38274 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

1See Utility Scale Wind Towers from India, 

Malaysia, and Spain: Initiation of Less-Than-FairValue Investigations, 85 FR 73023 (November 16, 

2020). 

2See Utility Scale Wind Towers from India: 

Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 86 FR 27829 (May 24, 2021) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

3See Vestas India’s Letter, ‘‘Request to Extend the 

Deadline for the Final Determination,’’ dated July 

7, 2021. 

4Because Commerce previously aligned the 

deadline for the final determination of the 

companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation 

of wind towers from India with this deadline for 

this investigation, the deadline for issuing the final 

determination in the CVD investigation is also 

October 6, 2021. See Utility Scale Wind Towers 

from India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final 

Determination With Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination, 86 FR 15897 (March 25, 2021). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–897] 

Utility Scale Wind Towers From India: 

Postponement of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) is postponing the deadline 

for issuing the final determination in the 

less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation 

of utility scale wind towers (wind 

towers) from India until October 6, 

2021, and is extending the provisional 

measures from a four-month period to a 

period of not more than six months. 

DATES: Applicable July 20, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terre Keaton or Amaris Wade, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office II, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–1280 or (202) 482–3874, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 9, 2020, Commerce 

initiated an LTFV investigation of 

imports of wind towers from India.1 The 

period of investigation is July 1, 2019, 

through June 30, 2020. On May 24, 

2021, Commerce published the 

Preliminary Determination.2

Postponement of Final Determination 

Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.210(b)(2) provide that a final 

determination may be postponed until 

not later than 135 days after the date of 

the publication of the preliminary 

determination if, in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination, a 

request for such postponement is made 

by the exporters or producers who 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, or in 

the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the 

petitioners. Further, 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2) requires that such 

postponement requests by exporters be 

accompanied by a request for extension 

of provisional measures from a fourmonth period to a period of not more 

than six months, in accordance with 

section 733(d) of the Act. 

On July 7, 2021, Vestas Wind 

Technology India Private Limited 

(Vestas India), the mandatory 

respondent in this investigation, 

requested that Commerce postpone the 

deadline for the final determination 

until no later than 135 days from the 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination, and extend the 

application of the provisional measures 

from a four-month period to a period of 

not more than six months.3 In 

accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), 

because: (1) The Preliminary 

Determination was affirmative; (2) the 

request was made by an exporter/ 

producer who accounts for a significant 

proportion of exports of the subject 

merchandise; and (3) no compelling 

reasons for denial exist, Commerce is 

postponing the final determination until 

no later than 135 days after the date of 

the publication of the Preliminary 

Determination, and extending the 

provisional measures from a four-month 

period to a period of not more than six 

months. Accordingly, Commerce will 

issue its final determination no later 

than October 6, 2021.4

Notice to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.210(g). 

Dated: July 14, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15412 Filed 7–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB128] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Naval Base 

Point Loma Fuel Pier Inboard Pile 

Removal Project 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the United States Navy (Navy) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to the Fuel Pier Inboard Pile 

Removal Project at Naval Base Point 

Loma in San Diego Bay, California. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-time, oneyear renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than August 19, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Potlock@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 

25-megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38275 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelsey Potlock, 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-undermarine-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 would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of the species or stock(s) 

for taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On February 3, 2021, NMFS received 

a request from the United States Navy 

(Navy) for an IHA to take marine 

mammals’ incidental to pile removal 

activities at Naval Base Point Loma in 

San Diego Bay, California. We submitted 

questions to the Navy on the application 

on March 12, 2021. We received 

responses on March 23, 2021; April 5, 

2021; May 5, 2021; and May 12, 2021. 

Meetings between NMFS, the Navy, and 

their contractors were held on May 12, 

2021 and May 24, 2021. A final revised 

version was received by NMFS on May 

24, 2021. The application was deemed 

adequate and complete on May 17, 

2021. The Navy’s request is for the take 

of a small number of six species of 

marine mammals by Level B harassment 

only. Neither the Navy nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from these activities. Therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

Naval Base Point Loma provides 

berthing and support services for Navy 

submarines and other fleet assets. The 

existing fuel pier previously served as a 

fuel depot for loading and unloading 

fuel. Naval Base Point Loma is the only 

active Navy fueling facility in southern 

California. The current project is to 

remove piles that were part of the old 

pier that was replaced over the past few 

years. This proposed IHA includes up to 

84 days of in-water pile removal 

activities. 

NMFS has previously issued 

incidental take authorizations to the 

Navy for similar activities over the past 

8 years at Naval Base Point Loma in San 

Diego Bay, including IHAs issued 

effective from September 1, 2013, 

through August 31, 2014 (78 FR 44539, 

July 24, 2013; Year 1 Project), October 

8, 2014 through October 7, 2015 (79 FR 

65378, November 4, 2014; Year 2 

Project), October 8, 2015 through 

October 7, 2016 (80 FR 62032, October 

15, 2015; Year 3 Project), October 8, 

2016 through October 7, 2017 (81 FR 

66628, September 28, 2016; Year 4 

Project), October 8, 2017 through 

October 7, 2018 (82 FR 45811, October 

2, 2017; Year 5 Project), September 15, 

2020 through September 14, 2021 (85 

FR 33129, June 1, 2020; Floating Dry 

Dock Project), and October 1, 2021 

through September 30, 2022 (86 FR 

7993, February 3, 2021; Pier 6 

Replacement Project). The Navy has 

complied with all the requirements (e.g., 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of 

past IHAs. Monitoring reports from 

these activities are available on NMFS 

website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.

gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/incidental-takeauthorizations-construction-activities). 

Description of Proposed Activities 

Overview 

The purpose of the proposed project 

is to remove old piles from the Fuel Pier 

at Naval Base Point Loma to allow for 

continued Naval Fleet readiness 

activities. Specifically, in-water 

construction work includes the removal 

of 409 piles by a variety of techniques 

(i.e., one to two pile clippers, an 

underwater chainsaw, a diamond wire 

saw, or a vibratory hammer, possibly 

with assistance from a diver). 

Concurrent pile removal may occur for 

some piles through the use of two pile 

clippers only. The piles include an 

estimated 12 13-inch diameter 

polycarbonate fender piles, 56 14-inch 

diameter concrete fender piles, and 341 

16-inch diameter concrete structural 

piles. 

Dredging activities would occur both 

during and after pile removal and 

within the one-year period of the IHA. 

However, take of marine mammals is 

not expected to result from the NBPL 

dredging activities, the Navy did not 

request take incidental to dredging 

activities, and they are not discussed 

further. 

The pile removal activities can result 

in the take of marine mammals from the 

sounds produced in the water, which 

could result in behavioral harassment or 

auditory injury to marine mammals 

within the estimated isopleths. 

Dates and Duration 

The work described in this proposed 

IHA is scheduled to begin January 15, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38276 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

2022 and be valid for one year after the 

start date (end January 14, 2023). Under 

the terms of a previously developed 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

between the Navy and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Navy 

would only be performing in-water 

activities during a 196-day period from 

September 16 to March 31 to not 

interfere with the California least tern 

(Sterna antillarum browni) nesting 

season. 

Pile removal is planned to occur 

during daylight hours only over 84 days 

within the previously described 196 day 

period. Per the Navy’s application, 

daylight hours constitute no earlier than 

45 minutes after sunrise or later than 45 

minutes before sunset. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The activities would occur near the 

mouth of the San Diego Bay (Figure 1). 

San Diego Bay is a narrow, crescentshaped natural embayment oriented 

northwest-southeast with an 

approximate length of 24 kilometers 

(km) (15 miles (mi)) and a total area of 

roughly 4 km2 (11,000 acres; Port of San 

Diego, 2007). The width of the Bay 

ranges from 0.3 to 5.8 km (0.2 to 3.6 mi), 

and depths range from 23 m (74 ft) 

MLLW near the tip of Ballast Point to 

less than 1.2 m (4 ft) at the southern end 

(Merkel and Associates, Inc., 2009). 

Approximately half of the Bay is less 

than 4.5 meters (m) (15 feet (ft)) deep 

and much of it is less than 15 m (50 ft) 

deep (Merkel and Associates, Inc., 

2009). The northern and central 

portions of the Bay have been shaped by 

historical dredging and filling to 

support large ship navigation and 

shoreline development. The United 

States Army Corps of Engineers dredges 

the main navigation channel in the Bay 

to maintain a depth of 14 m (47 ft) 

MLLW and is responsible for providing 

safe transit for private, commercial, and 

military vessels within the bay (NOAA, 

2010). Outside of the navigation 

channel, the bay floor consists of 

platforms at depths that vary slightly 

(Merkel and Associates, Inc., 2009). 

Within the Central Bay, typical depths 

range from 10.7–11.6 m (35–38 ft) 

MLLW to support large ship turning and 

anchorage, and small vessel marinas are 

typically dredged to depths of 4.6 m (15 

ft) MLLW (Merkel and Associates, Inc., 

2009). 

Benthic substrate in San Diego Bay is 

largely sand (Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Southwest and 

Port of San Diego Bay, 2013) as tidal 

currents tend to keep the finer silt and 

clay fractions in suspension, except in 

harbors and elsewhere in the lee of 

structures where water movement is 

diminished. Much of the shoreline 

consists of riprap and manmade 

structures. The project site is shallow 

subtidal and has an eelgrass bed located 

less than 1-acre in size (Merkel and 

Associates, Inc., 2018). Over-water 

structures, such as the existing Marine 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN20JY21.001</GPH>

Figure 1. Map of the Regional Location of Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego Bay, 

California 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38277 

Group Boat Works, LLC (MGBW; see 85 

FR 33129, June 1, 2020) piles and dock 

structures, provide substrates for the 

growth of algae and invertebrates off the 

bottom and support abundant fish 

populations. Eelgrass present within the 

project site is important habitat for 

invertebrates, fishes, and birds (Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, 

Southwest and Port of San Diego Bay, 

2013). 

San Diego Bay is heavily used by 

commercial, recreational, and military 

vessels, with an average of 82,413 vessel 

movements (in or out of the Bay) per 

year (approximately 225 vessel transits 

per day), a majority of which are 

presumed to occur during daylight 

hours. This number of transits does not 

include recreational boaters that use San 

Diego Bay, estimated to number 200,000 

annually (San Diego Harbor Safety 

Committee, 2009). 

Underwater data collect by the Navy 

have determined an averaged median 

ambient noise level to be approximately 

129.6 decibel pressure of 1 microPascal 

(dB re 1 mPa) for north San Diego Bay 

(NAVFAC SW, 2020). Their findings 

demonstrated ambient sound levels to 

be higher than the 120 dB re 1 mPa 

sound threshold for Level B harassment 

from non-impulsive sources. This is 

based on sound levels collected during 

the five past IHA applications submitted 

to NMFS (Navy 2013b, 2014, 2015, 

2016, and 2017a) that determined sound 

levels ranged between 126 and 137 dB 

re 1 mPa (L50; Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Southwest, 

2018). 

Section 2.2 of the application 

provides extensive additional details 

about the project area. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The purpose of this project is to 

deconstruct the old Fuel Pier to allow 

for the full use of the newly developed 

Fuel Pier. The Navy would remove 409 

old piles using single or concurrent pile 

clippers, a diamond wire saw, an 

underwater chainsaw, and/or a 

vibratory hammer. While each removal 

method is assessed independently, 

multiple tools may be needed to remove 

each pile. However, with the exception 

for the possible concurrent use of two 

pile clippers, removals would be 

conducted independently as to 

minimize disturbance zones. 

The hydraulic pile clippers (24-inch) 

would be placed over each pile and 

lowered to the mudline where they use 

a horizontal motion to cut the pile. 

While pile clippers may be used on any 

of the pile types (13-inch polycarbonate, 

14-inch concrete, 16-inch concrete), any 

concurrent use of pile clippers (2 pile 

clippers) would only occur for the 14- 

inch and 16-inch concrete piles. 

Underwater divers may be needed for 

pile clipper use. 

The use of a single diamond wire saw, 

underwater chainsaw, or vibratory 

hammer may be used for the 14-inch 

and 16-inch concrete piles. The 

diamond wire saw rig and vibratory 

hammer would be placed around the 

pile. The saw would cut through the 

pile using a worker-operated level bar. 

The vibratory hammer would loosen the 

pile from the surrounding sediment, 

allowing it to be pulled out vertically 

from the ground. Lastly, a diveroperated underwater chainsaw would 

be used to cut through the piles. Once 

the piles are clipped or cut, an on-site 

crane would be used to vertically 

remove piles. Removed piles would be 

placed on a barge for transport to a 

processing yard. 

The Navy’s contractor will choose the 

most appropriate method for each pile, 

as discussed in the submitted project 

application. Pile clippers (24-inch) 

would be used first, either by single use 

for one pile or concurrent use on two 

piles. If the pile clippers cannot be used 

successfully, the underwater chainsaw 

would be employed to cut concrete 

piles. If both of these methods are both 

unsuccessful, the diamond wire saw 

would be utilized. Lastly, the vibratory 

hammer would be implemented to 

loosen any relatively intact piles to 

allow for vertical removal by crane. 

However, the Navy has noted in their 

application that the contractor 

performing the work will choose the 

appropriate method of pile removal. 

All proposed mitigation, monitoring, 

and reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (see 

Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and 

Reporting Measures). 

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). 

There are six marine mammal species 

that are potentially expected to be 

present during all or a portion of the inwater work associated with this project 

in San Diego Bay, including the 

California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus), the Northern elephant 

seal (Mirounga angustirostris), the 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), the 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), 

the Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), and the 

common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). 

The Committee on Taxonomy recently 

determined both the long-beaked and 

short-beaked common dolphin belong in 

the same species and we adopt this 

taxonomy, but the SARs still describe 

the two as separate stocks and that stock 

information is presented in Table 1. 

California sea lions are typically present 

year-round and are very common in the 

project area, but may have variable 

sightings based off Navy marine 

mammal surveys of northern San Diego 

Bay. Bottlenose dolphins and harbor 

seals are also common and likely to be 

present year-round, but with more 

variable occurrence in San Diego Bay in 

comparison to California sea lions. 

Common dolphins are known to occur 

in nearshore waters outside San Diego 

Bay, but are only rarely observed near 

or in the Bay. The remaining species are 

known to occur in nearshore waters 

outside San Diego Bay, but are generally 

only rarely observed near or in the bay. 

However, recent observations indicate 

that these species may occur in the 

project area and therefore could 

potentially be subject to incidental 

harassment from the aforementioned 

activities. 

Table 1 lists all marine mammal 

species with expected potential for 

occurrence in the vicinity of Naval Base 

Point Loma during the project 

timeframe and summarizes key 

information, including regulatory status 

under the MMPA and Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments). 

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. For taxonomy, 

we followed the Society for Marine 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38278 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy 

(2020). 

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 2019 Pacific SARs (Carretta et 

al., 2020a) and draft 2020 U.S. Pacific 

SARs (Carretta et al., 2020b). All values 

presented in Table 1 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication and 

are available in the 2019 Pacific SARs 

and draft 2020 Pacific SARs (available 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). 

TABLE 1—SPECIES AND STOCKS THAT TEMPORALLY AND SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE PROJECT TO A 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/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Bottlenose dolphin ........... Tursiops truncatus .................. California coastal .................... -, -, N 453 (0.06, 3436, 2011) .......... 2.7 ≥2.0 

Short-beaked common 

dolphin.

Delphinus delphis ................... California/Oregon/Washington -, -, N 969,861 (0.17, 839,325, 2014) 8393 ≥40 

Long-beaked common 

dolphin.

Delphinus capensis ................ California ................................ -, -, N 101,305 (0.49, 68,432, 2014) 657 ≥35.4 

Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens California/Oregon/Washington -, -, N 26,814 (0.28, 21,195, 2014) .. 191 7.5 

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) 14011 >320 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal ....................... Phoca vitulina ......................... California ................................ -, -, N 30,968 (N/A, 27,348, 2012) ... 1641 43 

Northern elephant seal ..... Mirounga angustirostris .......... California breeding ................. -, -, N 179,000 (N/A, 81,368, 2010) 4882 8.8 

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 (M/SI) from all sources combined (e.g., commercial 

fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

As indicated above, all six species 

(with seven managed stocks) in Table 1 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we have 

proposed authorizing it. While Risso’s 

dolphins and gray whales have been 

sighted around California coastal waters 

in the past, these species’ general spatial 

occurrence is such that take is not 

expected to occur as they typically 

occur more offshore, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. 

Specifically, gray whales may be 

observed in San Diego Bay sporadically 

during their January southbound 

migratory periods (Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Southwest and 

Port of San Diego Bay, 2013), and have 

previously been included in take 

authorizations for past projects and 

IHAs relating to Naval Base Point Loma 

(refer back to the Year 1–5 IHAs cited 

above). However, in the most recent 

Monitoring Report from October 8, 2017 

to January 25, 2018 (Year 5 IHA; 

NAVFAC SW, 2018) at Naval Base Point 

Loma, no sightings occurred for gray 

whales. Only two gray whales were 

spotted in the October 8, 2016 to April 

30, 2017 (Year 4 IHA; NAVFAC SW, 

2017) Monitoring Report by the Navy. 

Risso’s dolphins have not been seen 

in San Diego Bay but are known to be 

common in southern California coastal 

waters (Campbell et al., 2010). While 

take of Risso’s dolphins have been 

authorized in three of the past IHAs for 

Naval Base Point Loma (see Year 3 IHA 

at 80 FR 62032, October 15, 2015; Year 

4 IHA at 81 FR 66628, September 28, 

2016; and Year 5 IHA at 82 FR 45811, 

October 2, 2017 for examples), no 

Risso’s dolphins were sighted during 

any of those projects. 

Furthermore, due to the relatively 

shallow depth near the project site the 

more sheltered and inland location of 

this project site within San Diego Bay, 

and the inclusion of the buffered 

shutdown zone within the Navy’s 

monitoring and mitigation plan, NMFS 

expects that a very low probability of 

take exists for these two species. 

Because of these reasons, no take has 

been requested nor proposed to be 

authorized for gray whales or Risso’s 

dolphins during this proposed IHA. 

Furthermore, other species that occur 

in the Southern California Bight may 

have the potential for isolated 

occurrence within San Diego Bay or just 

offshore. In particular, a short-finned 

pilot whale (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus) was observed off 

Ballast Point, and a Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis) was 

seen in the project area during the Year 

2 project at Naval Base Point Loma (79 

FR 65378, November 4, 2014). However, 

these species are not typically observed 

near the project area and, we do not 

believe it likely that they will occur 

during this proposed action. Given the 

unlikelihood of their exposure to the 

sounds generated from the project, these 

species are not considered further. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

As seen in the Navy’s marine mammal 

surveys of San Diego Bay, cited above, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38279 

coastal bottlenose dolphins have 

occurred within San Diego Bay 

sporadically and in variable numbers 

and locations. The California coastal 

stock of bottlenose dolphin is distinct 

from the offshore population and is 

resident in the immediate (within 1 km 

of shore) coastal waters, occurring 

primarily between Point Conception, 

California, and San Quintin, Mexico. 

Occasionally, during warm-water 

incursions such as during the 1982– 

1983 El Nin ̃ o events, their range extends 

as far north as San Francisco Bay 

(Carretta et al., 2017). They are 

commonly found in groups of 2 to 15 

individuals and in larger groups 

offshore. 

Coastal bottlenose dolphins have 

occurred sporadically and in highly 

variable numbers and locations in San 

Diego Bay. Navy surveys showed that 

bottlenose dolphins were most 

commonly sighted in April, and there 

were more dolphins observed during El 

Nin ̃ o years. 

California coastal bottlenose dolphins 

show little site fidelity and likely move 

within their home range in response to 

patchy concentrations of nearshore prey 

(Defran et al., 1999; Bearzi et al., 2009). 

After finding concentrations of prey, 

animals may then forage within a more 

limited spatial extent to take advantage 

of this local accumulation until such 

time that prey abundance is reduced, 

likely then shifting location once again 

and possibly covering larger distances. 

Navy surveys frequently result in no 

observations of bottlenose dolphins, and 

sightings have ranged from 0–8 groups 

observed (0–40 individuals). 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

Pacific white-sided dolphins are 

endemic to temperate waters of the 

North Pacific Ocean, and are common 

both on the high seas and along the 

continental margins (Carretta et al., 

2014). Off the U.S. west coast, Pacific 

white-sided dolphins occur primarily in 

shelf and slope waters. Sighting patterns 

from aerial and shipboard surveys 

conducted in California, Oregon and 

Washington suggest seasonal northsouth movements, with animals found 

primarily off California during the 

colder water months and shifting 

northward into Oregon and Washington 

as water temperatures increase in late 

spring and summer (Carretta et al., 

2014). 

Pacific white-sided dolphins are 

uncommon in San Diego Bay, but 

observations of this species increased 

during El Nin ̃ o years. Monitoring during 

the Year 2 IHA documented seven 

sightings of Pacific white-sided 

dolphins, comprising 27 individuals, 

with a mean group size of 3.85 

individuals per sighting and an average 

of 0.28 individuals sighted per day of 

monitoring. 

Common Dolphins (Short-Beaked and 

Long-Beaked) 

Short-beaked common dolphins are 

the most abundant cetacean off 

California and are widely distributed 

between the coast and at least 300 

nautical miles (nmi; 555.6 km) offshore. 

In contrast, long-beaked common 

dolphins generally occur within 50 nmi 

of shore. Both stocks of common 

dolphin appear to shift their 

distributions seasonally and annually in 

response to oceanographic conditions 

and prey availability (Carretta et al., 

2016). Long-beaked common dolphins 

appear to prefer shallower, warmer 

waters as compared to the short-beaked 

common dolphin (Perrin 2009). Both 

tend to be more abundant in coastal 

waters during warm-water months 

(Bearzi, 2005). 

The occurrence of common dolphins 

inside San Diego Bay is uncommon 

(NAVFAC SW and POSD, 2013). 

However, common dolphins were 

observed within the bay on three 

occasions (twelve, five, and two 

individuals) on two separate days 

during monitoring conducted during the 

Indicator Pile Program in Fall 2014 (78 

FR 44539, July 24, 2013). Within San 

Diego Bay, these two stocks’ share 

overlapping distributions, although they 

are likely long-beaked (as described by 

the stranding of this species from San 

Diego Bay to the U.S.-Mexico border 

(Danil and St. Leger, 2011)). 

Furthermore, it is unlikely that 

observers would be able to differentiate 

the specific species in the field. 

California Sea Lion 

The California sea lion is by far the 

most commonly-sighted pinniped 

species in the vicinity of Naval Base 

Point Loma and northern San Diego 

Bay. California sea lions regularly occur 

on rocks, buoys and other structures, 

and especially on bait barges, although 

numbers vary greatly. 

Different age classes of California sea 

lions are found in the San Diego region 

throughout the year (Lowry et al., 1992), 

although Navy surveys show that the 

local population comprises adult 

females and sub-adult males and 

females, with adult males being 

uncommon. The Navy has conducted 

marine mammal surveys throughout the 

north San Diego Bay project area 

(Merkel and Associates, 2008; Johnson, 

2010, 2011; Lerma, 2012, 2014). 

Sightings include all animals observed 

and their locations. The majority of 

observations are of animals hauled out. 

There are a few man-made areas near 

the proposed project site where 

California sea lions are known to haul 

out. The Navy has noted that the most 

proximal location is two sets of Navyowned docks that are 140 m (459 ft) to 

the southwest and 180 m (591 ft) to the 

north. However, these docks are used 

constantly for other Navy activities and 

California sea lions are not expected to 

remain present for long periods of time. 

The Everingham Brother Bait Barges, 

located approximately 400 to 500 m 

(1,312 to 1,640 ft) southeast of the 

proposed project area, also serves as a 

known haul out site. No natural haul 

outs are known near the project site. 

Per NMFS’s 2019 Pacific SAR, it is 

estimated that the carrying capacity for 

California sea lions is around 275,298 

animals in 2014 (Laake et al., 2018; 

Carretta et al., 2020a). As indicated by 

the current draft 2020 Pacific SAR, this 

estimate has not changed (Carretta et al., 

2020b). 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are considered abundant 

throughout most of their range from Baja 

California to the eastern Aleutian 

Islands. Peak numbers of harbor seals 

haul-out on land during late May to 

early June, which coincides with the 

peak of their molt. Harbor seals do not 

make extensive pelagic migrations, but 

do travel hundreds of km on occasion to 

find food or suitable breeding areas 

(Carretta et al., 2016). Based on likely 

foraging strategies, Grigg et al., (2009) 

reported seasonal shifts in harbor seal 

movements based on prey availability. 

In relationship to the entire California 

stock, harbor seals do not have a 

significant mainland California 

distribution south of Point Mugu. 

Harbor seals are relatively uncommon 

within San Diego Bay. Sightings in the 

Navy transect surveys of northern San 

Diego Bay through March 2012 were 

limited to the south side of Ballast Point 

(TDI, 2012; Jenkins, 2012). However, 

Navy marine mammal monitoring for 

another project conducted 

intermittently at Pier 122 (located 

approximately 6,150 m (20,177.17 ft) 

northeast from the location of this 

proposed project) from 2010–2014 

documented from zero to 4 harbor seals 

within the proposed project area at 

various times, with the greatest number 

of sightings during April and May 

(Jenkins, 2012; Bowman, 2014). 

Subsequently, monitoring conducted by 

the Navy during Year 1 of the fuel pier 

project documented increased numbers 

of harbor seals in the project area 

(Lerma, 2014). Approximately threeVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Jul 19, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38280 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

quarters of these observations were of 

animals hauled out along the Naval Base 

Point Loma shoreline. An individual 

harbor seal was also frequently sighted 

near Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine 

Warfare Command (NMAWC), located 

approximately 3,700 m (12,139.11 ft) 

north of the project site, during 2014 

(McConchie, 2014). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

The population is estimated to have 

grown at 3.8 percent annually since 

1988 (Lowry et al., 2014). Northern 

elephant seals breed and give birth in 

California (U.S.) and Baja California 

(Mexico), primarily on offshore islands. 

Populations of northern elephant seals 

in the U.S. and Mexico have recovered 

after being reduced to near extinction by 

hunting, undergoing a severe population 

bottleneck and loss of genetic diversity 

with the population reduced to only an 

estimated 10–30 individuals. 

Northern elephant seals occur in the 

southern California bight, and have the 

potential to occur in San Diego Bay 

(NAVFAC SW and POSD 2013), but the 

only recent documentation of 

occurrence was of a single distressed 

juvenile observed on the beach south 

and inshore of the Fuel Pier during the 

second year IHA. Given the continuing, 

long-term increase in the population of 

northern elephant seals (Lowry et al., 

2014), there is an increasing possibility 

of occurrence in the project area. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al., (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al., (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL REARING GROUPS (NMFS, 2018) 

Hearing group Generalized hearing range 1

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ............................................................................................................ 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) .................................. 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & 

L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) .......................................................................................................... 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ..................................................................................... 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

1 Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Six marine 

mammal species (three cetaceans and 

three pinnipeds (one otariid (California 

sea lion) and two phocid (harbor seal 

and Northern elephant seal) species 

have the reasonable potential to cooccur with the proposed construction 

activities (Table 1). Of the cetacean 

species that may be present at Naval 

Base Point Loma during this proposed 

project, none are classified as lowfrequency cetaceans, three are classified 

as mid-frequency cetaceans (Pacific 

white-sided dolphins, bottlenose 

dolphins, and common dolphins), and 

none are classified as high-frequency 

cetaceans. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take section, and the Proposed 

Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting 

Measures section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activity can occur 

from vibratory pile removal, the use of 

underwater chainsaws, pile clippers 

(individual and concurrently), and 

diamond wire saws. The effects of 

underwater noise from the Navy’s 

proposed activities have the potential to 

result in Level A or Level B harassment 

of marine mammals in the action area. 

However, Level A harassment is not 

expected nor would be authorized for 

this project. 

Description of Sound Sources 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far (ANSI, 1995). The sound level of an 

area is defined by the total acoustical 

energy being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

include physical (e.g., waves, wind, 

precipitation, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38281 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with this project would 

include vibratory pile removal as well 

as diamond wire saw, underwater 

chainsaws, and single-use or 

concurrent-use of pile clippers. The 

sounds produced by these activities fall 

into one of two general sound types: 

Impulsive and non-impulsive. 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile 

driving) are typically transient, brief 

(less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure 

with rapid rise time and rapid decay 

(ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; 

NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive sounds 

(e.g., machinery operations such as 

drilling or dredging, vibratory pile 

driving, chainsaws, pile clippers, and 

active sonar systems) can be broadband, 

narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged 

(continuous or intermittent), and 

typically do not have the high peak 

sound pressure with raid rise/decay 

time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 

1995; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018). The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is important because they have 

differing potential to cause physical 

effects, particularly with regard to 

hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et 

al., 2007). 

Vibratory hammers would be used in 

this project. Vibratory hammers install 

or remove piles by vibrating them and 

allowing the weight of the hammer to 

push them into the sediment. Vibratory 

hammers produce significantly less 

sound than impact hammers. Peak 

Sound pressure Levels (SPLs) may be 

180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 

to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated 

during impact pile driving of the samesized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise 

time is slower, reducing the probability 

and severity of injury, and sound energy 

is distributed over a greater amount of 

time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; 

Carlson et al., 2005). 

Pile clippers, diamond wire saws, and 

underwater chainsaws are hydraulically 

operated equipment. A pile clipper is a 

large, heavy elongated horizontal 

guillotine-like structure that is 

mechanically lowered over a pile down 

to the mudline or substrate where 

hydraulic force is used to push a sharp 

blade to cut a pile. The underwater 

chainsaws are operated by SCUBA 

divers. The diamond wire saw may need 

to be operated by a SCUBA diver as 

well. Sounds generated by this 

demolition equipment are nonimpulsive and continuous (NAVAC SW, 

2020). 

The likely or possible impacts of the 

Navy’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could result from exposure to 

both non-acoustic and acoustic 

stressors. Potential non-acoustic 

stressors could include physical 

presence of the equipment and 

personnel; however, impacts to marine 

mammals are expected to primarily be 

acoustic in nature. Acoustic stressors 

include noise generated from heavy 

equipment operation during pile 

removal. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile removal and the various demolition 

equipment is the primary means by 

which marine mammals may be 

harassed from the Navy’s specified 

activity. In general, animals exposed to 

natural or anthropogenic sound may 

experience physical and psychological 

effects, ranging in magnitude from none 

to severe (Southall et al., 2007). 

Generally, exposure to pile removal and 

other construction noise has the 

potential to result in auditory threshold 

shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g., 

avoidance, temporary cessation of 

foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive 

behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic 

noise can also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses such an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions 

such as communication and predator 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

removal and demolition noise on 

marine mammals are dependent on 

several factors, including, but not 

limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive 

vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and 

sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with 

calf), duration of exposure, the distance 

between the pile and the animal, 

received levels, behavior at time of 

exposure, and previous history with 

exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall 

et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB. A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the likelihood 

or consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), 

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

exposure (i.e., spectral content), the 

hearing and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e., 

how animal uses sound within the 

frequency band of the signal; e.g., 

Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap 

between the animal and the source (e.g., 

spatial, temporal, and spectral). 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2018). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see Ward et 

al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et 

al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 

1996; Henderson et al., 2008). PTS 

levels for marine mammals are 

estimates, and with the exception of a 

single study unintentionally inducing 

PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 

2008), there are no empirical data 

measuring PTS in marine mammals, 

largely due to the fact that, for various 

ethical reasons, experiments involving 

anthropogenic noise exposure at levels 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38282 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

inducing PTS are not typically pursued 

(NMFS, 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) 

A temporary, reversible increase in 

the threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS 

measurements (see Southall et al., 

2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the 

minimum threshold shift clearly larger 

than any day-to-day or session-tosession variation in a subject’s normal 

hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; 

Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As 

described in Finneran (2016), marine 

mammal studies have shown the 

amount of TTS increases with 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena), and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and five 

species of pinnipeds exposed to a 

limited number of sound sources (i.e., 

mostly tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). 

TTS was not observed in trained spotted 

(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa 

hispida) seals exposed to impulsive 

noise at levels matching previous 

predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et 

al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and 

harbor porpoises have a lower TTS 

onset than other measured pinniped or 

cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). The 

potential for TTS from impact pile 

driving exists. After exposure to 

playbacks of impact pile driving sounds 

(rate 2,760 strikes/hour) in captivity, 

mean TTS increased from 0 dB after 15 

minute exposure to 5 dB after 360 

minute exposure; recovery occurred 

within 60 minutes (Kastelein et al., 

2016). Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For 

summaries of data on TTS in marine 

mammals or for further discussion of 

TTS onset thresholds, please see 

Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and 

Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and 

Table 5 in NMFS (2018). 

During pile removal activities there 

would likely be pauses in the activities 

producing sound during each day. 

Given these pauses and that many 

marine mammals are likely moving 

through the action area and not 

remaining for extended periods of time, 

the potential for TS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment 

Exposure to noise from pile removal 

also has the potential to behaviorally 

disturb marine mammals. Available 

studies show wide variation in response 

to underwater sound; therefore, it is 

difficult to predict specifically how any 

given sound in a particular instance 

might affect marine mammals 

perceiving the signal. If a marine 

mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et 

al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). Estimates of the energetic 

requirements of the affected individuals 

and the relationship between prey 

availability, foraging effort and success, 

and the life history stage of the animal, 

when available, may be used to better 

inform assessment of whether foraging 

disruptions are likely to have fitness 

consequences. 

In 2016, the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF) documented observations 

of marine mammals during construction 

activities (i.e., pile driving) at the 

Kodiak Ferry Dock (ABR, 2016; see 80 

FR 60636, October 7, 2015). In the 

marine mammal monitoring report for 

that project (ABR, 2016), 1,281 Steller 

sea lions were observed within the 

Level B harassment disturbance zone 

during pile driving or drilling (i.e., 

documented as Level B harassment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38283 

take). Of these, 19 individuals 

demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were 

fleeing, and 19 swam away from the 

project site. All other animals (98 

percent) were engaged in activities such 

as milling, foraging, or fighting and did 

not change their behavior. In addition, 

two sea lions approached within 20 m 

of active vibratory pile driving 

activities. Three harbor seals were 

observed within the disturbance zone 

during pile driving activities; none of 

them displayed disturbance behaviors. 

Fifteen killer whales (Orcinus orca) and 

three harbor porpoise were also 

observed within the Level B harassment 

zone during pile driving. The killer 

whales were travelling or milling while 

all harbor porpoises were travelling. No 

signs of disturbance were noted for 

either of these species. Given the 

similarities in activities and habitat, we 

expect similar behavioral responses of 

marine mammals to the Navy’s specified 

activity. That is, disturbance, if any, is 

likely to be temporary and localized 

(e.g., small area movements). 

Stress Responses 

An animal’s perception of a threat 

may be sufficient to trigger stress 

responses consisting of some 

combination of behavioral responses, 

autonomic nervous system responses, 

neuroendocrine responses, or immune 

responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; Moberg, 

2000). In many cases, an animal’s first 

and sometimes most economical (in 

terms of energetic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor. Autonomic nervous system 

responses to stress typically involve 

changes in heart rate, blood pressure, 

and gastrointestinal activity. These 

responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress would 

last until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) 

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). 

For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis). These and other studies lead 

to a reasonable expectation that some 

marine mammals would experience 

physiological stress responses upon 

exposure to acoustic stressors and that 

it is possible that some of these would 

be classified as ‘‘distress.’’ In addition, 

any animal experiencing TTS would 

likely also experience stress responses 

(NRC, 2003), however distress is an 

unlikely result of this project based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous, similar projects in the area. 

Masking 

Sound can disrupt behavior through 

masking, or interfering with, an animal’s 

ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise ratio, temporal variability, 

direction), in relation to each other and 

to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g., 

sensitivity, frequency range, critical 

ratios, frequency discrimination, 

directional discrimination, age or TTS 

hearing loss), and existing ambient 

noise and propagation conditions. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. The San Diego area contains 

active military and commercial 

shipping, cruise ship and ferry 

operations, as well as numerous 

recreational and other commercial 

vessel and background sound levels in 

the area are already elevated as 

described in Dahl and Dall’Osta (2019). 

Potential Effects of Diamond Wire Saw, 

Underwater Chainsaw, and Single or 

Concurrent Use of Pile Clipper Sounds 

Diamond wire saws, underwater 

chainsaws, and pile clippers may be 

used to assist with removal of piles. The 

sounds produced by these activities are 

of similar frequencies to the sounds 

produced by vessels (NAVFAC SW, 

2020), and are anticipated to diminish 

to background noise levels (or be 

masked by background noise levels) in 

the Bay relatively close to the project 

site. Therefore, the effects of this 

equipment are likely to be similar to 

those discussed above in the Behavioral 

Harassment section. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with pile removal that have the 

potential to cause behavioral 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from pile driving activities. Cetaceans 

are not expected to be exposed to 

airborne sounds that would result in 

harassment as defined under the 

MMPA. 

Airborne noise would primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels elevated 

above the acoustic criteria. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with their heads above 

water. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38284 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, these animals would 

previously have been ‘taken’ because of 

exposure to underwater sound above the 

behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are in all cases larger than those 

associated with airborne sound. Thus, 

the behavioral harassment of these 

animals is already accounted for in 

these estimates of potential take. 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The Navy’s construction activities 

could have localized, temporary impacts 

on marine mammal habitat and their 

prey by increasing in-water sound 

pressure levels and slightly decreasing 

water quality. Increased noise levels 

may affect acoustic habitat (see masking 

discussion above) and adversely affect 

marine mammal prey in the vicinity of 

the project area (see discussion below). 

During vibratory pile removal or pile 

cutting, elevated levels of underwater 

noise would ensonify San Diego Bay 

where both fishes and mammals occur 

and could affect foraging success. 

Additionally, marine mammals may 

avoid the area during construction, 

however, displacement due to noise is 

expected to be temporary and is not 

expected to result in long-term effects to 

the individuals or populations. 

Construction activities are of short 

duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

and airborne sound. 

A temporary and localized increase in 

turbidity near the seafloor would occur 

in the immediate area surrounding the 

area where piles are removed. In 

general, turbidity associated with pile 

installation is localized to about a 25- 

foot (7.6-meter) radius around the pile 

(Everitt et al., 1980). The sediments of 

the project site are sandy and would 

settle out rapidly when disturbed. 

Cetaceans are not expected to be close 

enough to the pile removal areas to 

experience effects of turbidity, and any 

pinnipeds could avoid localized areas of 

turbidity. Local strong currents are 

anticipated to disburse any additional 

suspended sediments produced by 

project activities at moderate to rapid 

rates depending on tidal stage. 

Therefore, we expect the impact from 

increased turbidity levels to be 

discountable to marine mammals and 

do not discuss it further. 

The area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat (e.g., the impacted 

area is in the Bay mouth only) of San 

Diego Bay and does not include any 

Biologically Important Areas or other 

habitat of known importance. The area 

is highly influenced by anthropogenic 

activities. The total seafloor area 

affected by pile removal is a very small 

area compared to the vast foraging area 

available to marine mammals in the San 

Diego Bay. At best, the impact area 

provides marginal foraging habitat for 

marine mammals and fish. Furthermore, 

pile removal at the project site would 

not obstruct movements or migration of 

marine mammals. 

Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) 

of the immediate area due to the 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat is 

also possible. The duration of fish 

avoidance of this area after pile removal 

stops is unknown, but a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral 

avoidance by fish of the disturbed area 

would still leave significantly large 

areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity 

due to temporary species displacement. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey 

Sound may affect marine mammals 

through impacts on the abundance, 

behavior, or distribution of prey species 

(e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, 

zooplankton). Marine mammal prey 

varies by species, season, and location. 

Here, we describe studies regarding the 

effects of noise on known marine 

mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., 

Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay, 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

(Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects 

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

(e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and 

other environmental factors. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multi-year bridge construction 

projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 

2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 

Several studies have demonstrated that 

impulse sounds might affect the 

distribution and behavior of some 

fishes, potentially impacting foraging 

opportunities or increasing energetic 

costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 

2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 

1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 

2017). However, some studies have 

shown no or slight reaction to impulse 

sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle 

et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 

2009; Cott et al., 2012). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

Because of the rarity of use and 

research, the effects of pile clippers, 

diamond wire saws, underwater 

chainsaws, and water jetting are not 

fully known; but given their similarity 

to ship noises we do not expect unique 

effects from these activities. 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile removal activities at the project area 

would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of this area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38285 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

Construction activities, in the form of 

increased turbidity, have the potential 

to adversely affect forage fish in the 

project area. Forage fish form a 

significant prey base for many marine 

mammal species that occur in the 

project area. Increased turbidity is 

expected to occur in the immediate 

vicinity (on the order of 10 feet (3 m) or 

less) of construction activities. However, 

suspended sediments and particulates 

are expected to dissipate quickly within 

a single tidal cycle. Given the limited 

area affected and high tidal dilution 

rates any effects on forage fish are 

expected to be minor or negligible. 

Finally, exposure to turbid waters from 

construction activities is not expected to 

be different from the current exposure; 

fish and marine mammals in San Diego 

Bay are routinely exposed to substantial 

levels of suspended sediment from 

natural and anthropogenic sources. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile removal events and the 

relatively small areas being affected, 

pile removal activities associated with 

the proposed action are not likely to 

have a permanent, adverse effect on any 

fish habitat, or populations of fish 

species. Any behavioral avoidance by 

fish of the disturbed area would still 

leave significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. Thus, we conclude that 

impacts of the specified activity are not 

likely to have more than short-term 

adverse effects on any prey habitat or 

populations of prey species. Further, 

any impacts to marine mammal habitat 

are not expected to result in significant 

or long-term consequences for 

individual marine mammals, or to 

contribute to adverse impacts on their 

populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which would inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns and 

TTS for individual marine mammals 

resulting from exposure to the sounds 

produced from the underwater acoustic 

sources (i.e., vibratory hammer, single 

use or concurrent use of pile clippers, 

underwater chainsaw, diamond wire 

saw). Based on the nature of the activity 

and the anticipated effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures (i.e., PSO 

monitoring and shutdown zone) 

discussed in detail below in the 

Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and 

Reporting Measures section, Level A 

harassment is neither anticipated nor 

proposed to be authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals would be behaviorally 

harassed or incur some degree of 

permanent hearing impairment; (2) the 

area or volume of water that would be 

ensonified above these levels in a day; 

(3) the density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the proposed 

take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

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 mPa (root 

mean square (rms)) for continuous (e.g., 

vibratory hammer) and above 160 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., impact hammers (pile-driving)) or 

intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) 

sources. 

The Navy’s pile removal activities 

includes the use of stationary, nonimpulsive, and continuous noise 

sources (vibratory hammer, diamond 

wire saw, underwater chainsaw, single 

use or concurrent use of pile clippers), 

and therefore the 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

is applicable. However, as discussed 

above, the Navy measurements support 

an ambient noise estimate of 129.6 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) in the project area. 

Accordingly, we have adjusted the 

standard Level B harassment threshold 

of 120 dB to 129.6 dB, as it likely 

provides a more realistic and accurate 

basis for predicting Level B harassment 

in the San Diego Bay area. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 

2018a) 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 Navy’s pile removal 

activities includes the use of nonimpulsive (vibratory pile removal and 

other cutting and removal methods) 

sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 3 below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018a Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38286 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (PTS) 

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds 1

(received level) 

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. 

1 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 1 μPa2s. 

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 would be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that would feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels, 

durations, and transmission loss 

coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., vibratory pile removal, 

diamond wire saw, single use or 

concurrent use of pile clippers, and 

underwater chainsaws). 

Vibratory hammers produce constant 

sound when operating, and produce 

vibrations that liquefy the sediment 

surrounding the pile, allowing it to 

penetrate to the required seating depth 

or be withdrawn more easily. The actual 

durations of each method vary 

depending on the type and size of the 

pile. 

In order to calculate the distance to 

the Level B harassment sound threshold 

for piles of various sizes being used in 

this project, the Navy used acoustic 

monitoring data from other locations 

and projects to develop source levels for 

the various pile types, sizes, and 

methods of removal. Data for the 

removal methods (i.e., a diamond wire 

saw, individual use or concurrent use of 

pile clippers, and an underwater 

chainsaw) comes from data gathered at 

other nearby or related Navy projects as 

reported in their San Diego Noise 

Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020). The 

only exception to this would be the 

sound source data for the vibratory 

hammer, which was sourced from the 

City of Seattle Pier 62 project 

(Greenbusch Group, 2018). The source 

levels for the pile clippers, single and 

simultaneous use, and underwater 

chainsaw for this project utilized the 

mean maximum RMS SPL rather than 

the median sound levels we typically 

use as this would provide a more 

conservative measure. The diamond 

wire saw utilized the noise profile 

measurements associated with the 

removal of 66-inch and 84-inch caissons 

in the Navy Compendium (NAVFAC 

SW, 2020).). The Navy has noted, and 

we agree, that these values are likely 

much lower in reality as this proposed 

project would remove 16-inch concrete 

piles instead of the much larger varients 

modeled in the Compendium. However, 

no recorded data currently exists for the 

wire saws cutting concrete; therefore, 

we used the mean of the source level 

data from the Navy Compendium. The 

vibratory hammer used the highest 

average weighted RMS sound level per 

the Seattle Pier 62 project acoustic 

monitoring report (Greenbusch Group, 

2018). 

During pile removal activities, there 

may be times when two pile extraction 

methods (i.e., pile clippers) are used 

simultaneously. The likelihood of such 

an occurrence is anticipated to be 

infrequent, would depend on the 

specific methods chosen by the 

contractor, and would be for short 

durations on that day. In-water pile 

removal occurs intermittently, and it is 

common for removal to start and stop 

multiple times as each pile is adjusted 

and its progress is measured. Moreover, 

the Navy has multiple options for pile 

removal depending on the pile type and 

condition, sediment, and how stuck the 

pile is, etc. When two continuous noise 

sources, such as pile clippers, have 

overlapping sound fields, there is 

potential for higher sound levels than 

for non-overlapping sources. When two 

or more pile removal methods (pile 

clippers) are used simultaneously, and 

the sound field of one source 

encompasses the sound field of another 

source, the sources are considered 

additive and combined using the 

following rules (see Table 4). For 

addition of two simultaneous methods, 

the difference between the two sound 

source levels (SSLs) is calculated, and if 

that difference is between 0 and 1 dB, 

3 dB are added to the higher SSL; if 

difference is between 2 or 3 dB, 2 dB are 

added to the highest SSL; if the 

difference is between 4 to 9 dB, 1 dB is 

added to the highest SSL; and with 

differences of 10 or more dB, there is no 

addition (NMFS, 2018b; WSDOT, 2018). 

TABLE 4—RULES FOR COMBINING SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING PILE REMOVAL

Difference in SSL Level A harassment isopleths Level B harassment isopleths 

0 or 1 dB .............................. Add 3 dB to the higher source level ............................... Add 3 dB to the higher source level. 

2 or 3 dB .............................. Add 2 dB to the higher source level ............................... Add 2 dB to the higher source level. 

4 to 9 dB .............................. Add 1 dB to the higher source level ............................... Add 1 dB to the higher source level. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38287 

TABLE 4—RULES FOR COMBINING SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING PILE REMOVAL—Continued 

Difference in SSL Level A harassment isopleths Level B harassment isopleths 

10 dB or more ...................... Add 0 dB to the higher source level ............................... Add 0 dB to the higher source level. 

Source: Modified from USDOT, 1995; WSDOT, 2018; and NMFS, 2018b. 

Note: dB = decibel; SSL = sound source Level 

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 Level A harassment 

take. However, these tools offer the best 

way to predict appropriate isopleths 

when more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources, such as the localized pile 

removal activities discussed above, the 

NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the 

distance at which, if a marine mammal 

remained at that distance the whole 

duration of the activity, it would incur 

PTS. 

The Navy provided estimates to 

NMFS for the duration of sound 

exposure for each pile removal activity. 

The durations used in this proposed 

project for each pile removal method 

were noted as ‘‘conservative estimates 

that are greater than durations observed 

in the San Diego Noise Compendium’’ 

by the Navy. In discussions with NMFS, 

the Navy has explained that the average 

durations found in the IHA application 

and Compendium were based around 

data collected in the from the old Fuel 

Pier demolition projects (NAVFAC SW 

2014, 2015a, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 

and 2018b). These values were adjusted 

to account for either the maximum 

amount of time the activity could occur 

(i.e., pile clippers), a duration that is 

greater than the maximum (i.e., 

underwater chainsaw and vibratory 

hammer), or an adjusted duration based 

on the removal of a smaller pile (i.e., 

diamond wire saw) in order to provide 

somewhat more conservative 

measurements using real-world data. 

These values were likely considered 

more realistic for past projects and 

could safely be assumed as conservative 

for this proposed project as the Navy 

will be cutting smaller sized piles. The 

Navy also performed an ‘‘ultraconservative’’ hypothetical review by 

modeling a 1-hour duration for each pile 

being removed. Using a rate of five piles 

removed per day, the resulting Level A 

harassment isopleths were still smaller 

than the 20 m shutdown zone the Navy 

plans to implement. Further information 

on durations can be found in the 

Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020). 

All inputs used in the User 

Spreadsheet are reported below in Table 

5. 

TABLE 5—PROJECT SOUND SOURCE LEVELS AND USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS

Activity 3 Type of source Source level 

(dB RMS) 1

Duration of 

sound 

production 

(hours) 2

Transmission 

loss coefficient 

Vibratory pile driving ....................................... Stationary source, non-impulsive, continuous 152 0.1667 15 

13-inch polycarbonate pile removal ................ Stationary source, non-impulsive, continuous 154 0.42 11.7 

16-inch concrete pile removal ......................... Stationary source, non-impulsive, continuous 147 0.42 15 

16-inch concrete pile clipping with +3dB adjustment for two simultaneous pile clippers.Stationary source, non-impulsive, continuous 150 0.42 15 

16-inch concrete pile removal using hydraulic 

chainsaw (underwater chainsaw).

Stationary source, non-impulsive, continuous 150 0.83 15 

Wire saw for caisson cutting ........................... Stationary source, non-impulsive, continuous 156 1.7 15 

1All of these sound source data for use in the Level A and B harassment threshold modeling were calculated from acoustic data found in the 

2020 San Diego Noise Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020); the only exception is the vibratory hammer source level which was sourced from the 

City of Seattle Pier 62 Project (Greenbusch Group, 2018). 2The User Spreadsheet inputs assumed 5 piles would be removed within a single 24-hour period using data from the Navy’s Compendium 

(NAVFAC SW, 2020). 3All activities utilized a weighting factor adjustment (kHz) of 2.5. 

For this project, we modeled sound 

propagation using the practical 

spreading value of 15 for transmission 

loss for all pile removal methods, except 

for the removal of the 13-inch 

polycarbonate piles. For this, 11.7 was 

used as the transmission loss coefficient 

as this value was a calculated measure 

from recorded data that was fit with a 

logarithmic trendline during the 

clipping of a 13-inch round concrete 

pile using small pile clippers in 

February 2017 at the old Fuel Pier 

(NAVFAC SW, 2020). The above input 

scenarios lead to PTS isopleth distances 

(Level A harassment thresholds) of less 

than 1 meter for all methods and piles 

(Table 6). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38288 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 6—MODELED AND EXPECTED LEVEL A AND B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS (USING TWO METHODS) FOR THE PILE

TYPE AND REMOVAL METHOD (METERS) 

Pile information Removal method 

(A) Projected distances to level A harassment 

isopleth 3

(B) Projected distances to level 

B harassment isopleth 5

MF PW OW 

Practical 

spreading loss 

model 

Real-time 

data 

13-inch polycarbonate pile .. One pile clipper .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 423 350 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete 

piles.

One pile clipper .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 145 5 250 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete 

pile 1.

Two pile clippers ................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 229 5 250 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete 

pile.

Underwater chainsaw ......... 0.0 0.1 0.0 5 229 45 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete 

pile.

Diamond wire saw .............. 0.1 0.7 0.0 5 575 350 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete 

pile.

Vibratory hammer ............... 0.1 0.9 0.1 5 311 (4) 

MF = mid-frequency cetaceans, PW = phocid pinnipeds, OW = otariid pinnipeds. 

1The Navy added an adjustment of +3 dB to the noise of a single pile clipper (147 dB RMS re 1μPa) and increased to 150 dB RMS re 1μPa 

where two clippers are used simultaneously (Kinsler et al., 2000). This adjustment is consistent with NMFS guidance for simultaneous sound 

sources. 2All sound sources were taken from the Compendium of Underwater and Airborne Sound Data during Pile Installation and In-Water Demolition 

Activities in San Diego Bay, California (San Diego Noise Compendium; NAVFAC SW, 2020), with exception of the vibratory hammer which was 

sourced from the City of Seattle Pier 62 Project (Greenbusch Group, 2018). 3Because of the small sizes of the Level A harassment isopleths (as determined by NMFS’s User Spreadsheet Tool) and the mitigation methods implemented during this project, neither NMFS nor the Navy expects Level A harassment (and, therefore, take) to occur. 4 No information available. 

5 Designate the most conservative isopleths NMFS will use for the subsequent Level B take analyses and Level B harassment impact zones. 

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 Navy’s 

proposed activity in the absence of 

specific modeling. We used the Navy’s 

realistic, site-specific averaged median 

ambient noise measurement of 129.6 dB 

RMS re 1 mPa for the Level B harassment 

threshold in San Diego Bay (NAVFAC 

SW, 2020). It should be noted that based 

on the bathymetry and geography of San 

Diego Bay, sound would not reach the 

full distance of the Level B harassment 

isopleths in all directions. 

To determine the most appropriate 

and conservative Level B harassment 

isopleths, we compared two methods 

and selected the isopleth between each 

method that was largest, thus providing 

the greatest coverage for the Level B 

harassment zone. Level B harassment 

isopleths were considered appropriate 

based on the distance where the source 

level reached the 129.6 dB ambient 

value. The two methods compared the 

empirical data provided in the Navy’s 

Compendium for work at Naval Base 

Point Loma (NAVFAC SW, 2020) with 

the Practical Spreading Loss model 

using a transmission loss coefficient of 

15, as described above. Results of each 

method are shown in Table 6 and 

described below. 

For the Compendium method, the 

average and maximum sound levels (in 

dB re 1 mPa) measured at the source (10 

m) and then at various far-field 

distances typically showed a monotonic 

decline in average and maximum sound 

pressure levels asas distance increased. 

The Navy chose to use the average 

values for two main reasons: (1) 

Consistency with using the average 

median (L50) ambient values; and (2) 

average source values were used for the 

same activities in the Pier 6 project 

nearby (86 FR 7993, February 3, 2021). 

However, some level of variability in the 

recorded sound pressure levels was 

present where noise levels would drop 

to ambient levels and then increase to 

higher levels at greater distances. An 

example of this would be measurements 

for the 84-inch caisson removal by a 

single wire saw. At source (10 m), the 

average and maximum source levels 

exceeded the ambient noise levels for 

both measurements at the source (136.1 

and 141.4 dB re 1 mPa; 140.9 and 146.5 

dB re 1 mPa, respectively). At far-field 

distances (>20 m), the averages show 

variability with a gradual decline and 

then a subsequent increase, i.e., 140.8 

dB re 1 mPa at 20 m and 134.8 at 40 m, 

then 137.1 dB re 1 mPa at 60 m. The 

distance where sound was measured 

ends at 283 m from the source with an 

average level of 130.3 dB re 1 mPa and 

a maximum level of 137.0 dB re 1 mPa, 

both in exceedance of the ambient level. 

These instances could be attributed to 

the presence of vessel traffic at distance 

from the acoustic recorder, causing 

some interference or competing 

background noise to the pure sound 

measurements of the wire saw or to 

random variation from other acoustic 

effects related to the specific location of 

the hydrophone. In any event, the 

distance at which the sound declined 

below ambient was not always entirely 

clear and the Navy was unable to 

develop a consistent criterion to 

determine the likely distance at which 

sound decreased below ambient or to 

account for factors like the topography 

or hydrophone location. Therefore we 

describe the analysis of the Navy 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38289 

Compendium’s field data for each pile 

removal method individually below. 

For the 13-inch polycarbonate piles 

with pile clippers the Navy believes that 

at between 300 and 400 m (984 to 1,312 

ft), a majority of the background noise 

measured is directly related to traffic 

transiting to/from the Everingham 

Brothers Bait Company (EBBCO) bait 

barges which are to the southwest of the 

project area. Boat traffic for that specific 

route ranges from small boats to large 

recreational/commercial fishing vessels 

and traffic is nearly constant throughout 

the day. Because of that, the Navy 

believes values between those distances 

would likely be artificially high relative 

to the transmission loss associated with 

the project-related activities. 

Furthermore, with the turning basin (see 

Figure 2), the slope rises up from a max 

depth of 20.12 m (66 ft) to 11.58 m (38 

ft) between 200 to 400 m (656.17 to 

1,312.34 ft). As is evidenced by the 

Navy’s acoustical model for southcentral San Diego Bay (see the Naval 

Base Point Loma Pier 6 project at 

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

incidental-take-authorization-navalbase-san-diego-pier-6-replacementproject-san-diego), changes in 

bathymetry (i.e., channel walls) act as 

noise attenuators. Therefore, the Navy 

estimated the Level B harassment 

isopleth for this source at 350 m, 

smaller than the Practical Spreading 

Loss model prediction of 423 m. Given 

the uncertainty discussed above, we 

used the 423 m distance for the Level 

B harassment isopleth. 

For the one pile clipper on concrete 

pile source, the Navy again believes the 

Compendium data were influenced by 

boat activity and topography of the 

channel. In this particular case, Table 39 

of the Compendium shows that the 

average dB level at 215 m was 129.0 dB 

RMS. However, the two measurements 

at 309 m were split, one higher and one 

lower than the value at 215 m. The Navy 

decided that ‘‘Understanding that 

acoustics is not an ‘‘exact science,’’ we 

evaluated the data and chose a distance 

(250 m) that fit the data (average noise 

levels dropped below 129.6 dB at 

between 215 and 309 m).’’ As this 250 

m distance exceeded the practical 

spreading loss model distance of 145 m, 

we chose the 250 m distance for the 

Level B harassment isopleth. 

For the two pile clipper on concrete 

pile source the Navy decided that 

‘‘Because the project footprint is parallel 

to the shoreline, we created a 

monitoring zone that used a source level 

of 150 dB, but at two points at the 

extreme north and south of the project 

footprint (see Fig 6–3 in the IHA 

application) because we felt that this 

would generate a more conservative’’ 

zone that led to an estimate of the Level 

B harassment isopleth of 250 m. As this 

250 m distance exceeded the practical 

spreading loss model distance of 229 m, 

we chose the 250 m distance for the 

Level B harassment isopleth. 

For the underwater chainsaw the 

Navy noted the ‘‘transmission loss 

(27logR) was steep when compared to 

other equipment, but the source value 

was in line with the pile clippers. 

Because of the very steep TL value, we 

looked at the perceived far-field data 

points for the clipper activities and 

chose a distance that was in-between 

the drop off to ambient for the chainsaw 

(from 26 to 45 m) and the clippers (250 

m).’’ The Navy estimated the Level B 

harassment isopleth for this source at 45 

m, smaller than the Practical Spreading 

Loss model prediction of 229 m. Given 

the uncertainty discussed above, we 

used the 229 m distance for the Level 

B harassment isopleth. 

For the diamond wire saw the Navy 

again believes the Compendium data 

were influenced by boat activity and 

topography of the channel. The 

available data are from caissons which 

consist of 1.5 inch thick hardened steel 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN20JY21.002</GPH>

Figure 2. Map of the Turning Basin near Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego Bay, 

California 
38290 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

shells filled with concrete, and with 

wooden piles in the center of the 

concrete. For lack of information on 

wire saws, the Navy evaluated the likely 

far-field values for the potential zones 

based on the 84-inch caissons (Table 34 

in the Compendium), which had more 

data at multiple distances. The Navy 

‘‘felt that this was a valid approach 

based on the similarity of the average 

noise data at 40 m (132.5 dB for 66-inch 

caisson, 134.8 for the 84-inch caisson). 

Per Table 34, using the average dB 

values at distance, the data shows a 

drop below 129.6 dB RMS at 200 m, but 

a rise again at 283 m. If you plot the 

regression curve based on the average 

84-inch data, we cross the ambient 

threshold at app[roximately] 350 m . . . 

Because the data at far-field distances 

was variable, we chose a monitoring 

zone (350 m) that was based on the 

available real-time data. . . . Our 

assumption is that, if a wire saw were 

to be used on the concrete piles, the 

noise levels would be lower than either 

the 66- or 84-inch caisson.’’ The Navy 

estimated the Level B harassment 

isopleth for this source at 350 m, 

smaller than the Practical Spreading 

Loss model prediction of 575 m. Given 

the uncertainty discussed above, we 

used the 575 m distance for the Level 

B harassment isopleth. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence, Take 

Calculation, and Take Estimation 

In this section, we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that would inform the take calculations. 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

We examined two approaches 

towards estimating the Level B take for 

the requested six marine mammal 

species within the project area at Naval 

Base Point Loma. The first approach 

was using our standard approach of 

using species density multiplied by 

isopleth size. The second approach 

utilized daily sightings from monitoring 

reports produced from past Navy 

projects at Naval Base Point Loma 

(NAVFAC SW, 2015a; NACFAC SW, 

2017; NAVFAC SW, 2018). 

Density estimates for any specific area 

assumes that the species’ in question are 

evenly distributed across the entire site, 

which is rarely the case. Using the first 

approach for this project, we examined 

the use of densities, using an overall 

density for San Diego Bay, within a 

much smaller and definitive area 

(specifically Naval Base Point Loma). 

This approach, in combination with the 

predicted Level B harassment isopleths, 

yielded take estimates that were 

determined to not be conservative 

enough in nature for these proposed 

activities and activity source levels as 

compared to the results of the in situ 

measurements included in the Navy’s 

Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020) and 

as discussed above. Furthermore, the 

take estimates produced from this 

method did not appropriately account 

for group size of all marine mammal 

species as the density estimate was for 

a much larger area (consisting of a 

primarily offshore environment) and 

assumed a much larger spread of marine 

mammals. Therefore, this approach was 

not utilized and will not be discussed 

further. 

The second approach utilized average 

daily sightings from the Year 1–5 

monitoring reports from IHAs that were 

previously issued (NAVFAC SW, 2015a; 

NACFAC SW, 2017; NAVFAC SW, 

2018). This information was provided 

by the Navy in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—MONITORING RESULTS FROM THE NAVY’S YEARS 1–5 PROJECTS AT NAVAL BASE POINT LOMA IN SAN DIEGO, 

CALIFORNIA

Species 

Year 1 project 

(10 days; potential El Nin ̃o year) 

Year 2 project 

(100 days; El Nin ̃o year) 

Year 3 project 

(59 days) 

Year 4 project 

(152 days) 

Year 5 project 

(49 days) 

Total Average/ 

day 

Average 

group 

size 

Total Average/ 

day 

Average 

group 

size 

Total Average/ 

day 

Average 

group 

size 

Total Average/ 

day 

Average 

group 

size 

Total Average/ 

day 

Average 

group 

size 

California sea lions ..................... 2,229 229.9 2.2 7,507 75.1 1.4 483 8.2 1.3 2,263 * 14.9 1.7 618 12.6 1.3 

Harbor seal ................................. 25 2.5 1.1 248 2.5 1.0 25 0.4 1.0 88 * 0.6 1.1 28 0.6 1.0 

Bottlenose dolphins ..................... 83 8.3 2.4 695 7.0 2.8 25 0.4 1.9 67 * 0.4 2.7 13 0.3 2.2 

Common dolphins ....................... 19 19 6.3 850 * 8.5 2 42.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Pacific white-sided dolphins ........ n/a n/a n/a 27 * 0.3 3.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Northern elephant seals .............. n/a n/a n/a (1) (1) (1) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

* These estimates were chosen for the second method in which to estimate take of marine mammals for this proposed action. 

1Same individuals was observed hauled out on a beach twice. 

2This includes four sightings of groups of 100+ animals outside of San Diego Bay. When these observations are eliminated, the average group size is 6.75 animals observed inside of San 

Diego Bay. 

The Year 1 and 2 monitoring reports 

demonstrated marine mammal estimates 

during a potential and known El Nin ̃ o 

year, respectively. Because of this, these 

values were likely not representative of 

the typical conditions around Naval 

Base Point Loma and were not 

preferred. 

California sea lions, harbor seals, and 

bottlenose dolphins were recorded 

during all other years. Within these, 

Year 4 was considered the most 

conservative as these activities 

consisted of the longest duration (152 

days) with the highest number of 

sightings for these species. So for these 

species we used the Year 4 average daily 

values. 

Pacific white-sided dolphins were 

only recorded during Year 2. While 

these estimates are likely not fully 

representative of the typical 

distributions of Pacific white-sided 

dolphins around San Diego Bay, they 

will serve as the basis for our 

conservative take estimates for this 

species. Common dolphins were 

observed in Years 1 and 2; however, the 

length of the project period in Year 2 

(100 days) was considered more 

representative than the Year 1 project 

(10 days). Therefore, the values from the 

Year 2 estimates were used for common 

dolphins. A single Northern elephant 

seal was only recorded to have hauled 

out on a beach twice during all Year 

1–5 work. Due to this, no average daily 

estimates were present for analysis; 

however, some discretionary take is 

proposed to be authorized in the event 

Northern elephant seals are present 

during this proposed action. 

For all species (excluding Northern 

elephant seals), these daily sightings 

were extrapolated over the number of 

days of pile removal activities (84). 

This second approach yielded larger 

and more conservative Level B take 

estimates, but more realistic for 

particular species occurrence and group 

size given the data was previously 

collected at the location of this 

proposed project for similar or the same 

species during past projects. Here we 

describe how the information provided 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38291 

above is brought together to produce a 

quantitative take estimate. 

By following this daily occurrencebased approach using past sightings at 

Naval Base Point Loma, we would 

expect that 15 California sea lions, 1 

harbor seal, 9 common dolphins, 1 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, and 1 

bottlenose dolphin would be sighted per 

day. Multiplication of the above daily 

occurrences times the number of pile 

removal days planned (84) results in the 

proposed Level B harassment take of 

1,260 California sea lions, 84 harbor 

seals, 756 common dolphins, 84 Pacific 

white-sided dolphins, and 84 bottlenose 

dolphins (see Table 8 for final 

estimates). 

The Navy has noted that northern 

elephant seals are very rarely seen in 

this area, with the only true record 

being of a hauled out and distressed 

juvenile during the Year 2 IHA 

(NAVFAC SW, 2015a). As a precaution 

that a greater number of northern 

elephant seal may occur around Naval 

Base Point Loma, we propose to 

authorize seven Level B takes. 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED TAKE USING THE PAST SIGHTING APPROACH FOR EACH SPECIES AND STOCK DURING THE

PROPOSED PROJECT

Common 

name 

Scientific 

name Stock 

Estimated 

sightings 

per day 

Total 

Level B 

take requested 2

Data 

source 

Percent 

of stock 

California sea lion ....... Zalophus californianus U.S. Stock .................. 15 1,260 .......................... NAVFAC SW (2017, 

2018).

0.49. 

Harbor seal ................. Phoca vitulina ............ California Stock .......... 1 84 ............................... NAVFAC SW (2017, 

2018).

0.27. 

Northern elephant seal Mirounga 

angustirostris.

California Breeding 

Stock.

........................ 1 7 ............................... NAVFAC SW (2015a) 0.00. 

Common dolphins 

(Short-beaked, longbeaked).

Delphinus sp. 3 ........... California/Oregon/ 

Washington Stock; 

California Stock.

9 756 (between both 

species).

NAVFAC SW (2015a) 0.08 per SBCD stock; 

0.31 per LBCD 

stock. 

Pacific white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens.

California/Oregon/ 

Washington—Northern and Southern 

Stocks.

1 84 ............................... NAVFAC SW (2015a) 0.31. 

Bottlenose dolphin ...... Tursiops truncatus ..... California Coastal 

Stock.

1 84 ............................... NAVFAC SW (2017, 

2018).

18.54. 

1Only recently documented near the project occurrence with one distressed individual hauled out on a beach inshore to the south during the second year of the 

previous Fuel Pier IHA (NAVFAC SW, 2015a). A conservative estimate of 2 was assumed with a +5 take buffer added. 2These numbers were derived by multiplying the rounded average daily sightings by 84 days and then summed for the total requested Level B harassment take. 

3See discussion in the section on Common Dolphins (Short-beaked and Long-beaked) regarding the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy decision (Committee on Taxonomy, 2020). 

By using the sighting-based approach, 

take values are not affected by the 

chosen isopleth sizes from Table 6. 

Given the very small Level A 

harassment isopleths for all species, no 

take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or proposed for this 

authorization. 

Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and 

Reporting Measures 

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 would 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 

proposed in the IHA: 

• All pile removal activities will 

occur individually, with the exception 

for the removal of the 14-inch and 16- 

inch concrete piles, which may be 

removed simultaneously by use of the 

pile clippers; 

• A 20 m (66-ft) shutdown zone will 

be implemented around all pile removal 

activities (Table 9). If a marine mammal 

enters the shutdown zones, pile removal 

activities must be delayed or halted; 

• Two Protected Species Observers 

(PSOs) will be employed and establish 

monitoring locations. The Holder must 

establish monitoring locations as 

described in the Monitoring Plan. For 

all pile removal activities, a minimum 

of one PSO must be assigned to each 

active pile removal location to monitor 

the shutdown zones. PSO(s) must be 

able to monitor the entire shutdown 

zone and the entire Level B harassment 

zone, or out to at least 400 m of the 

radial distance of the larger Level B 

harassment zones towards the 

Navigation Channel. In the event of 

concurrent pile removal (i.e., via two 

pile clippers) at two different locations 

that cannot be appropriately monitored 

by one PSO, the pier or location where 

the lead PSO is stationed being blocked 

by a refueling vessel or other 

obstruction, multiple PSOs may be 

necessary to monitor the necessary 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38292 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

shutdown and Level B harassment 

zones; 

• If pile removal activities have been 

halted or delayed due to the presence of 

a species in the shutdown zone, 

activities may commence only after the 

animal has been visually sighted to have 

voluntarily exited the shutdown zone, 

or after 15 minutes have passed without 

a re-detection of the animal; 

• If the take reaches the authorized 

limit for an authorized species, or if a 

marine mammal species that is not 

authorized for this proposed project 

enters the Level B harassment zone, pile 

removal will cease until consultation 

with NMFS can occur. If in-water pile 

removal activities are occurring when a 

non-authorized species enters the Level 

B harassment zone, activities must 

shutdown; 

• The placement of the PSOs during 

all pile removal activities will ensure 

that the entire shutdown zone is visible. 

Should environmental conditions 

deteriorate such that marine mammals 

within the entire shutdown zone would 

not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile 

removal must be delayed until the lead 

PSO is confident that marine mammals 

within the shutdown could be detected; 

• PSOs must record all observations 

of marine mammals as described in the 

Monitoring Plan, regardless of distance 

from the pile being driven. PSOs shall 

document any behavioral reactions in 

concert with distance from piles being 

driven or removed; 

• The marine mammal monitoring 

reports must contain the informational 

elements described in the Monitoring 

Plan; 

• A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report, and PSO datasheets and/or raw 

sighting data, must be submitted to 

NMFS within 90 calendar days after the 

completion of pile driving activities. If 

no comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 calendar days, the draft report 

will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 calendar days after 

receipt of comments; and 

• In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

IHA-holder must immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Potlock@noaa.gov), NMFS and 

to the West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator as soon as feasible. 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN AND HARASSMENT ZONES

[Meters] 

Pile information Removal method Harassment 

zone 

Shutdown 

zone 1

13-inch polycarbonate pile ........................................... One pile clipper ............................................................ 423 20 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete piles .................................... One pile clipper ............................................................ 250 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete pile ...................................... Two pile clippers ........................................................... 250 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete pile ...................................... Underwater chainsaw ................................................... 229 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete pile ...................................... Diamond wire saw ........................................................ 575 

14-inch, 16-inch concrete pile ...................................... Vibratory hammer ......................................................... 311 

1The shutdown zone is the same for all mid-frequency cetaceans, phocid pinnipeds, and otariid pinnipeds. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that would result in increased 

knowledge of the species and of the 

level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the proposed 

action area. Effective reporting is critical 

both to compliance as well as ensuring 

that the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

submitted Monitoring Plan and the 

Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and 

Reporting Measures section of the IHA. 

Marine mammal monitoring during pile 

driving and removal must be conducted 

by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner 

consistent with the following: 

• Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) who have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods must be used; 

• 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; 

• Where a team of two or more PSOs 

are required, one PSO would be 

designated as the ‘‘Command’’, or lead 

PSO, and would coordinate all 

monitoring efforts. The lead PSO must 

have prior experience performing the 

duties of an observer; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38293 

• In the event of concurrent pile 

removal activities, two lead PSOs may 

be designated and would coordinate and 

communicate all monitoring efforts if a 

single observer cannot observe the two 

concurrent activities. Each position 

would act independently and both 

would maintain the ability to call for a 

shutdown. Each lead PSOs would 

communicate to the other of a potential 

sighting of a marine protected species 

traveling from one location to the other 

within the appropriate shutdown and 

Level B zones during concurrent pile 

removal activities. 

• The Navy must submit PSO 

Curriculum Vitae (CV) for approval by 

NMFS prior to the onset of pile driving. 

PSOs must have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Up to two PSOs would be employed. 

PSO locations would provide an 

unobstructed view of all water within 

the shutdown zone, and as much of the 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

as possible. PSO locations have been 

discussed above. An additional 

monitoring location is described as 

follows: 

(1) An additional monitoring location 

on the Fuel Pier trestle or on a captained 

vessel may be utilized for pre-activity 

monitoring if the monitoring zone is 

beyond the visual range of the lead 

PSO’s position. This vessel would start 

south of the Project area (where 

potential marine mammal occurrence is 

lowest) before the pile removal activity 

has begun and move north. 

Monitoring would be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile removal activities. In addition, 

observers shall record all incidents of 

marine mammal occurrence, regardless 

of distance from activity and distance 

from the buffered shutdown zone and 

Level B harassment isopleth, and shall 

document any behavioral reactions in 

concert with distance from piles being 

removed. 

Hydroacoustic Monitoring and 

Reporting 

The Navy has indicated in their 

application that they may perform 

hydroacoustic monitoring on any 

removal method and sound source that 

was not previously recorded and 

included in the Compendium of 

Underwater and Airborne Sound Data 

during Pile Installation and In-Water 

Demolition Activities in San Diego Bay, 

California (NAVFAC SW, 2020). 

However, as data from the Compendium 

(for pile clippers, wire saw, and 

underwater chainsaw) and the City of 

Seattle Pier 62 project (for the vibratory 

hammer; Greenbusch Group, 2018) are 

recent, it is unlikely hydroacoustic 

monitoring will occur during this 

project. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

and acoustic measurement report would 

be submitted to NMFS within 90 

calendar days after the completion of 

these activities, or 60 days prior to a 

requested date or issuance of any future 

IHAs for projects at the same location, 

whichever comes first. The report 

would 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 removed and by what 

method (i.e., vibratory and if other 

removal methods were used); 

• Weather parameters and water 

conditions during each monitoring 

period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover, 

visibility, sea state); 

• The number of marine mammals 

observed, by species, relative to the pile 

location and if pile 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 removal was occurring 

at time of sighting); 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavior patterns during observation, 

including direction of travel and 

estimated time spent within the Level A 

and Level B harassment zones while the 

source was active; 

• Number of individuals of each 

species (differentiated by month as 

appropriate) detected within the 

monitoring zone, and estimates of 

number of marine mammals taken, by 

species (a correction factor may be 

applied to total take numbers, as 

appropriate); 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting behavior of the 

animal, if any; 

• Description of attempts to 

distinguish between the number of 

individual animals taken and the 

number of incidences of take, such as 

ability to track groups or individuals; 

and 

• 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 would constitute the final report. 

If comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less 

than a moderate state of decomposition), 

the lead PSO would report to the Navy 

POC. The Navy POC shall then 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 Navy 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); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38294 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 

• 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; 

• Description of marine mammals 

observation in the 24-hours preceding 

the incident; 

• 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 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Level A harassment is extremely 

unlikely given the small size of the 

Level A harassment isopleths and the 

required mitigation measures designed 

to minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. No mortality is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activity. 

Pile removal activities have the 

potential to disturb or displace marine 

mammals. Specifically, the project 

activities may result in take, in the form 

of Level B harassment only from 

underwater sounds generated from pile 

cutting and removal activities. Takes 

could occur if individuals are present in 

the ensonified zones when these 

activities are underway. The potential 

for harassment is minimized through 

the construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting 

Measures section). 

Take would occur within a limited, 

confined area (mouth of San Diego Bay) 

of each stock’s range. Level B 

harassment would be reduced to the 

level of least practicable adverse impact 

through use of mitigation measures 

described herein. Further, the amount of 

take authorized is extremely small when 

compared to stock abundance. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile removal 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 (ABR, 2016; 

see 80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015)) 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 removal would 

occur across six months, any 

harassment would be temporary. There 

are no areas or times of known 

biological importance for any of the 

affected species. 

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 would have only 

minor, short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activities are not expected 

to impact reproduction or survival of 

any individual marine mammals, much 

less affect rates of recruitment or 

survival and would therefore not result 

in population-level impacts. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or Level A harassment 

is anticipated or authorized; 

• No biologically important areas 

have been identified with the project 

area; 

• The Navy is required to implement 

mitigation measures to minimize 

impacts, such as PSO observation and a 

shutdown zone of 20 m (66 ft); 

• For all species, San Diego Bay is a 

very small and peripheral part of their 

range; and 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in San Diego Bay 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 preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity would have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 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 abundances for all 6 

species (refer back to Table 8). For most 

requested species, the proposed take of 

individuals is less than 1% of the 

abundance of the affected stock (with 

exception for common bottlenose 

dolphins at 18.54%). This is likely a 

conservative estimate because it 

assumes all take 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, 

Monitoring, and Reporting Measures 

section) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily 

finds that small numbers of marine 

mammals would be taken relative to the 

population size of the affected species 

or stocks. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 38295 

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 Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) requires that each Federal agency 

insure that any action it authorizes, 

funds, or carries out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for 

the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults 

internally whenever we propose to 

authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the Navy to begin the Naval 

Base Point Loma Fuel Pier Inboard Pile 

Removal Project in San Diego, California 

on January 15, 2022, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. Once started, the IHA 

would be valid for one year (end 

January 14, 2023). 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 Point 

Loma Fuel Pier Inboard Pile Removal 

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, or nearly 

identical, activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

section of this notice is planned or (2) 

the activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

section of this notice would not be 

completed by the time the IHA expires 

and a renewal would allow for 

completion of the activities beyond that 

described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

would remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: July 15, 2021. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15378 Filed 7–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB255] 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold a three-day in-person and virtual 

(hybrid) meeting of its Standing, Reef 

Fish, Socioeconomic, and Ecosystem 

Scientific and Statistical Committees 

(SSC). 

DATES: The meeting will take place 

Monday, August 9 to Wednesday, 

August 11, 2021, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 

p.m., EDT daily. 

ADDRESSES: The in-person meeting will 

take place at the Gulf Council office. If 

you are unable to travel, you may attend 

via webinar. Registration information 

will be available on the Council’s 

website by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org 

and clicking on the SSC meeting on the 

calendar. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 4107 W 

Spruce Street, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 

33607; telephone: (813) 348–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Rindone, Lead Fishery Biologist, 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; ryan.rindone@gulfcouncil.org, 

telephone: (813) 348–1630. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Monday, August 9, 2021; 8:30 a.m.–5 

p.m., EDT 

The meeting will begin with 

Introductions and Adoption of Agenda, 

Approval of Verbatim Minutes and 

Meeting Summary from the May 3–4, 

2021 webinar meeting, Election of Chair 

and Vice Chair and review of Scope of 

Work. The Committees will select an 

SSC Representative for the August 23– 

26, 2021 Gulf Council Meeting and 

review and discuss the SSC’s Best 

Practices and Voting Procedures. 

The Committees will review and hold 

a discussion on the Finalized Great Red 

Snapper Count (GRSC) Project Report, 

including presentations, background 

material on the finalized report and 

independent consultant reports. The 

Committees will review and discuss the 

updated Red Grouper Interim Analysis 

and Research Track and Operational 

Assessment Process Guidance 

Document, including a presentations, 

report, and background material. 

The Committees will review Discuss 

the Research Track and Operational 

Assessment Process Guidance 

Document, followed by a Determination 

of Topical Working Groups for SEDAR 

75: Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper 

Operational Assessment. The 

Committees will then review and 

discuss the Scope of Work for Red 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES