construction components.

[[Page 23793]]

Demolition Activities
    During Year 1, Pacific Shops is proposing to remove several 
degraded wharves, piers, and pier studs (the shoreline portion of a 
previously removed pier), collectively referred to here as ``pile-
supported structures.'' These structures include the boat elevator 
wharf, boat lift wharf, Pier 4 stud, Pier 6 stud, and a pier outboard 
of the Promenade Wharf (see Application, Figure 2). Generally, the 
pile-supported structures are comprised of piles supporting a wooden 
platform of timber joists/girders that are covered with timber deck 
boards. The removal methods for these pile-supported structures will 
all be similar, and involve removal of the deck boards, followed by the 
timber joists/girders and shoring beams, and finally the support piles. 
Deck boards will be removed by hand working from the northern end of 
the structure back towards the shore. Once the deck is removed, the 
underlying timber joists/girders will be dismantled from the estuary-
side toward the landside.
    Pacific Shops is proposing to remove piles associated with the pile 
supported structures and with Seawall 1 (Table 1). All piles will be 
either vibrated out or cut off at the mudline and removed. The 
applicant will decide in-situ whether to vibrate-out or cut off the 
piles depending on the condition of the pile. The applicant may first 
attempt to vibrate the pile out, but if it is so deteriorated that it 
cannot be removed, the pile will be cut it off at the mudline. Table 1 
includes a summary of structures proposed for removal, and the type and 
number of piles to be removed. Please see Figure 2 of Pacific Shops' 
application for the location of each structure at Alameda Marina.

 Table 1--Summary of Piles to be Removed With a Vibratory Hammer in Year
                                    1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
             Structure                  Type of pile           piles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seawall 1.........................  16-in Timber........             150
Pier 4 Stud.......................  16-in Timber........              16
Pier 6 Stud.......................  16-in Timber........              20
Boat Elevator Wharf...............  16-in Timber........               7
                                    12-in Square                      12
                                     Concrete.
Boat Lift Wharf...................  16-in Timber........              25
                                    12-in Square                       7
                                     Concrete.
Pier Outboard of Promenade Wharf..  16-in Timber........              60
Building 13 Wharf.................  16-in Timber........               3
Building 14 Wharf.................  16-in Timber........              20
                                                         ---------------
    Total.........................  16-in Timber........             301
                                    12-in Square                      19
                                     Concrete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pile Installation
    The contractor will install sheet piles with a crane or excavator-
mounted vibratory hammer to a design depth. Sheet pile installation 
will be conducted from both land and water. The contractor estimates 
that they will install approximately 20 sheet piles per day, each of 
which will take approximately 10 minutes (min) to install. Vibratory 
hammering will be conducted year-round.
    The contractor will initially install all steel pipe piles with a 
vibratory hammer through the top soft soils until the vibration cannot 
advance the pile further into the substrate. In some cases, the 
contractor may be able to achieve final depths for steel piles using a 
vibratory hammer only. The contractor will use a crane or excavator-
mounted impact hammer to complete pipe pile installation and drive to 
final depths. The contractor will use a bubble curtain during all 
impact driving of steel piles. Pipe pile installation will be conducted 
from both land and water.
    The contractor will install concrete piles with an impact hammer. 
Concrete pile installation will be conducted from both land and water.

                               Table 2--Summary of Piles to be Installed in Year 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Number of
                Structure                        Type of pile              piles              Hammer type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seawall 4...............................  Steel Sheet Pile..........             149  Vibratory.
Seawall 6...............................  Steel Sheet Pile..........             106  Vibratory.
Promenade Wharf.........................  16-in Square Concrete.....              39  Impact.
Building 5 Wharf........................  16-in Square Concrete.....               1  Impact.
Building 13 Wharf.......................  36-in Steel Pipe..........               2  Vibratory & Attenuated
                                                                                       Impact.
                                          16-in Square Concrete.....               1  Impact.
Cofferdam...............................  Steel Sheet Pile..........         \a\ 214  Vibratory.
    Total...............................  Steel Sheet Pile..........             469  Vibratory.
                                          16-in Square Concrete.....              41  Impact.
                                          36-in Steel Pipe..........               2  Vibratory & Attenuated
                                                                                       Impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 107 steel sheet piles will be installed and later removed (part of cofferdam), and are accounted for in 214
  of these piles, as SLs are considered to be the same for both activities. The applicant has not yet determined
  the exact sheet pile they will be using.


[[Page 23794]]


                               Table 3--Summary of Piles to be Installed in Year 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Number of
                Structure                        Type of pile              piles              Hammer type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seawall 1...............................  Steel Sheet Pile..........             233  Vibratory.
                                          Wide Flange Beam..........             117  Vibratory & Attenuated
                                                                                       Impact.
Seawall 1A..............................  Steel Sheet Pile..........              26  Vibratory.
                                          Wide Flange Beam \a\......              13  Vibratory & Attenuated
                                                                                       Impact.
Building 14 Wharf.......................  36-in Steel Pipe..........               1  Vibratory & Attenuated
                                                                                       Impact.
Headwalk................................  14-in Square Concrete.....              19  Impact.
Boat Hoist Deck.........................  24-in Square Concrete.....               8  Impact.
                                          30-in Steel Pipe..........               1  Vibratory & Attenuated
                                                                                       Impact.
    Total...............................  Steel Sheet Pile..........             259  Vibratory.
                                          Wide Flange Beam \a\......             130  Vibratory & Attenuated
                                                                                       Impact.
                                          30-in Steel Pipe..........               1  Vibratory & Attenuated
                                                                                       Impact.
                                          36-in Steel Pipe..........               1  Vibratory & Attenuated
                                                                                       Impact.
                                          14-in Square Concrete.....              19  Impact.
                                          24-in Square Concrete.....               8  Impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Wide flange beams are steel beams with two parallel ``flanges'' that are longer than the central piece
  connecting them. They have an H-shaped cross-section. The contractor will select the specific wide flange
  beams at the time of construction.

Wharf Refurbishment
    Pacific Shops plans to refurbish the Promenade Wharf, Building 5 
Wharf, Building 13 Wharf, and Building 14 Wharf (see application, 
Figure 2). In addition to the pile removal and installation activities 
outlined above, Pacific Shops will remove and replace or reinforce 
miscellaneous support framing, bracing, and connectors (i.e., joists/
girders, blocking, and hardware). NMFS does not expect these above-
water activities to result in marine mammal harassment, and they are 
not considered further in this notice.
    The contractor will install new prestressed concrete piles adjacent 
to existing severely deteriorated piles, and will jacket timber piles 
with moderate deterioration. Pile jacketing involves encasing existing 
piles in a circular plastic case and filling the space between the pile 
and plastic case with cement grout. NMFS does not expect pile jacketing 
to result in marine mammal harassment and we do not consider it further 
in this notice.
    The contractor will replace deteriorated beams with new beams of 
the same size and new piles will be added to the wharves for lateral 
restraint (steel pipe piles and wide flange beams). The contractor will 
construct structural connections between the new piles and the deck 
beam frame. Finally, the contractor will place the wharf deck boards 
over the frame.
    Some limited falsework will likely be required for access, which 
will span between the existing beams and piles. Falsework will likely 
consist of hanging a temporary scaffold system under the existing wharf 
to prevent debris generated during the refurbishment of the wharf from 
falling into the water.
    NMFS does not expect the installation of structural connections, 
deck boards, and falsework to result in marine mammal harassment, and 
we do not consider them further in this notice.
Seawall Maintenance
    Pacific Shops is proposing repairs that will strengthen the walls 
and address projected sea level rise. They anticipate completing 
seawall repairs prior to the removal of some existing seawall 
materials. Seawall maintenance has been broken up into four segments: 
Seawall 1 spans Pier 7 to Pier 3 (700 LF); Seawall 1A is directly east 
of Pier 3 (80 LF); Seawall 4 is south of East Pier (280 LF); and 
Seawall 6 is east of the graving dock (i.e., dry dock) (200 LF).
    The contractor will repair Seawall 4 and Seawall 6 in Year 1 and 
will consist of new steel sheet piles with reinforced concrete caps and 
tie-rods (Table 2). Seawall 1 and Seawall 1A will be repaired in Year 
2. Repairs will consist of new steel sheet piles or combi-wall 
(combination of steel wide flange beams and steel sheet piles) with a 
reinforced concrete cap at its top (Table 3).
    The new sheet piles (steel sheet piles) or combi-wall at Seawalls 1 
and 1A will be driven to the design tip elevation seaward of the 
existing timber seawall. Wide flange beams and sheet piles will 
typically tip in a dense sand layer approximately 25 to 35 ft (7.6 to 
10.6m) below mudline. The contractor will install the sheet piles using 
a vibratory hammer. If wide flange beams are used, the contractor will 
first use a vibratory hammer, and then use an impact hammer to complete 
beam installation and drive to final depths. The reinforced concrete 
cap will be cast in place along the top of the piles of the new 
seawall.
    To repair Seawalls 4 and 6, Pacific Shops will construct new wall 
segments consisting of steel sheet piles with a concrete cap beam on 
the outside face of the existing seawall. The contractor will install 
the steel sheet piles and concrete cap in a manner similar to that 
described for Seawalls 1 and 1A. Following the installation of the 
steel sheet pile wall, the contractor will excavate soil behind the 
wall to the depth of the existing tie-rod for inspection of the steel 
and concrete deadman anchor components. Deteriorated components of the 
deadman anchor and the associated connection components will be 
replaced as needed. The existing deadman anchor will be tied to the new 
concrete cap beam above the sheet pile wall using a steel tie-rod. 
Excavation and replacement of deadman anchor components, as needed, 
will occur completely out of water.
    NMFS does not expect construction of the concrete caps, excavation 
behind the seawall, or potential replacement of the deadman anchor and 
associated components to result in take of marine mammals. Therefore, 
we do not consider them further in this notice.
Outfall Installation
    The Master Plan stormwater management system will include outfall 
repair and installation with new inlets and pipelines of appropriate 
size to convey runoff and run-on. This stormwater management system 
will continue to discharge directly to the Estuary through six outfalls 
located either in revetments or in seawalls that range in size from 18-
in to 36-in-diameter (45.7 cm to 91.4 cm) pipelines.
    The Project includes the installation of one new outfall in the 
Estuary, located in the shoreline between Pier 3 and Pier 2 (see 
Application, Figure 3). The outfall is located along the revetment and 
will be a cast-in-place concrete structure consisting of a

[[Page 23795]]

headwall, wingwalls, and riprap. The outfall will include a tide valve 
to prevent backwater into the storm drain system.
    The contractor will install a sheet pile cofferdam to facilitate 
outfall repair and installation. The sheet pile cofferdam wall will be 
embedded in shoreline substrate immediately downstream from the outfall 
using a vibratory hammer. The contractor expects to install the final 
cofferdam piles during low tide, if possible, as recommended NMFS 
Southwest Region, to minimize impacts to fish. The contractor will 
remove some riprap and sediment from the cofferdam footprint prior to 
cofferdam installation. Once the cofferdam is installed, soil and 
riprap will be excavated from the location of the new outfall using a 
landside excavator. Once the contractor has excavated and cleared the 
existing material, they will construct forms for the new headwall and 
wingwalls and pour concrete into the forms. After the headwall and 
wingwalls have cured enough to hold the slope, the contractor will 
place riprap in upland areas and within the Estuary. The contractor 
will remove the forms and sheet pile cofferdam after the concrete has 
reached design strength, allowing the headwall and wingwalls to cure. 
The contractor will stabilize the shoreline with riprap, and install 
the tidal flap gate.
    NMFS does not expect construction of the headwall and wingwalls 
(poured concrete), installation of the rip rap, or insallation of the 
tidal flap gate to result in marine mammal harassment. Therefore, we do 
not consider these activities further in this notice.
Marina Infrastructure Removal/Reconfiguration
    Pacific Shops plans to reconfigure the existing 529-slip marina to 
reduce points of land access as a measure of safety, to improve access 
and operation of the docks, and to create a new waterlife park in the 
remnant graving dock. The existing marina uses will remain unchanged 
with no additional slips. Pacific Shops plans to modify existing marina 
infrastructure, including removing Pier 2 slip covers, installing 
floating docks in the existing graving dock, and reconfiguring gangways 
and headwalks. Gangways provide pedestrian access from land to the 
floating docks and headwalks are pile-supported floating portions of a 
dock that provide pedestrian access to slips.
    The contractor will reuse existing support piles for marina 
infrastructure to the greatest extent possible; however, they will 
remove some existing piles for dock reconfiguration, as previously 
described in the Pile Removal section. The contractor will reconfigure 
Pier 1 slips to accommodate larger vessels and the East Pier slips will 
be moved toward the channel to accommodate the new waterfront park. The 
contractor will install new support piles for the new headwalks (Table 
3).
    The contractor will complete the bulk of marina reconfiguration 
work from land. New sections of headwalks, gangways, and docks will be 
constructed in an upland location, hoisted onto the water and floated 
into place. Existing features that require demolition will be 
disconnected from the current fixed dock, floated to the edge of the 
marina, hoisted onto land, and demolished in an upland location.
    Only the headwalk reconfiguration involves pile driving. NMFS does 
not anticipate that Pier 2 slipcover removal, gangway reconfiguration, 
and floating dock installation will result in marine mammal harassment. 
Therefore, we do not consider those activities further in this notice.
Boat Hoist Deck
    The contractor will replace three existing boat hoists with a new 
3-ton boat hoist (approximately 42 ft by 50 ft (12.8 m by 15.2 m) in 
area). The new boat hoist, located on the west side of the project site 
(see application, Figure 4), will lift sailboats into and out of the 
Estuary. It requires a new, pile-supported deck.
    The new deck will be 2,100ft\2\, (195m\2\) with 270 ft\2\ (25m\2\) 
over land and 1,830 ft\2\ (170 m\2\) over water. The new deck will be 
supported by eight 24-in square prestressed concrete piles and one 30-
in cylindrical steel pipe pile (Table 3). The single 30-in steel pipe 
pile supporting the hoist platform deck will be initially installed 
with a vibratory hammer; an attenuated impact hammer will be used to 
complete pile installation and drive to final depths. The 24-in 
concrete piles will be impact-driven their entire length without 
attenuation.
    Pacific Shops does not plan to conduct pile driving with multiple 
hammers concurrently.
    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's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 4 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
Alameda, CA 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 (2019). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum 
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's 
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS's U.S. Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2019). All values 
presented in Table 4 are the most recent available at the time of 
publication and are available in the 2018 SARs (Carretta et al., 2019) 
and draft 2019 SARs (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).

[[Page 23796]]



                              Table 4--Species That Spatially Co-Occur With the Activity to the Degree That Take May Occur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Stock  abundance  (CV,
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA  status;    Nmin,  most recent               Annual  M/
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock            strategic  (Y/N)   abundance  survey) \2\     PBR       SI \3\
                                                                                                \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Bottlenose Dolphin..............  Tursiops truncatus.....  California Coastal.....  -, -, N             453 (0.06, 346, 2011).        2.7       >2.0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  San Francisco/Russian    -, -, N             9,886 (0.51, 2019)....         66          0
                                                                River.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California Sea Lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  United States..........  -, -, N             257,606 (N/A, 233,515,     14,011       >321
                                                                                                             2014).
    Northern fur seal...............  Callorhinus ursinus....  California.............  -, D, N             14,050 (N/A, 7,524,           451        1.8
                                                                                                             2013).
                                                               Eastern North Pacific..  -, D, N             620,660 (0.2, 525,333,     11,295        399
                                                                                                             2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Northern elephant seal..........  Mirounga angustirostris  California Breeding....  -, -, N             179,000 (N/A, 81,368,       4,882        8.8
                                                                                                             2010).
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  California.............  -, -, N             30,968 (N/A, 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-assessment-reports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

    Harbor seal and California sea lion spatially co-occur with the 
activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we 
have proposed authorizing take of these species. For bottlenose 
dolphin, harbor porpoise, northern fur seal, and northern elephant 
seal, occurrence is such that take is possible, and we have proposed 
authorizing take of these species also. All species that could 
potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Pacific 
Shops' IHA application (see application, Table 4). While gray whale and 
humpback whale could potentially occur in the area, the spatial 
occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, 
and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided 
here. In recent years there have been an increased number of gray 
whales in the San Francisco Bay, but they primarily occur in the 
western and central Bay (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019), and none have 
been reported in the Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b). Humpbacks have 
regularly been seen inside the Bay, primarily in the western Bay, from 
April through November since 2016 (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019), and 
sometimes venture up the Delta waterway (e.g., Gulland et al. 2008), 
but have not been recorded in the Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b). 
Additionally, both gray whales and humpback whales are not expected to 
enter the project area due to the narrow channel width and shallow 
water depths.
    Bottlenose Dolphin
    The California coastal stock of common bottlenose dolphin is found 
within 0.6 mi (1 km) of shore (Defran and Weller 1999) and occurs from 
northern Baja California, Mexico to Bodega Bay, CA. Their range has 
extended north over the last several decades with El Ni[ntilde]o events 
and increased ocean temperatures (Hansen and Defran 1990). Genetic 
studies have shown that no mixing occurs between the California coastal 
stock and the offshore common bottlenose dolphin stock (Lowther-
Thieleking et al. 2015). Bottlenose dolphins are opportunistic 
foragers: Time of day, tidal state, and oceanographic habitat influence 
where they pursue prey (Hanson and Defran 1993). Dive durations up to 
15 minutes have been recorded for trained Navy bottlenose dolphins, 
(Ridgway et al. 1969), but typical dives are shallower and of a much 
shorter duration (approximately 30 seconds [sec]; Bearzi et al. 1999, 
Mate et al. 1995).
    Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and 
Estimation section for information on local occurrence in the project 
area.
Harbor Porpoise
    Harbor porpoise occur along the US west coast from southern 
California to the Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2013, Barlow and Hanan 
1995, Carretta et al. 2009, 2014). They rarely occur in waters warmer 
than 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit (17 degrees Celsius; Read 1990). The San 
Francisco-Russian River stock is found from Pescadero, 18 mi (30 km) 
south of the San Francisco Bay, to 99 mi (160 km) north of the Bay at 
Point Arena (Carretta et al. 2014, Chivers et al. 2002). In most areas, 
harbor porpoise occur in small groups of just a few individuals.
    Harbor porpoise occur frequently outside the Bay and re-entered the 
Bay beginning in 2008 (Stern et al. 2017). They now commonly occur 
year-round within the Bay, primarily on the west and northwest side of 
the Central Bay near the Golden Gate Bridge, near Marin County, and 
near the city of San Francisco (Duffy 2015, Keener et al. 2012, Stern 
et al. 2017). In the summer of 2017 and 2018, mom-calf pairs and small 
groups (1-4 individuals) were seen to the north and west of Treasure 
Island, and just south of YBI (Yerba Buena Island) (Caltrans 2018a, 
2019; M. Schulze, pers. comm. 2019). Please see the Marine Mammal 
Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation section for information 
on local occurrence in the project area.
    Harbor porpoise must forage nearly continuously to meet their high 
metabolic needs (Wisniewska et al. 2016). They consume up to 550 small 
fish (1.2-3.9 in [3-10 cm]; e.g. anchovies) per hour at a nearly 90

[[Page 23797]]

percent capture success rate (Wisniewska et al. 2016).
California Sea Lion
    California sea lions occur from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, 
to the southern tip of Baja California. Sea lions breed on the offshore 
islands of southern and central California from May through July (Heath 
and Perrin 2008). During the non-breeding season, adult and subadult 
males and juveniles migrate northward along the coast to central and 
northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island 
(Jefferson et al. 1993). They return south the following spring (Heath 
and Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney 2005). Females and some juveniles 
tend to remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et al. 1990, Melin et al. 
2008).
    California sea lions have occupied docks near Pier 39 in San 
Francisco, about 9.2 mi (14.9 km) from the project area, since 1987. 
The highest number of sea lions recorded at Pier 39 was 1,701 
individuals in November 2009. Occurrence of sea lions here is typically 
lowest in June (during pupping and breeding seasons) and highest in 
August. Approximately 85 percent of the animals that haul out at this 
site are males, and no pupping has been observed here or at any other 
site in the Bay. Pier 39 is the only regularly used haulout site in the 
project vicinity, but sea lions occasionally haul out on human-made 
structures such as bridge piers, jetties, or navigation buoys (Riedman 
1990).
    Pupping occurs primarily on the California Channel Islands from 
late May until the end of June (Peterson and Bartholomew 1967). No 
pupping has been observed at the Pier 39 site or any other site in San 
Francisco Bay under normal conditions (USACE 2011). Although there has 
been documentation of pupping on docks in the Bay, this event was 
during a domoic acid event. There is no reason to anticipate that any 
domoic events will occur during the project construction activities. 
Weaning and mating occur in late spring and summer during the peak 
upwelling period (Bograd et al., 2009). After the mating season, adult 
males migrate northward to feeding areas as far away as the Gulf of 
Alaska (Lowry et al,. 1992), and they remain away until spring (March-
May), when they migrate back to the breeding colonies. Adult females 
generally remain south of Monterey Bay, California throughout the year, 
feeding in coastal waters in the summer and offshore waters in the 
winter, alternating between foraging and nursing their pups on shore 
until the next pupping/breeding season (Melin and DeLong 2000; Melin et 
al. 2008).
    Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and 
Estimation section for information on local occurrence in the project 
area.
Northern Fur Seal
    Two northern fur seal stocks may occur near the Bay: the California 
and Eastern North Pacific stocks. The California stock breeds and pups 
on the offshore islands of California, and forages off the California 
coast. The Eastern Pacific stock breeds and pups on islands in the 
North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, including the Aleutian Islands, 
Pribilof Islands, and Bogoslof Island, but females and juveniles move 
south to California waters to forage in the fall and winter months 
(Gelatt and Gentry 2018). Breeding and pupping occur from mid- to late-
May into July. Pups are weaned in September and move south to feed 
offshore California (Gentry 1998).
    Both the California and Eastern North Pacific stocks forage in the 
offshore waters of California, but usually only sick or emaciated 
juvenile fur seals seasonally enter the Bay. The Marine Mammal Center 
(TMMC) occasionally picks up stranded fur seals around YBI and Treasure 
Island (NMFS, 2019b). Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 
Calculation and Estimation section for information on local occurrence 
in the project area.
Northern Elephant Seal
    Northern elephant seals are common on California coastal mainland 
and island sites, where the species pups, breeds, rests, and molts. The 
largest rookeries are on San Nicolas and San Miguel islands in the 
northern Channel Islands. Near the Bay, elephant seals breed, molt, and 
haul out at A[ntilde]o Nuevo Island, the Farallon Islands, and Point 
Reyes National Seashore.
    Northern elephant seals haul out to give birth and breed from 
December through March. Pups remain onshore or in adjacent shallow 
water through May. Both sexes make two foraging migrations each year: 
One after breeding and the second after molting (Stewart 1989; Stewart 
and DeLong 1995). Adult females migrate to the central North Pacific to 
forage, and males migrate to the Gulf of Alaska to forage (Robinson et 
al. 2012). Pup mortality is high when they make the first trip to sea 
in May, and this period correlates with the time of most strandings. 
Young-of-the-year pups return in the late summer and fall to haul out 
at breeding rookeries and small haul-out sites, but occasionally may 
make brief stops in the Bay. Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence 
and Take Calculation and Estimation section for information on local 
occurrence in the project area.
Harbor Seal
    Harbor seals are found from Baja California to the eastern Aleutian 
Islands of Alaska (Harvey and Goley 2011, Herder 1986). In California 
there are approximately 500 haulout sites along the mainland and on 
offshore islands, including intertidal sandbars, rocky shores, and 
beaches (Hanan 1996, Lowry et al. 2008).
    Harbor seals are the most common marine mammal species observed in 
the San Francisco Bay. Within the Bay they primarily haul out on 
exposed rocky ledges and on sloughs in the southern Bay. Harbor seals 
are central-place foragers (Orians and Pearson 1979) and tend to 
exhibit strong site fidelity within season and across years, generally 
forage close to haulout sites, and repeatedly visit specific foraging 
areas (Grigg et al. 2012, Suryan and Harvey 1998, Thompson et al. 
1998). Harbor seals in the Bay forage mainly within 7 mi (10 km) of 
their primary haulout site (Grigg et al. 2012), and often within just 
1-3 mi (1-5 km; Torok 1994). Depth, bottom relief, and prey abundance 
also influence foraging location (Grigg et al. 2012).
    Harbor seals molt from May through June. Peak numbers of harbor 
seals haul out in central California during late May to early June, 
which coincides with the peak molt. During both pupping and molting 
seasons, the number of seals and the length of time hauled out per day 
increase, from an average of 7 hours per day to 10-12 hours (Harvey and 
Goley 2011, Huber et al. 2001, Stewart and Yochem 1994).
    Harbor seals tend to forage at night and haul out during the day 
with a peak in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. (Grigg et al. 
2002, London et al. 2001, Stewart and Yochem 1994, Yochem et al. 1987). 
Tide levels affect the maximum number of seals hauled out, with the 
largest number of seals hauled out at low tide, but time of day and 
season have the greatest influence on haul-out behavior (Manugian et 
al. 2017, Patterson and Acevedo-Guti[eacute]rrez 2008, Stewart and 
Yochem 1994). Harbor seals in the Bay typically haul out in groups 
ranging from a few individuals to over 300 during peak molt (NPS, 
unpublished data).
    The closest haulout to the project area is YBI, approximately 6.6 
mi (10.7 km) to the northwest. The YBI haulout site has a daily range 
of zero to 109 harbor seals during fall months, with the

[[Page 23798]]

highest numbers hauled out during afternoon low tides (Caltrans, 2004).
    A second high-use haulout is located on the southwest side of 
Alameda Island near the Encinal Boat Ramp, 7.8 mi (12.6 km) by water. 
This location consists of two haulout sites approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 
km) apart: One at the western end of Breakwater Island, and the other 
on a platform installed for the harbor seals within the harbor 
protected by Breakwater Island. More animals haul out here daily in the 
winter than in the summer and fall: An average of fewer than 10 animals 
per day haul out in the fall, while up to 75 animals per day use this 
haulout in January and December (M. Klein and R. Bangert, pers. comm. 
2019). This trend reflects the fact that more seals are present in the 
Bay during the winter foraging period than during the spring breeding 
season. Large concentrations of spawning Pacific herring (Clupea 
pallasii) and migrating salmonids likely attract seals into the Bay 
during the winter months (Greig and Allen 2015) and may similarly 
increase harbor seal numbers in the Estuary. Harbor seals forage for 
Pacific herring in eelgrass beds in the winter (Schaeffer et al. 2007). 
There are no eelgrass beds in the Estuary to attract foraging harbor 
seals. Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and 
Estimation section for information on local occurrence in the project 
area.
    Pupping occurs from March through May in central California (Codde 
and Allen 2018). Pups are weaned in four weeks, most by mid-June (Codde 
and Allen 2018). Harbor seals molt from June through July (Codde and 
Allen 2018) and breed between late March and June (Greig and Allen 
2015). The closest recognized harbor seal pupping site to Alameda 
Marina is at Castro Rocks, approximately 24.5 km (15.2 mi) from the 
project area.

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 5.

           Table 5--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 (dolphins,     150 Hz to 160 kHz
 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) (true    50 Hz to 86 kHz
 seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea    60 Hz to 39 kHz
 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, 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. 
Six marine mammal species (two cetacean and four pinniped (two otariid 
and two phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with 
the proposed activities. Please refer to Table 4. Of the cetacean 
species that may be present, one is classified as mid-frequency 
cetacean (i.e., bottlenose dolphin), and one is classified as high-
frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise).

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 section later in this document 
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are 
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the 
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw 
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those 
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or 
stocks.
    Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity 
can occur from vibratory and impact pile driving. The effects of 
underwater noise from Pacific Shops' proposed activities have the 
potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in the 
action area.

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. 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

[[Page 23799]]

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 vibratory pile 
removal. 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 2018a). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g. 
aircraft, 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 2018a). 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 them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers 
produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak sound 
pressure levels (SPLs) 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 Pacific Shops' 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 removal.

Acoustic Impacts

    The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic 
environment from pile driving and removal is the primary means by which 
marine mammals may be harassed from Pacific Shops' 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). In general, exposure to 
pile driving and removal noise has the potential to result in auditory 
threshold shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary 
cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). 
Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable 
physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional 
noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by 
marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and 
predator and prey detection. The effects of pile driving and removal 
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.
    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 an animal uses sound within the 
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al. 2014), and the 
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and 
spectral).
    Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold 
shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al. 1958, 1959; Ward 1960; 
Kryter et al. 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; Henderson et al. 
2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, 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 (2015), 
marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with 
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 
low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small 
and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher 
SELcum, the

[[Page 23800]]

growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the 
noise SEL.
    Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration 
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in 
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging 
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory 
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily 
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal 
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and 
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well 
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al. 2007), so we can infer that 
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though 
likely not without cost.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) 
and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound 
sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory 
settings (Finneran 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted 
(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to impulsive 
noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth 
et al. 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a 
lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species 
(Finneran 2015). 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 be pauses in activities producing the sound during 
each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely 
moving through the ensonified area and not remaining for extended 
periods of time, the potential for TS declines.
    Behavioral Harassment--Exposure to noise from pile driving and 
removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. 
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; 
therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound 
in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the 
signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by 
changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the 
change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the 
stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine 
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged 
period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant 
(e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005).
    Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and 
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; 
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain 
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle 
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw 
clapping); 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 
(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.
    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.
    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.

[[Page 23801]]

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), however 
distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of 
marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.
    Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering 
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between 
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator 
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995). Masking occurs when 
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound 
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may 
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar, 
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask 
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both 
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-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.
    Airborne Acoustic Effects--Pinnipeds that occur near the project 
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving 
and removal that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, 
depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are 
not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in 
harassment as defined under the MMPA.
    Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are 
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise 
levels exceeding the acoustic thresholds. 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 is 
already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, 
we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from 
airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not 
discussed further here.

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects

    Pacific Shops' construction activities could have localized, 
temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat by increasing in-water sound 
pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Construction 
activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary 
impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater sound. 
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 impact and 
vibratory pile driving, elevated levels of underwater noise would 
ensonify the estuary where both fish and mammals may occur and could 
affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the 
area during construction, however, displacement due to noise is 
expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term 
effects to the individuals or populations.
    A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor 
would occur in the immediate area surrounding the area where piles are 
installed (and removed in the case of the temporary templates). The 
sediments on the sea floor will be disturbed during pile driving; 
however, suspension will be brief and localized and is unlikely to 
measurably affect marine mammals or their prey in the area. In general, 
turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-
foot (7.6-meter) radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 1980). 
Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the pile driving areas 
to experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds could avoid 
localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, we expect the impact from 
increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do 
not discuss it further.

In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat

    The proposed activities would not result in permanent impacts to 
habitats used directly by marine mammals except for the actual 
footprint of the project. The total seafloor area affected by pile 
installation and removal is a very small area compared to the vast 
foraging area available to marine mammals in the San Francisco Bay. At 
best, the impact area provides marginal foraging habitat for marine 
mammals and fish, while the new pilings installed would provide 
substrate for invertebrate prey to settle on.
    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 stops is 
unknown, but we anticipate a rapid return to normal recruitment, 
distribution and behavior. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the 
disturbed area would still leave

[[Page 23802]]

significantly large areas of more preferable fish and marine mammal 
foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in San Francisco Bay.

Effects on Potential Prey

    Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, 
behavior, or distribution of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, 
cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, 
season, and location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects 
of noise on known marine mammal prey.
    Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their 
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator 
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 
Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures, 
which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and 
particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of 
surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on 
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the 
sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing 
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include 
behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related 
injuries), and mortality.
    Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or 
intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as 
flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp 
sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local 
distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the 
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g., 
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. 
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish 
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies 
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are 
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction 
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 
2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might 
affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially 
impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs (e.g., 
Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 
1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some 
studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena 
et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott 
et al., 2012).
    SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish 
and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the 
ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is 
restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et 
al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours 
for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish 
is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long. 
Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can 
cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma 
injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile 
driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
    The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the 
project areas would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The 
duration of fish avoidance of an area after pile driving stops is 
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and 
behavior is anticipated.
    The area impacted by the project is relatively small compared to 
the available habitat in the remainder of the Oakland Estuary and the 
San Francisco Bay. 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. As described in the 
preceding, the potential for Pacific Shops' construction to affect the 
availability of prey to marine mammals or to meaningfully impact the 
quality of physical or acoustic habitat is considered to be 
insignificant.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns and/or TTS for individual marine 
mammals resulting from exposure to pile driving and removal noise. 
Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness 
of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown zones) discussed in detail 
below in the Proposed Mitigation section, Level A harassment is neither 
anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. As described previously, no 
mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this 
activity.
    Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take 
estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    NMFS recommends the use of 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,

[[Page 23803]]

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) (microPascal, root mean 
square) 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.
    Pacific Shops' 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) 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). Pacific Shops' proposed activity includes 
the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory 
pile driving) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

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

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    The sound field in the project area is the existing background 
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. 
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the 
primary components of the project (i.e., impact pile driving and 
vibratory pile driving and removal). The largest calculated Level B 
harassment zone is 21.5 km (13.4 mi), however, the ZOI is functionally 
only 1.43 km\2\ (0.6 mi\2\) due to the geography of the Estuary.
    The project includes vibratory and impact pile installation and 
vibratory pile removal. Source levels of pile installation and removal 
activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar 
types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source 
levels for vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same 
diameter are assumed the same. Source levels for each pile size and 
activity are presented in Table 7.
    The source level for vibratory removal of timber piles is from in-
water measurements generated by the Greenbusch Group (2018) from the 
Seattle Pier 62 project (83 FR 39709; August 10, 2018). Hydroacoustic 
monitoring results from Pier 62 determined unweighted rms ranging from 
140 dB to 169 dB. NMFS analyzed source measurements at different 
distances for all 63 individual timber piles that were removed at Pier 
62 and normalized the values to 10 m. The results showed that the 
median is 152 dB SPLrms.
    Pacific Shops will implement bubble curtains (e.g. pneumatic 
barrier typically comprised of hosing or PVC piping that disrupts 
underwater noise propagation; see Mitigation section below) during 
impact pile driving of the wide flange beams, 30-inch steel pipe piles, 
and 36-inch steel pipe piles. They have reduced the source level for 
these activities by 7dB (a conservative estimate based on several 
studies including Austin et al., 2016).

                                      Table 7--Project Sound Source Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Source level @10m
               Pile type               ------------------------------------------------          Source
                                            dB RMS          dB peak         dB SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VIBRATORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal)................             152  ..............  ..............  The Greenbusch Group,
                                                                                         Inc 2018

[[Page 23804]]

 
12-in Square Concrete (removal).......             155  ..............  ..............  CalTrans 2015
                                                                                        (Based on 12-in steel
                                                                                         pipe pile)
Steel sheet pile......................             160  ..............  ..............  CalTrans 2015
                                                                                        (Based on 24-in AZ steel
                                                                                         sheet)
30-in Steel Pipe......................             170  ..............  ..............  CalTrans 2015
                                                                                        (Based on 36-in steel
                                                                                         pipe pile)
36-in Steel Pipe......................             170  ..............  ..............  CalTrans 2015
Wide Flange Beam......................             155  ..............  ..............  Based on 38-in x 18-in
                                                                                         king piles at the Naval
                                                                                         Station Mayport in
                                                                                         Jacksonville, Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     IMPACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete.................             166             185             155  CalTrans 2015
                                                                                        (Based on 18-inch
                                                                                         concrete piles)
16-in Square Concrete.................             166             185             155  CalTrans 2015
                                                                                        (Based on 18-inch
                                                                                         concrete piles)
24-in Concrete piles..................             176             188             166  CalTrans 2015
Wide Flange Beam (attenuated in              194 (187)       207 (200)       178 (171)  CalTrans 2015
 parentheses).                                                                          (Source levels based on
                                                                                         24-in steel pipe pile)
30-in Steel Pipe (attenuated in              190 (183)       210 (203)       177 (170)  CalTrans 2015
 parentheses).
36-in Steel Pipe (attenuated in              193 (186)       210 (203)       183 (176)  CalTrans 2015
 parentheses).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven 
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial 
measurement

    Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured 
transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the 
transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Site-specific 
transmission loss data for Alameda Marina are not available, therefore 
the default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the distances to the 
Level A and Level B harassment thresholds.

               Table 8--Pile Driving Source Levels and Distances to Level B Harassment Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Level B
                                                                   Source level     harsasment      Distance to
                             Source                               at 10m  (dB re  threshold  (dB      level B
                                                                   1 [mu]Pa rms)    re 1 [mu]Pa     harassment
                                                                                       rms)       threshold  (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VIBRATORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal)..........................................             152             120           1,359
12-in Square Concrete (removal).................................             155  ..............           2,154
Steel sheet pile................................................             160  ..............           4,642
30-in Steel Pipe................................................             170  ..............          21,544
36-in Steel Pipe................................................             170  ..............          21,544
Wide Flange Beam................................................             155  ..............           2,154
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     IMPACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete...........................................             166             160              25
16-in Square Concrete...........................................             166  ..............              25
24-in Concrete piles............................................             176  ..............             117
Wide Flange Beam (attenuated) \a\...............................       194 (187)  ..............         \b\ 631
30-in Steel Pipe (attenuated) \a\...............................       190 (183)  ..............         \b\ 341
36-in Steel Pipe (attenuated) \a\...............................       193 (186)  ..............         \b\ 541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes 7dB reduction for use of bubble curtain.
\b\ Calculated using attenuated source level.

    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

[[Page 23805]]

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 such has pile 
driving, 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. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and 
the resulting isopleths are reported below.

                              Table 9--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating Level A Harassment Isopleths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighting               Number of   Duration to                             Distance from
                                                                 factor      Source      piles       drive a     Number of   Propagation   source level
 Pile size and  installation method    Spreadsheet tab used    adjustment    level    within  24-  single pile  strikes per     (xLogR)     measurement
                                                                 (kHz)                  h period     (minutes)      pile                     (meters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal)..............  A.1) Vibratory pile             2.5    \a\ 152           10            5  ...........           15              10
                                       driving.
12-in Square Concrete (removal).....  ......................  ...........    \a\ 155           10            5  ...........
Steel sheet pile....................  ......................  ...........    \a\ 160           20           10  ...........
30-in Steel Pipe....................  ......................  ...........    \a\ 170            1           10  ...........
36-in Steel Pipe....................  ......................  ...........    \a\ 170            3           10  ...........
Wide Flange Beam....................  ......................  ...........    \a\ 155            4           10  ...........
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         IMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete...............  E.1) Impact pile                  2    \b\ 155            4  ...........          500           15              10
                                       driving.
16-in Square Concrete...............  ......................  ...........    \b\ 155            4  ...........
24-in Concrete piles................  ......................  ...........    \b\ 166            4  ...........
Wide Flange Beam (attenuated).......  ......................  ...........    \b\ \c\            4  ...........
                                                                                 171
30-in Steel Pipe (attenuated).......  ......................  ...........    \b\ \c\            1  ...........
                                                                                 170
36-in Steel Pipe (attenuated).......  ......................  ...........    \b\ \c\            3  ...........
                                                                                 176
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ dB RMS SPL at 10m
\b\ dB SEL at 10m
\c\ Includes 7dB reduction from use of bubble curtain.


                         Table 10--Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Level A--Radius to Isopleth (m)
                     Source                      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   MF Cetaceans    HF Cetaceans       Phocids        Otariids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VIBRATORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal)..........................              <1               1              <1              <1
12-in Square Concrete (removal).................              <1               4               2              <1
Steel sheet pile................................              <1               3               1              <1
30-in Steel Pipe................................              <1              12               5              <1
36-in Steel Pipe................................               2              25              10              <1
Wide Flange Beam................................              <1               3               1              <1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     IMPACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete...........................              <1              26              12              <1
16-in Square Concrete...........................              <1              26              12              <1
24-in Concrete piles............................               4             139              62               5
Wide Flange Beam (attenuated)...................               9             299             135              10
30-in Steel Pipe (attenuated)...................               3             102              46               3
36-in Steel Pipe (attenuated)...................              16             532             239              17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations. We describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

[[Page 23806]]

Bottlenose Dolphin
    Bottlenose dolphins began entering San Francisco Bay in 2010 
(Szczepaniak 2013). They primarily occur in the western Central and 
South Bay, from the Golden Gate Bridge to Oyster Point and Redwood 
City. However, one individual has been regularly seen in the Bay since 
2016 near the former Alameda Air Station (Perlman 2017; W. Keener, 
pers. comm. 2017), and five animals were regularly seen in the summer 
and fall of 2018 in the same location (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019). 
This area is on the far side of Alameda Island from the Project area, 
approximately 6.8 mi (10.9 km) by water.
    There have been no formal surveys of marine mammals in the Estuary 
before 2019 (W. Keener, pers. comm, 2019), and no known reports of 
bottlenose dolphins in the Estuary between 2006 and May 2019 (NMFS 
2019a, 2019b). The two closest known sightings to the project area were 
of a single dolphin on one occasion and an adult and juvenile on 
another occasion in February 2019. Both sightings were on the edge of 
the Inner Harbor Entrance Channel to the northwest of the Estuary, 
approximately 5.8 mi (9.3 km) from the project area (W. Keener, pers. 
comm., 2019).
    Pacific Shops conducted 30 hours of monitoring over four days in 
June 2019 at the project site, and did not observe any bottlenose 
dolphins. Additionally, six local frequent users of the Estuary 
interviewed for this project reported never having seen a bottlenose 
dolphin in the Estuary. However, the applicant has requested the 
authorization of Level B harassment take of bottlenose dolphins due to 
their year-round presence in the Bay, regular proximity to the work 
area, and potential to enter the Level B harassment zone while pile 
driving or removal are underway.
    Pacific Shops conservatively estimates that a group of two 
bottlenose dolphins may occur in the project area every 10 project 
days. NMFS concurs that this approach is reasonable given the available 
information. Pacific Shops has requested, and NMFS proposes to 
authorize, 14 Level B harassment takes of bottlenose dolphins during 
Year 1 (2 individuals/10 days * 68 project days = 14 Level B harassment 
takes), and 20 Level B harassment takes of bottlenose dolphins during 
Year 2 (2 individuals/10 days * 98 project days = 20 Level B harassment 
takes).
    The largest Level A harassment zone for mid-frequency cetaceans 
extends 16 m from the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel 
pipe piles (Table 10). Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 25m 
shutdown zone during that activity (Table 12). Given the small size of 
the Level A harassment zones, the shutdown zones are expected to 
eliminate the potential for Level A harassment take of bottlenose 
dolphins. Therefore, NMFS does not propose to authorize Level A 
harassment take of bottlenose dolphins.
Harbor Porpoise
    Historically, harbor porpoise primarily occur near the Golden Gate 
Bridge, Marin County, and the city of San Francisco on the northwest 
side of the Bay (Keener et al. 2012, Stern et al. 2017). However, in 
the summer of 2017 and 2018, mom-calf pairs and small groups (one to 
four individuals) were seen to the north and west of Treasure Island, 
and just south of YBI (Caltrans 2018a, 2019), indicating that their 
range may be expanding within the Bay.
    No formal surveys of marine mammals were conducted in the Estuary 
before 2019 (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019). The applicant conducted 30 
hours of monitoring over four days in June 2019 at the project site, 
and did not observe any harbor porpoises. Six local frequent users of 
the Estuary interviewed for this project reported never seeing a harbor 
porpoise in the Estuary. Between 2006 and June 2019, one harbor 
porpoise stranded in the Estuary. The animal was in an advanced state 
of decomposition (NMFS 2019a), indicating that it probably died outside 
of the Estuary and floated in. However, given their year-round 
residency in the Bay, their proximity to the work area, and their 
seemingly expanding range within the Bay, the applicant has requested 
the authorization of Level B harassment take of harbor porpoise.
    Pacific Shops conservatively estimates that a group of two harbor 
porpoises may occur in the project area every 10 project days. NMFS 
concurs that this approach is reasonable given the available 
information. Pacific Shops has requested, and NMFS proposes to 
authorize, 14 Level B harassment takes of harbor porpoise during Year 1 
(2 individuals/10 days * 68 project days = 14 Level B harassment 
takes), and 20 Level B harassment takes of harbor porpoise during Year 
2 (2 individuals/10 days * 98 project days = 20 Level B harassment 
takes).
    The largest Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans 
extends 532 m from the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel 
pipe piles (Table 10). This largest zone is only relevant for impact 
pile driving of the 36-inch piles, which would only occur on a maximum 
of three days between both project years. Additionally, the calculated 
Level A harassment zone for this activity is based on assumed 
accumulation of sound from driving three piles in a day. However, we do 
not expect a harbor porpoise to remain within the Level A harassment 
zone for a long enough period to incur PTS. Pacific Shops is planning 
to implement a 400 m shutdown zone during that activity (Table 12), 
which includes the 11.7 m peak PTS isopleth. Pacific Shops will provide 
a 3.8m high platform for protected species observers (PSOs). NMFS 
expects that the platform, in combination with the anticipated ideal 
weather conditions, will allow PSOs to effectively observe harbor 
porpoises at 400 m. Therefore, the shutdown zones are expected to 
eliminate the potential for Level A harassment take of harbor porpoise, 
and NMFS does not propose to authorize Level A harassment take of 
harbor porpoise.
California Sea Lion
    There have been no formal surveys of marine mammals in the Oakland 
Estuary before 2019 (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019). The few sightings 
that have been recorded have been opportunistic, including a sea lion 
observed in May 2017 in the small canal that connects Lake Merritt with 
the Estuary (Martichoux, 2017). Between 2006 and May 2019, 18 confirmed 
sea lion sightings in the Estuary were reported to TMMC and California 
Academy of Sciences (CAS) (NMFS 2019a, 2019b), and between 2006 and 
June 2019, three sea lions stranded in the Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b). 
The applicant conducted 30 hours of monitoring over four days in June 
2019 at the project site, and observed one sea lion near the project 
site, across the Estuary under the Coast Guard dock approximately 1130 
ft (345 m) from the Alameda Marina shoreline. Interviews with local 
frequent users of the Estuary confirm that sightings of sea lions are 
rare. Two people interviewed reported seeing one to two sea lions per 
year in the Estuary. California sea lions forage for Pacific herring in 
eelgrass beds in the winter (Schaeffer et al. 2007), however, there are 
no eelgrass beds in the Estuary to attract foraging sea lions.
    Pacific Shops conservatively estimates that one California sea lion 
may occur in the project area every five project days. NMFS concurs 
that this approach is reasonable given the available information. 
Therefore Pacific Shops has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, 
14 Level B harassment takes of California sea lion during Year 1 (1 
individual/5 days * 68 project days = 14 Level B harassment takes), and 
20 Level B harassment takes of California sea lion during Year 2 (1

[[Page 23807]]

individual/5 days * 98 project days = 20 Level B harassment takes).
    The largest Level A harassment zone for otariids extends 17 m from 
the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel pipe piles (Table 
10). Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 25 m shutdown zone during 
that activity (Table 12). Given the small size of the Level A 
harassment zones, we expect the shutdown zones to eliminate the 
potential for Level A harassment take of California sea lion. 
Therefore, NMFS does not propose to authorize Level A harassment take 
of California sea lion.
Northern Fur Seal
    There are no available density estimates of northern fur seals in 
the project area, and northern fur seals have not been reported in the 
Estuary (NMFS 2019b). The applicant conducted 30 hours of monitoring 
over four days in June 2019 at the project site and did not observe any 
fur seals. Between 2006 and May 2019 there were no reports of stranded 
fur seals in the Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b). Interviews with frequent 
users of the Estuary also reported they had never seen a fur seal in 
the Estuary. However, to account for the possible rare presence of the 
species in the action area, NMFS proposes to authorize six Level B 
harassment takes of northern fur seal during Year 1, and nine Level B 
harassment takes of northern fur seal during Year 2.
    The largest Level A harassment zone for otariids extends 17 m from 
the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel pipe piles (Table 
10). Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 25 m shutdown zone during 
that activity (Table 12). Given the small size of the Level A 
harassment zones, we expect the shutdown zones to eliminate the 
potential for Level A harassment take of northern fur seal. Therefore, 
NMFS does not propose to issue Level A harassment take of northern fur 
seal.
Northern Elephant Seal
    There are no available density estimates of northern elephant seals 
in the project area. Generally, only juvenile elephant seals enter the 
Bay seasonally and do not remain long if they are healthy. From mid-
February to the end of June, TMMC reports the most strandings, 
primarily of malnourished juveniles (TMMC, 2019). However, no elephant 
seals, alive or stranded, have been reported in the Estuary (NMFS 
2019a, 2019b). The applicant conducted 30 hours of monitoring over four 
days in June 2019 at the project site and did not observe any elephant 
seals. Interviews with frequent users of the Estuary also reported they 
had never seen an elephant seal in the Estuary. However, to account for 
the possible rare presence of the species in the action area, NMFS 
proposes to authorize six Level B harassment takes of northern elephant 
seal during Year 1, and nine Level B harassment takes of northern 
elephant seal during Year 2.
    The largest Level A harassment zone for phocids extends 239 m from 
the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel pipe piles (Table 
10). Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 240 m shutdown zone 
during that activity (Table 12). Given the small size of the Level A 
harassment zones, we expect the shutdown zones to eliminate the 
potential for Level A harassment take of northern elephant seal. 
Therefore, NMFS does not propose to authorize Level A harassment take 
of northern elephant seal.
Harbor Seal
    There have been no formal surveys of marine mammals in the Estuary 
before 2019 (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019), and the few recorded harbor 
seal sightings have been opportunistic. The applicant conducted 30 
hours of monitoring over four days in June 2019 at the project site and 
did not observe any harbor seals. A local recreational boater who lives 
on his boat full-time in the existing Alameda Marina reported seeing a 
harbor seal approximately twice a week throughout 2019 (G. Dees, pers. 
comm. 2019). Another recreational boater who is occasionally on her 
boat in Alameda Marina reported a harbor seal in the marina on five 
days in August through October, 2019 (T. Drake, pers. comm. 2019). This 
respondent also reported that a single harbor seal occasionally hauled 
out on the marina docks for several hours. Two staff members of a local 
marina reported an average of two harbor seals per month in the 
Estuary. There were only four confirmed harbor seal sightings reported 
in the Estuary to TMMC and CAS between 2006 and May 2019 (NMFS 2019a, 
2019b), and a dead harbor seal at Pier 2 in the existing Alameda Marina 
on October 27, 2019 (T. Drake, pers. comms. 2019).
    The number of harbor seals hauled out on a floating platform at the 
Alameda Breakwater, approximately 7.8 mi (12.6 km) from the Project 
area, has been recorded almost every day since March 2014 (M. Klein and 
R. Bangert, pers. comm. 2019). Between zero and 75 seals haul out each 
day; more animals are present in the winter during the herring run. 
However, based on observations at the Alameda Marina, we do not expect 
the counts at the Alameda Breakwater to be representative of harbor 
seal presence in the project area.
    Between 2006 and June 2019, only two harbor seals stranded in the 
Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b). In August 2017 a harbor seal was seen in 
Lake Merritt, after transiting through the Estuary (Martichoux 2017). 
Grigg et al. (2012) tagged 19 harbor seals at Castro Rocks, 
approximately 15.2 mi (24.5 km) north-northeast of the project area. 
Although some ranged as far as the South Bay, approximately 39 mi (63 
km) from Castro Rocks, none were recorded in the Estuary (Grigg et al. 
2012).
    Pacific Shops conservatively estimates that one harbor seal may 
enter the project area per project day. NMFS concurs that this approach 
is reasonable given the available information. Therefore, Pacific Shops 
has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, 68 Level B harassment 
takes of harbor seal in Year 1 (1 harbor seal per day x 68 project days 
= 68 Level B harassment takes), and 98 Level B harassment takes of 
harbor seal in Year 2 (1 harbor seal per day x 98 project days = 98 
Level B harassment takes).
    The largest Level A harassment zone for phocids extends 239 m from 
the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel pipe piles (Table 
10). This largest zone is only relevant for impact pile driving of the 
36-inch piles, which would occur on a maximum of three days between 
both project years. Additionally, the calculated Level A harassment 
zone for this activity is based on assumed accumulation of sound from 
driving three piles in a day. However, we do not expect a harbor seal 
to remain within the Level A harassment zone for a long enough period 
to incur PTS. Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 240 m shutdown 
zone during impact pile driving of the 36-inch piles (Table 12), and 
there is no peak PTS isopleth for phocids. Additionally, as noted 
previously, PSOs would be observing from a 3.8 m high platform which 
would further increase their ability to detect harbor seals within this 
zone. Therefore, the shutdown zones are expected to eliminate the 
potential for Level A harassment take of harbor seal, and NMFS does not 
propose to authorize Level A harassment take of harbor seal.

[[Page 23808]]



                      Table 11--Estimated Take by Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Year 1  level   Year 2  level
                                                                       Stock       B  harassment   B  harassment
              Common name                         Stock              abundance    take  (percent  take  (percent
                                                                                     of stock)       of stock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose Dolphin....................  California Coastal......             453        14 (3.1)        20 (4.4)
Harbor Porpoise.......................  San Francisco/Russian              9,886        14 (0.1)        20 (0.2)
                                         River.
California Sea Lion...................  United States...........         257,606       14 (0.01)       20 (0.01)
Northern Fur Seal.....................  California..............          14,050        6 (0.04)        9 (0.06)
                                        Eastern North Pacific...         620,660         (<0.01)         (<0.01)
Northern Elephant Seal................  California Breeding.....         179,000       6 (<0.01)       9 (<0.01)
Harbor Seal...........................  California..............          30,968        68 (0.2)        98 (0.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, 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, 
Pacific Shops will employ the following mitigation measures:
     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);
     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 those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take 
has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal will shut 
down immediately if such species are observed within or entering the 
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 mitigation measures would apply to Pacific Shops' in-
water construction activities.
     Establishment of Shutdown Zones--Pacific Shops will 
establish shutdown zones for all pile driving and removal activities. 
The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within 
which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine 
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). 
Shutdown zones will vary based on the activity type and marine mammal 
hearing group (Table 5). The largest shutdown zones are generally for 
high frequency cetaceans, as shown in Table 12.
     The placement of PSOs during all pile driving and removal 
activities (described in detail in the Proposed Monitoring and 
Reporting section) will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible 
during pile installation. Should environmental conditions deteriorate 
such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be 
visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving and removal must be 
delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown 
zone could be detected.

                          Table 12--Shutdown Zones During Pile Installation and Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Shutdown zone (m)
                     Source                      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   MF cetaceans    HF cetaceans       Phocids        Otariids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VIBRATORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal)..........................              10              10              10              10
12-in Square Concrete (removal).................

[[Page 23809]]

 
Steel sheet pile................................
30-in Steel Pipe................................  ..............              25
36-in Steel Pipe................................
Wide Flange Beam................................  ..............              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     IMPACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete...........................              25              30              25              25
16-in Square Concrete...........................
24-in Concrete piles............................  ..............             140              70
Wide Flange Beam                                  ..............             300             140
30-in Steel Pipe................................  ..............             140              70
36-in Steel Pipe................................  ..............         \a\ 400             240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This shutdown zone is smaller than the 532m Level A harassment zone. NMFS expects that PSOs will be able to
  monitor this zone more effectively, and that the smaller zone will reduce unnecessary shutdowns while
  remaining sufficient to prevent Level A harassment.

     Monitoring for Level B Harassment--Pacific Shops will 
monitor the Level B harassment zones (areas where SPLs are equal to or 
exceed the 160 dB rms threshold for impact driving and the 120 dB rms 
threshold during vibratory pile driving) and the Level A harassment 
zones. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by establishing 
monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 
Monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and communicate the 
presence of marine mammals in the project area outside the shutdown 
zone and thus prepare for a potential cease of activity should the 
animal enter the shutdown zone. Placement of PSOs on the shorelines 
around Alameda Marina will allow PSOs to observe marine mammals within 
the Level B harassment zones. However, due to the large Level B 
harassment zones (Table 8), PSOs will not be able to effectively 
observe the entire zone. Therefore, Level B harassment exposures will 
be recorded and extrapolated based upon the number of observed takes 
and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that was not visible.
     Pre-activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-
water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/
removal 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 considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within 
the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed 
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal 
has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes. When a 
marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is 
present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level 
B harassment take will be recorded. If the entire Level B harassment 
zone is not visible at the start of construction, pile driving 
activities can begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-
activity monitoring of the shutdown zones will commence.
     Soft Start--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 will 
be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer 
at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period. This 
procedure will be conducted three times before impact pile driving 
begins. Soft start will 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 thirty minutes or longer.
     Pile driving energy attenuator--Pacific Shops will use a 
marine pile-driving energy attenuator (i.e., air bubble curtain system) 
during impact pile driving of the wide flange beams, 30-in steel pipe 
piles, and 36-inch 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 will meet the 
following requirements:
    [cir] The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 
percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] The bubble curtain shall be operated such that there is 
proper (equal) balancing of air flow to all bubblers.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which

[[Page 23810]]

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.

Visual Monitoring

    Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the 
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, dated March 2020. Marine mammal 
monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by NMFS-
approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
     Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who 
have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used;
     Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead 
observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead 
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer 
during construction;
     Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological 
science or related field) or training for experience; and
     Pacific Shops must submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS 
prior to the onset of pile driving.
    PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
     Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols;
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation 
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); 
and marine mammal behavior; and
     Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary.
    Two PSOs will be employed during all pile driving and removal 
activities. PSO locations will provide an unobstructed view of all 
water within the shutdown zone, and as much of the Level A and Level B 
harassment zones as possible. PSO locations are as follows:
    (1) At the pile driving site or best vantage point practicable to 
monitor the shutdown zone; and
    (2) Best vantage point practicable to observe the monitoring zone 
for each activity.
    Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 
minutes after pile driving/removal 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 or removed. Pile driving 
activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or 
series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile 
driving or drilling equipment is no more than thirty minutes.

Acoustic Monitoring

    Pacific Shops intends to conduct a sound source verification (SSV) 
study to confirm the sound source levels, transmission loss 
coefficient, and size of the Level A and Level B harassment zones. They 
intend to request a modification to the zones accordingly. They will 
follow accepted methodological standards to achieve their objectives. 
If NMFS approves the results of the SSV study, we propose to modify the 
zone sizes based on the approved data. Acoustic monitoring report 
requirements are listed in the Reporting section, below.

Reporting

    A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS 
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal 
activities. The report will include an overall description of work 
completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and 
associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
     Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal 
monitoring.
     Construction activities occurring during each daily 
observation period, including how many and what type of piles were 
driven or removed and by what method (i.e., impact or vibratory).
     Weather parameters and water conditions during each 
monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover, visibility, sea 
state).
     The number of marine mammals observed, by species, 
relative to the pile location and if pile driving or removal was 
occurring at time of sighting.
     Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals 
observed.
     PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.
     Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to 
the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile driving or 
removal was occurring at time of sighting).
     Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during 
observation, including direction of travel and estimated time spent 
within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was 
active.
     Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by 
month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and 
estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction 
factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate).
     Detailed information about any implementation of any 
mitigation triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of 
specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if 
any.
     Description of attempts to distinguish between the number 
of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such 
as ability to track groups or individuals.
     An extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level B 
harassment based on the number of observed exposures within the Level B 
harassment zone and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that 
was not visible.
    If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft 
report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a 
final report addressing NMFS comments must be

[[Page 23811]]

submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
    Pacific Shops must include the following information in their 
acoustic monitoring report.
     Hydrophone equipment and methods: Recording device, 
sampling rate, distance (m) from the pile where recordings were made; 
depth of recording device(s).
     Type of pile being driven, substrate type, method of 
driving during recordings, and if a sound attenuation device is used.
     For impact pile driving: Pulse duration and mean, median, 
and maximum sound levels (dB re: 1[micro]Pa): cumulative sound exposure 
level (SELcum), peak sound pressure level (SPLpeak), and single-strike 
sound exposure level (SELs-s).
     For vibratory driving/removal: Mean, median, and maximum 
sound levels (dB re: 1[micro]Pa): root mean square sound pressure level 
(SPLrms), cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum).
     Number of strikes (impact) or duration (vibratory) per 
pile measured, one-third octave band spectrum and power spectral 
density plot.
     Estimated source levels, transmission loss coefficient, 
and revised Level A and Level B harassment zones.
    In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities 
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder must 
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (301-427-8401), NMFS and to the 
West Coast Region stranding coordinator (562-980-3230) as soon as 
feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified 
activity, the IHA-holder must immediately cease the specified 
activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the 
incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are 
appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-
holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
    The report must include the following information:
    i. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first 
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
    ii. Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
    iii. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the 
animal is dead);
    iv. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
    v. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
    vi. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses 
applies to all of the species listed in Table 11, given that many of 
the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal 
stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Also, because 
the nature of the estimated takes anticipated to occur are identical in 
Years 1 and 2, and the number of estimated takes in each year are 
extremely similar, the analysis below applies to each of the IHAs.
    The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of 
serious injury or mortality, and the mitigation is expected to ensure 
that no Level A harassment occurs, which would be unlikely to occur 
even absent the required mitigation. For all species and stocks, take 
would occur within a limited, confined area (Oakland Estuary) of any 
given stock's range. Take would be limited to Level B harassment only 
due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. 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). Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least 
practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described 
herein. Further the amount of take proposed to be authorized for any 
given stock is extremely small when compared to stock abundance.
    Exposure to noise resulting in Level B harassment for all species 
is expected to be temporary and minor due to the general lack of use of 
the Oakland Estuary by marine mammals, as previously explained. In 
general, marine mammals are only occasionally sighted within the 
Oakland Estuary. Any behavioral harassment occurring during the project 
is highly unlikely to impact the health or fitness of any individuals, 
much less effect annual rates of recruitment or survival. Any 
harassment would be brief, and if sound produced by project activities 
is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the area 
while the activity is occurring.
    As previously discussed, the closest harbor seal pupping area is 
24.5 km (15.2 mi) from the project area. However, there are no habitat 
areas of particular importance for marine mammals within the Oakland 
Estuary, and it is not preferred habitat for marine mammals. Therefore, 
we expect that animals annoyed by project sound will simply avoid the 
area and use more-preferred habitats, particularly as the project would 
only occur on approximately 68 days in Year 1, and 98 days in Year 2, 
for up to approximately 9.5 hours per day.
    The project is also not expected to have significant adverse 
effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities 
will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount 
of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of 
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging 
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because 
of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area 
of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal 
habitat are not expected to

[[Page 23812]]

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.
     No Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized.
     The number and intensity of anticipated takes by Level B 
harassment is relatively low for all stocks.
     No biologically important areas have been identified 
within the project area.
     For all species, the Oakland Estuary is a very small part 
of their range.
     For all species, proposed Level B harassment takes in each 
IHA would affect less than five percent of each stock.
    Year 1 IHA--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 required 
monitoring and mitigation measures, we find that the total marine 
mammal take from Pacific Stores' construction activities will have a 
negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
    Year 2 IHA--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 required 
monitoring and mitigation measures, we find that the total marine 
mammal take from the Pacific Stores' construction activities will have 
a negligible impact on the 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 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 11 includes the number of takes for each species proposed to 
be taken as a result of activities in Year 1 and Year 2 of this 
project. Our analysis shows that less than one-third of the best 
available population abundance estimate of each stock could be taken by 
harassment during each project year. In fact, for each stock, the take 
proposed for authorization each year comprises less than five percent 
of the stock abundance. The number of animals proposed to be taken for 
each stock discussed above would be considered small relative to the 
relevant stock's abundances even if each estimated taking occurred to a 
new individual, which is an unlikely scenario.
    Year 1 IHA--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 in Year 1 of the 
project.
    Year 2 IHA--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 in Year 2 of the 
project.

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 agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for 
endangered or threatened species.
    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 two, one-year IHAs to Pacific Shops for conducting vibratory and 
impact pile driving in Alameda, CA beginning June 2020 and June 2021, 
respectively, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, 
and reporting requirements are incorporated. Drafts of these proposed 
IHAs 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 
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 IHA.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year Renewal IHA 
following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for 
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly 
identical, 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 the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the 
Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from 
expiration of the initial IHA).
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the 
requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under 
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so 
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the 
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take 
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).

[[Page 23813]]

    (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: April 23, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09033 Filed 4-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P