80044 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 

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 proposes to 

authorize is below one third of the 

estimated stock abundance of California 

sea lions (in fact, take of individuals is 

less than 1% of the abundance of the 

affected stock). This is likely a 

conservative estimate 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 proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

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. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the West Coast Region 

Protected Resources Division Office, 

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 

an IHA to the Navy to conduct the Naval 

Base San Diego Pier 6 Replacement 

project in San Diego, CA from October 

1, 2021 through September 30, 2022, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. A draft 

of the proposed IHA can be found at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-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 Naval Base San 

Diego Pier 6 Replacement 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-time 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, 

activities as described in the Description 

of Proposed Activity section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity 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 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); and 

(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; 

and 

• 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: December 7, 2020. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27225 Filed 12–10–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

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-underVerDate Sep<11>2014 23:25 Dec 10, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
80046 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 

acousticians, including those at the 

University of Washington-Applied 

Physics Laboratory, regarding the 

appropriate source level reduction 

factor, if any, to use to minimize farfield 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 nearand far-distance (referred as ‘‘near-field’’ 

and ‘‘far-field’’ by the Commission). 

Although the measured levels at fardistances (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 watercolumn 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 fardistances 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/marinemammal-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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 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

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae:.

Gray Whale ...................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern North Pacific ............. -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) .. 801 138 

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/Washington -, -, N 969,861 (0.17, 839,325, 2016) 8,393 ≥40 

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, 2014) 14,011 >321 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal ....................... Phoca vitulina ......................... California ................................ -, -, N 30,968 (N/A, 27,348, 2012) ... 1,641 43 

1Endangered 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. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
80048 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 

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) mPa root mean square (rms) for 

continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving) 

and above 160 dB re 1 mPa (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 mPa (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 nonimpulsive). 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/marinemammal-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; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6:LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: 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 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 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 attenuation Hammer type Pile type dB RMS dB SEL dB peak 

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

Pile type 

Level B 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
80050 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 

TABLE 6—CALCULATED DISTANCES (METERS) TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS (M) FOR EACH HEARING GROUP AND

PILE TYPE

Pile type 

Lowfrequency 

cetaceans 

(meters) 

Midfrequency 

cetaceans 

(meters) 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

(meters) 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

(meters) 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

(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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 80051 

TABLE 7—AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKING, BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK AND

PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Species 

Authorized take 

Level B Level A Percent of 

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 Coastal Stock .............................. 114 0 25.2 

Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) California/Oregon/Washington Stock ........ 200 0 <0.1 

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 inwater 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

Pile type 

Lowfrequency 

cetaceans 

(meters) 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

(meters) 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

(meters) 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

(meters) 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

(meters) 

16-inch concrete .................................................................. 30 10 40 20 10 

30-inch concrete .................................................................. 170 10 200 55 10 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
80052 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 

• 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 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 abovementioned 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: 1mPa): 

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., populationlevel 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
80054 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 80055 

1NTIA serves as the President’s principal adviser 

on telecommunications and information policies. 

See 47 U.S.C. 902(b)(2)(D). 

2Notes, presentations, and a video recording of 

the July 19, 2018 kickoff meeting are available at: 

https://www.ntia.gov/SoftwareTransparency. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

Multistakeholder Process on 

Promoting Software Component 

Transparency 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) will convene a 

virtual meeting of a multistakeholder 

process on promoting software 

component transparency on January 13, 

2021. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

January 13, 2021, from 12:00 p.m. to 

4:00 p.m., Eastern Time. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

virtually, with online slide share and 

dial-in information to be posted at 

https://www.ntia.gov/ 

SoftwareTransparency. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allan Friedman, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Room 4725, Washington, DC 

20230; telephone: (202) 482–4281; 

email: afriedman@ntia.gov. Please direct 

media inquiries to NTIA’s Office of 

Public Affairs: (202) 482–7002; email: 

press@ntia.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This NTIA cybersecurity 

multistakeholder process focuses on 

promoting software component 

transparency.1 Most modern software is 

not written completely from scratch, but 

includes existing components, modules, 

and libraries from the open source and 

commercial software world. Modern 

development practices such as code 

reuse, and a dynamic IT marketplace 

with acquisitions and mergers, make it 

challenging to track the use of software 

components. The Internet of Things 

compounds this phenomenon, as new 

organizations, enterprises, and 

innovators take on the role of software 

developer to add ‘‘smart’’ features or 

connectivity to their products. While 

the majority of libraries and components 

do not have known vulnerabilities, 

many do, and the sheer quantity of 

software means that some software 

products ship with vulnerable or out-ofdate components. 

The first meeting of this 

multistakeholder process was held on 

July 19, 2018, in Washington, DC.2

Stakeholders presented multiple 

perspectives, and identified several 

inter-related work streams: 

Understanding the Problem, Use Cases 

and State of Practice, Standards and 

Formats, and Healthcare Proof of 

Concept. Since then, stakeholders have 

been discussing key issues and 

developing products such as guidance 

documents. NTIA acts as the convener, 

but stakeholders drive the outcomes. 

Success of the process will be evaluated 

by the extent to which broader findings 

on software component transparency are 

implemented across the ecosystem. 

The first set of stakeholder-drafted 

documents on Software Bills of 

Materials was published by NTIA in 

November 2019. Those documents, and 

subsequent consensus-approved drafts 

from the community, are available at: 

https://www.ntia.gov/SBOM. The main 

objectives of the January 13, 2021 

meeting are to share progress from the 

working groups; to give feedback on the 

ongoing work around technical 

challenges, tooling, demonstrations, and 

awareness and adoption; and to 

continue discussions around potential 

guidance or playbook documents. This 

meeting will also feature short 

demonstrations of SBOM-related tools 

and services to help the community 

understand the growth of the broader 

ecosystem. Demonstration suggestions 

and proposals should be 250 words or 

less and should be submitted to Allan 

Friedman at afriedman@ntia.gov by 

December 21, 2020. More information 

about stakeholders’ work is available at: 

https://www.ntia.gov/ 

SoftwareTransparency. 

Time and Date: NTIA will convene 

the next meeting of the multistakeholder 

process on Software Component 

Transparency on January 13, 2021, from 

12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. 

The exact time of the meeting is subject 

to change. Please refer to NTIA’s 

website, https://www.ntia.gov/ 

SoftwareTransparency, for the most 

current information. 

Place: The meeting will be held 

virtually, with online slide share and 

dial-in information to be posted at 

https://www.ntia.gov/ 

SoftwareTransparency. Please refer to 

NTIA’s website, https://www.ntia.gov/ 

SoftwareTransparency, for the most 

current information. 

Other Information: The meeting is 

open to the public and the press on a 

first-come, first-served basis. 

The virtual meeting is accessible to 

people with disabilities. Requests for 

real-time captioning or other auxiliary 

aids should be directed to Allan 

Friedman at (202) 482–4281 or 

afriedman@ntia.gov at least seven (7) 

business days prior to the meeting. 

Access details for the meeting are 

subject to change. Please refer to NTIA’s 

website, https://www.ntia.gov/ 

SoftwareTransparency, for the most 

current information. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES