[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80044-80055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648- XA677]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental To Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Coast Guard's Base Los 
Angeles/Long Beach Wharf Expansion Project, Los Angeles, California

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
the U. S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) to incidentally harass, by Level B 
harassment only, marine mammals during activities associated with the 
Base Los Angeles/Long Beach Wharf Expansion Project in Los Angeles, 
California.

DATES: This Authorization is effective from February 1, 2021 through 
January 31, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., 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-

[[Page 80045]]

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.

Summary of Request

    On July 2, 2020, NMFS received an application from the Coast Guard 
requesting an IHA to take small numbers of five species of marine 
mammals incidental to pile driving associated with the Base Los Angeles 
Long Beach Wharf Expansion Project in Los Angeles, California. The 
application was deemed adequate and complete on October 5, 2020. The 
Coast Guard's request is for take of a small number of five species of 
marine mammals by Level A and/or Level B harassment. Neither the Coast 
Guard nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this 
activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

Description of Specified Activity

Overview

    The purpose of the project is to expand the existing wharf and 
other base infrastructure for hosting two additional offshore patrol 
cutters. The existing 1255-foot (383 meters (m)) long by 30-foot (9 m) 
wide wharf will be extended 265 feet (81 m). The waterfront 
improvements also include repair of the bank erosion area and placement 
of small rocks for slope protection near the new onshore electrical 
substation. Specifically, construction work includes installing up to 
102 pier support piles (16 to 30-inch diameter concrete piles) and 126 
fender and corner protection piles (16 to 30-inch diameter concrete 
piles). Pile driving will be by impact hammering. Because of other 
permitting restrictions, in-water pile driving can only occur between 
September 1 and April 14, to avoid the nesting season of the California 
least tern. A detailed description of the planned project is provided 
in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR 66939; 
October 21, 2020). Since that time, no changes have been made to the 
planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided 
here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description 
of the specific activity.

Comments and Response

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Coast Guard was 
published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2020 (85 FR 66939). 
That notice described, in detail, the Coast Guard's activity, the 
marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the 
anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment 
period, NMFS received public comment from one commenter. The U.S. 
Geological Survey noted they have ``no comment to offer at this time''. 
A comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) was 
separately received pursuant to the Commission's authority to recommend 
steps it deems necessary or desirable to protect and conserve marine 
mammals (16 U.S.C. 1402.202(a)). We are obligated to respond to the 
Commission's recommendations within 120 days, and we do so below.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from issuing 
renewals for any authorization unless it is consistent with the 
procedural requirements specified in section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the 
MMPA.
    Response: In prior responses to comments about IHA Renewals (e.g., 
84 FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR 53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS 
has explained how the Renewal process, as implemented, is consistent 
with the statutory requirements contained in section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA, and promotes NMFS' goals of improving conservation of marine 
mammals and increasing efficiency in the MMPA compliance process. 
Therefore, we intend to continue implementing the Renewal process.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS reinforce that USCG 
must keep a running tally of the total Level A and B harassment takes 
for each species consistent with condition 4(j) of the final 
authorization.
    Response: We agree that the USCG must ensure they do not exceed 
authorized takes but do not concur with the recommendation. NMFS is not 
responsible for ensuring that the USCG does not operate in violation of 
an issued IHA.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS include in the final 
authorization the requirement that USCG conduct pile-driving activities 
during daylight hours only.
    Response: We do not fully concur with the Commission's 
recommendation, or with their underlying justification, and do not 
adopt it as stated. While the USCG has no intention of conducting pile 
driving activities at night, it is unnecessary to preclude such 
activity should the need arise (e.g., on an emergency basis or to 
complete driving of a pile begun during daylight hours, should the 
construction operator deem it necessary to do so). We disagree with the 
statement that a prohibition on pile driving activity outside of 
daylight hours is necessary to meet the MMPA's least practicable 
adverse impact standard, and the Commission does not justify this 
assertion.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS prioritize resolving 
the issue of the appropriate timeframes over which sound exposure 
levels should be accumulated when estimating the extents of the Level A 
harassment zones in the near future and consider incorporating animat 
modeling into its user spreadsheet.
    Response: NMFS concurs with this recommendation and has prioritized 
the issue.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) specify why it has 
used a smaller source level reduction for bubble curtains from prior 
projects based on the same referenced data, (2) refrain from using the 
5-decibel (dB) bubble curtain source level reduction factor for far-
field impacts (>100 m) and (3) consult with

[[Page 80046]]

acousticians, including those at the University of Washington-Applied 
Physics Laboratory, regarding the appropriate source level reduction 
factor, if any, to use to minimize far-field effects on marine mammals.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission's assessment of 
bubble curtains. As is their right, the USCG wished to use a more 
conservative source level reduction for bubble curtains, their 
application reflected this desire, and we concurred that a 5 dB source 
level reduction was acceptable and we proposed this reduction.
    NMFS does not agree with the Commission's assessment on bubble 
curtain efficacy that is based on near- and far-distance (referred as 
``near-field'' and ``far-field'' by the Commission). Although the 
measured levels at far-distances (i.e., >100 m) often show less 
differences from those measured near the source (e.g., at 10 m), this 
is likely due to propagation effects that some of the sediment-borne 
acoustic energy that was not attenuated by the bubble curtain re-
emerged into the water-column at much further distances. However, this 
information should not be used to suggest that a different noise level 
reduction needs to be used for long-distance impact assessment. Since 
the applicant used a conservative practical spreading modeling (i.e., 
15 log (r)), acoustic energy that is lost due to boundary refraction 
and reflection is not considered in determining the impact distances, 
and this loss is in addition to the practical spreading. Therefore, the 
small differences at far-distances between with and without bubble 
curtains indicates that the bubble curtain is less effective in 
attenuating additional acoustic energy beyond that within the water 
column. Further, NMFS has previously outlined our rationale for the 
bubble curtain source level reduction factor (e.g., 84 FR 64833, 
November 25, 2019; 84 FR 28474, June 19, 2019) in response to a similar 
comment from the Commission.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS work with USCG to 
ensure that the near-source hydrophone location is 10 m from the pile 
and the far-field hydrophone location(s) are 100-200 m from the pile.
    Response: NMFS agrees that it is important to ensure adequate 
review of hydroacoustic monitoring plans before they are implemented by 
applicants. The USCG's request for proposals to contract the work for 
this project (which was announced before this IHA was proposed) does 
not specify exact distances or locations of hydrophones for the 
hydroacoustic monitoring. We will work with the USCG and their 
hydroacoustic monitoring contractor, within the constraints of USCG's 
contract, to achieve the best possible monitoring data.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS authorize at least 38 
Level A harassment takes of harbor seals based on the possibility that 
at least one seal could occur in the project area on each of the 38 
days of proposed activities.
    Response: We do not concur with the Commission's recommendation. As 
noted in our proposed authorizations, we typically estimate take based 
on the area of the harassment zone and the density of potentially taken 
species. As also noted in our proposed authorizations, when density 
data are not available for a species (as is the case for harbor seals 
in this project area) we use proxy density or abundance data to help 
calculate take. Just as with density data, the proxies often result in 
fractional estimates of animals potentially affected per day of 
activity. As the Commission has been aware, our standard practice is to 
round estimates based on significant digits after calculating daily 
take, not to round to whole numbers of take each day as the Commission 
suggests. We do not round to whole numbers of take until the end of the 
series of calculations used to estimate take. Using those standard 
practices we arrived at an estimate of 19 takes of harbor seals.
    The Commission also notes higher occurrences of harbor seals in 
areas far away from the project site (i.e., survey zone 8). They raised 
this issue in their informal comments. As we told the Commission in our 
response to those informal comments, based on the numerous surveys in 
areas closer to the project area, and anecdotal evidence that the 
harbor seals located near the breakwall (such as zone 8) do not venture 
further into the harbor near the project area, we believe that the 
proposed 19 takes of harbor seals are sufficiently representative of 
take that may be expected to occur.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS either (1) increase 
the number of takes of common dolphins from 200 to 280 if USCG intended 
to assume that one group of dolphins could be present each full week of 
activities and activities would occur only five days per week or (2) 
clarify that it assumed that one group of common dolphins would be 
present every 7 days rather than every full week of activities.
    Response: We do not concur with the Commission's recommendation. 
The Commission raised this issue in their informal comments. The 
Commission mistakenly asserted we had used the term ``work week'' in 
our analysis and made an unsubstantiated assumption that construction 
activities would occur only 5 days per week and that our analysis 
depends on how many days per week an applicant is actually able to work 
(e.g., because of weather or mechanical issues, etc.). As noted in our 
informal comment response to the Commission, our take analysis assumed 
that one group of common dolphins would be present every 7 days of work 
and thus there is no need to change the number of takes of common 
dolphins.

Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA

    We made minor clarifications in our standard language in the 
Mitigation section of this notice and in the IHA to reflect that 
because only impact hammering is being used, in some cases shutdown 
zones are larger than the Level B harassment and monitoring zones. 
Minor typographical errors were corrected.

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 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and 
authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the 
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), 
where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). 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.

[[Page 80047]]

    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. 2020).

                    Table 1--Species That Spatially Co-occur with the Activity to the Degree That Take Is Reasonably Likely to Occur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             Strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:..............
    Gray Whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -, -, N             26,960 (0.05, 25,849,         801        138
                                                                                                             2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            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
    Short-beaked common dolphin.....  Delphinus delphis......  California/Oregon/       -, -, N             969,861 (0.17,              8,393       >=40
                                                                Washington.                                  839,325, 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         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).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    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-assessments assessments. 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 Mortality/Serious Injury (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.

    California sea lion, harbor seal, and bottlenose dolphin spatially 
co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely 
to occur, and we have authorized take of these species. Short-beaked 
common dolphin and gray whale occurrence and density is such that take 
is possible, and we have authorized take of these species also. A 
detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the 
project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant 
stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and 
threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in 
the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR 66939; October 
21, 2020); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the 
status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions 
are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for 
these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized species accounts.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    The effects of underwater noise from the Coast Guard's construction 
activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of 
marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey area. The notice of 
proposed IHA (85 FR 66939; October 21, 2020) included a discussion of 
the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential 
effects of underwater noise from the Coast Guard's construction 
activities on marine mammals and their habitat. That information and 
analysis is incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination 
and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA 
(85 FR 66939; October 21, 2020).

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized 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, as use of the 
acoustic source (i.e., impact pile driving) has the potential to result 
in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. 
There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 
to result for gray whales and harbor seals because predicted auditory 
injury zones are larger. The mitigation and monitoring measures are 
expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent 
practicable.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized 
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds

[[Page 80048]]

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). NMFS relied on local occurrence data 
and group size to estimate take. Below, we describe the factors 
considered here in more detail and present the take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 (micro Pascal) [mu]Pa root mean square 
(rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 
1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) 
or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
    The Coast Guard's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive 
(impact pile-driving) sources, and therefore the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) threshold is 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). The Coast Guard's activity includes the 
use of impulsive (impact pile-driving) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 2. 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 2--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (Received Level)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Hearing group                        Impulsive                         Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) cetaceans...........  Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;   Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                          LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;   Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                          LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB;   Cell 6:LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                          LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).....  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;   Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                          LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)....  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;   Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                          LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
  calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
  thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [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 project. Marine 
mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary 
components of the project (i.e., impact pile driving).
    An impact hammer would be used to place the pile at its intended 
depth through rock or harder substrates. An impact hammer is a steel 
device that works like a piston, producing a series of independent 
strikes to drive the pile. Impact hammering typically generates the 
loudest noise associated with pile installation. The actual durations 
of each installation method vary depending on the type and size of the 
pile.
    In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level 
B harassment sound thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in 
this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations 
to develop source levels for the various pile sizes and methods (see 
Table 3). Data are provided for 16 and 30-inch concrete piles that are 
the extremes of the possible range of sizes. As noted above, the Coast 
Guard will use a bubble curtain to reduce sounds from pile driving. A 
5dB reduction is applied to

[[Page 80049]]

the source levels for calculating distances to the Level A harassment 
and Level B harassment sound thresholds. This is a conservative 
reduction based on several studies including CALTRANS (2015) and Austin 
et al. (2016).

                                      Table 3--Project Sound Source Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Pile driving activity                         Data source             Estimated sound source level
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------      at 10 meters without
         Hammer type               Pile type       dB RMS     dB SEL    dB peak             attenuation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact.......................  16-inch concrete        166        155        185  CALTRANS (2015) (Table I.2-
                                                                                   1,18-inch concrete).
Impact.......................  30-inch concrete        176        166        200  CALTRANS (2015) (Table I.2-3).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: RMS = root mean square, SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB peak = peak sound level. A 5-db
  reduction for use of a bubble curtain reduces these source levels when calculating isopleth distances below.

Level B Harassment Zones

    Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an 
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary 
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and 
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition 
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2)

where:

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

    The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is 
the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected 
propagation environment that would lie between spherical and 
cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate 
assumption for the Coast Guard's activity.
    Using the practical spreading model, the Coast Guard determined 
underwater noise would fall below the behavioral effects threshold for 
marine mammals at distances no greater than 55 m with an effective 
source level of 171 dB rms for the 30-inch piles (Table 4). This 
distance determines the maximum Level B harassment zone for the 
project.

 Table 4--Calculated Distances (meters) to Level B Harassment Isopleths
                         (m) for each Pile Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Level B
                        Pile type                          isopleth (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete........................................              12
30-inch concrete........................................              55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level A Harassment Zones

    When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in 
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more 
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in 
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools 
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with 
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going 
to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of 
overestimate of take by Level A harassment. However, these tools offer 
the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 
3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop 
ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively 
address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as 
impact pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest 
distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the 
whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS.
    Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet (Table 5), and the resulting 
isopleths are reported below (Table 6) for each of the pile types.

             Table 5--NMFS Technical Guidance User Spreadsheet Input to Calculate Level A Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Pile type                   Piles/day        Strikes per pile *        Days of pile driving **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete......................               6  1564 strikes.............  17.
30-inch concrete......................               6  1748 strikes.............  21 or 30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Propagation loss coefficient is 15LogR and Weighting Factor Adjustment is 2 for all cells.
* Strikes per pile are an estimate from a geotechnical report for the project (TCG, 2019).
** Days depends on size of pile ultimately used for wharf support. Take will be calculated using largest zones
  (30 inch piles) and longest duration (38 days using 16 inch support piles and 30-inch fender and corner
  piles).

    The above input scenarios lead to PTS isopleth distances (Level A 
thresholds) of 1 to 194.6 meters (3 to 639 feet), depending on the 
marine mammal group and scenario (Table 7). Note that the Level A 
harassment isopleths are larger than the level B harassment isopleths 
for the low-frequency and high-frequency cetaceans and the phocid 
pinnipeds because of the large number of piles and strikes per day and 
use of only an impact hammer.

[[Page 80050]]



 Table 6--Calculated Distances (meters) to Level A Harassment Isopleths (m) for each Hearing Group and Pile Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       High-
                                  Low- frequency  Mid- frequency     frequency        Phocid          Otariid
            Pile type                cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
                                     (meters)        (meters)        (meters)        (meters)        (meters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete................            28.0               1            33.4              15             1.1
30-inch concrete................           163.4             5.8           194.6            87.4             6.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: a 10-meter shutdown zone will be implemented for all species and activity types to prevent direct injury
  of marine mammals.

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
abundance, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the 
take calculations. Density data in the port and harbor does not exist 
for any species, but as described above, there are three baseline 
biological surveys since 2000 (MEC, 2002; SAIC, 2010; MBC, 2016) that 
provide observations in over 30 defined zones within the harbor, three 
of which are near the ensonified area of the project and are used to 
estimate take.
    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. Take by Level A and 
Level B harassment is summarized in Table 7.

Gray Whale

    Because live gray whales were not sighted during the baseline 
surveys (see above), but are periodically known from the harbor, and 
the Level A harassment and shutdown zone radius is 170 m (656 feet), we 
authorize two Level A harassment takes (Table 7) for inadvertent takes 
of animals that could enter the shutdown zone undetected or before 
shutdown could be implemented. Because the Level A harassment and 
shutdown zones are larger than the Level B harassment zone, we do not 
authorize take by Level B harassment, but recognize animals could also 
inadvertently enter the smaller Level B harassment zone after already 
being recorded as Level A harassment within the larger Level A 
harassment zone.

Bottlenose Dolphin

    The highest observation on any given day in the three zones 
surrounding the Coast Guard Base from the three biological baseline 
surveys (MEC, 2002; SAIC, 2010; MBC, 2016) is 12. Given the small zone 
size relative to the study area an expected number of three animals in 
the project area per day is a reasonable representation of daily 
occurrence for the species. Given a maximum pile driving period of 38 
days, 3 animals per day would equate a take of 114 incidents of Level B 
harassment. Based on the above, we conservatively authorize 114 Level B 
harassment takes of bottlenose dolphins (Table 7). Because the Level A 
harassment and shutdown zones are very small and we believe the 
protected species observer (PSO) will be able to effectively monitor 
and implement the shutdown zones, we do not authorize take by Level A 
harassment.

Short-beaked Common Dolphin

    Observations during biological surveys in 2013 through 2014 
included one pod of 40 individuals in the Los Angeles Main Channel 
where the project occurs (MBC, 2016). This number of individuals is 
highly unlikely to be present in the project area on a daily basis. We 
conservatively assume one pod of 40 could be present each full week. 
Given a maximum pile driving period of 38 days, this would equate to 5 
full weeks or 200 takes through Level B harassment. Based on the above, 
we authorize 200 Level B harassment takes of short-beaked common 
dolphins (Table 7). Because the Level A harassment and shutdown zones 
are very small and we believe the PSO will be able to effectively 
monitor and implement the shutdown zones, we do not authorize take by 
Level A harassment.

California Sea Lion

    The highest observation on any given day in the three zones 
surrounding the Coast Guard Base from the three biological baseline 
surveys (MEC, 2002; SAIC, 2010; MBC, 2016) is 65 sea lions. Given the 
small zone size relative to the study area an expected number of 10 
animals in the project area per day is a reasonable representation of 
daily occurrence for the species. Given a maximum pile driving period 
of 38 days, 10 animals per day would equate to 380 incidents of Level B 
harassment. Based on the above, we authorize 380 Level B harassment 
takes of California sea lions (Table 7). Because the Level A harassment 
and shutdown zones are very small and we believe the PSO will be able 
to effectively monitor and implement the shutdown zones, we do not 
authorize take by Level A harassment.

Harbor Seal

    The highest observation on any given day in the three zones 
surrounding the Coast Guard Base from the three biological baseline 
surveys (MEC, 2002; SAIC, 2010; MBC, 2016) is 1 seal. The Level A 
harassment zone for this species is 90 m (295 feet), however the Coast 
Guard proposed a smaller shutdown zone to minimize work stoppages. We 
are authorizing a shutdown zone of 55 m (180 feet, see Mitigation 
section below) that coincides with the size of the Level B harassment 
zone for ease of implementation. It is conservatively estimated that 
0.5 animals per day might enter the shutdown zone or Level A harassment 
zone between 55 and 90 m (180 -295 feet). Given a maximum pile driving 
period of 38 days, this would equate to a take of 19 individuals 
through Level A harassment (Table 7). Because the Level A harassment 
and shutdown zones are larger than the Level B harassment zone, we do 
not authorize take by Level B harassment, but recognize animals could 
also enter the smaller Level B harassment zone after already being 
recorded within the larger Level A harassment zone.

[[Page 80051]]



  Table 7--Authorized Amount of Taking, by Level A and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock and Percent of
                                                  Take by Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Authorized take
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                             Species                                                                Percent of
                                                                      Level B         Level A          stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) California Stock...................               0              19            <0.1
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) U.S. Stock.........             380               0             0.2
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Eastern North Pacific Stock..               0               2            <0.1
Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) California                    114               0            25.2
 Coastal Stock..................................................
Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) California/                  200               0            <0.1
 Oregon/Washington Stock........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The following mitigation measures are authorized in the IHA:
     For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving, 
if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and 
vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain 
steerage and safe working conditions. This type of work could include 
the following activities: (1) Movement of the barge to the pile 
location; 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 A or B harassment 
take has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal (if 
necessary) will shut down immediately if such species are observed 
within or entering the Level A or 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 A or B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
    The following mitigation measures would apply to the Coast Guard's 
in-water construction activities.
     Establishment of Shutdown Zones--The Coast Guard will 
establish shutdown zones for all pile driving 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 8). Shutdown zones are rounded up to the next 10 m from the 
largest Level A harassment zones in Table 7, except in the case of the 
phocid group where the shutdown zone is reduced to the same size as the 
largest Level B harassment zone (55 m) and the applicant has requested 
the authorization of Level A harassment takes for the area within the 
Level A harassment one and outside the shutdown zone;
     PSOs--The placement of PSOs during all pile driving 
activities (described in detail in the 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 8--Shutdown Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Low- frequency   Mid-frequency  High-frequency      Phocid          Otariid
            Pile type                cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
                                     (meters)        (meters)        (meters)        (meters)        (meters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete................              30              10              40              20              10
30-inch concrete................             170              10             200              55              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 80052]]

     Monitoring for Level A and B Harassment--The Coast Guard 
will monitor the Level A and B 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 
halt of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone. Placement 
of PSOs will allow PSOs to observe marine mammals within the Level B 
harassment zones;
     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 be required;
     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 30-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 30 minutes or longer;
     Bubble Curtain--The Coast Guard is required to employ a 
bubble curtain during all impact pile driving and operate it in a 
manner consistent with the following performance standards: (1) The 
bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the 
piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column; (2) The lowest 
bubble ring must 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; and (3) Air flow to the 
bubblers must be balanced around the circumference of the pile;
     Hydroacoustic monitoring--The Coast Guard is required to 
conduct hydroacoustic monitoring of at least two piles of each pile 
diameter; and
     Pile driving is planned to occur during daylight hours.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the 
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.

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 
action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well 
as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required 
monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring

    Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the 
Monitoring section of the application and section 5 of the IHA. Marine 
mammal monitoring during pile driving 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;
     At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the 
duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued 
incidental take authorization.
     Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological 
science or related field) or training for experience; and
     The Coast Guard must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae 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

[[Page 80053]]

personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed 
in the area as necessary.
    One PSO will be employed. PSO location will provide an unobstructed 
view of all water within the shutdown and Level A and Level B 
harassment zones.
    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 30 minutes.

Reporting

    A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS 
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal 
activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any 
future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. 
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);
     Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at 
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change 
significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant 
weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall 
visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance (if less 
than the harassment zone distance);
     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 marine mammals detected within the harassment 
zones, by species.
     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;
     Submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data (in a 
separate file from the Final Report referenced immediately above).
    If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft 
final report will constitute the final report. If comments are 
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted 
within 30 days after receipt of comments.
    Hydroacoustic Monitoring and Reporting--The Coast Guard will 
monitor the driving of at least two piles of each diameter. As part of 
the above-mentioned report, or in a separate report with the same 
timelines as above, the Coast Guard will provide an acoustic monitoring 
report for this work. The acoustic monitoring report must, at minimum, 
include the following:
     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); and
     Number of strikes per pile measured, one-third octave band 
spectrum and power spectral density plot.

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

    In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities 
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the Coast Guard shall report 
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to 
the regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or 
injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, the Coast Guard 
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:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first 
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
     Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
     Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if 
the animal is dead);
     Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
     If available, photographs or video footage of the 
animal(s); and
     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

[[Page 80054]]

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 7, given that many of the 
anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks 
are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Pile driving 
activities have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. 
Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in the form of 
Level A harassment and Level B harassment from underwater sounds 
generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals 
are present in the ensonified zone when these activities are underway.
    The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to 
potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No mortality is 
anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to 
minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for 
harassment is minimized through the construction method and the 
implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Mitigation 
section).
    The Level A harassment zones identified in Table 6 are based upon 
an animal exposed to impact pile driving multiple piles per day. 
Considering duration of impact driving each pile (up to 45 minutes) and 
breaks between pile installations (to reset equipment and move pile 
into place), this means an animal would have to remain within the area 
estimated to be ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for 
multiple hours. This is highly unlikely given marine mammal movement 
throughout the area. So while the take we are proposing to authorize is 
expected to occur, if an animal was exposed to accumulated sound 
energy, the resulting PTS would likely be small (e.g., PTS onset) at 
lower frequencies where pile driving energy is concentrated, and 
unlikely to result in impacts to individual fitness, reproduction, or 
survival.
    The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of 
serious injury or mortality. For all species and stocks, take would 
occur within a limited, confined area (Los Angeles port) of any given 
stock's range. Level A and 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 authorized for 
any given stock is small when compared to stock abundance.
    Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the 
project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine 
mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues 
they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the 
Kodiak Ferry Dock; see Behavioral Harassment section of the Federal 
Register notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR 66939; October 21, 2020)) 
or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the area, or display other 
mild responses that are not observable such as changes in vocalization 
patterns. Given the short duration of noise-generating activities per 
day and that pile driving and removal would occur across a few weeks, 
any harassment would be temporary. There are no other areas or times of 
known biological importance for any of the affected species.
    In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, 
localized area of habitat would have any effect on the stocks' ability 
to recover. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as 
the available body of evidence from other similar activities, 
demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will 
have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified 
activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival 
and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our 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;
     Authorized Level A harassment would be very small amounts 
and of low degree;
     No biologically important areas have been identified 
within the project area;
     For all species, the project area is a very small, human-
altered and peripheral part of their range;
     The Coast Guard would implement mitigation measures such 
soft-starts, bubble curtain, and shut downs; and
     Monitoring reports from similar work in the ports have 
documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species 
impacted by the specified activities.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from 
the activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine 
mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified 
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not 
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are 
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most 
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in 
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small 
numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to 
be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the 
take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other 
qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the 
temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
    The amount of take NMFS authorizes of all species or stocks is 
below one third of the estimated stock abundance. These are all likely 
conservative estimates of individuals taken because they assume all 
takes are of different individual animals which is likely not the case. 
Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would 
count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated 
take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals 
will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species 
or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an

[[Page 80055]]

IHA) and alternatives 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 determined 
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the 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.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized 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.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to the Coast Guard for the potential 
harassment of small numbers of five marine mammal species incidental to 
the Base Los Angeles/Long Beach Wharf Expansion project in Los Angeles, 
California, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring 
and reporting requirements are followed.

    Dated: December 7, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-27205 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P