48986 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 

production, integration, and testing 

organizations, including lessons 

learned 

• Contribute to recommend policies and 

best practices for the automated 

validation scope in appropriate NIST 

documents 

• Support a roadmap for migrating 

organizations and their customers 

from the current human-effort-centric 

CMVP to the new automated program, 

including recommended practices 

based on lessons learned 

• Broadly support improvements in 

cryptographic modules across all 

vendors participating in the CMVP 

through voluntary sharing of test data 

(e.g., seeds or test vectors) that result 

in failures to improve regression 

testing for module vendors 

In their letters of interest, responding 

organizations need to acknowledge the 

importance of and commit to provide: 

1. Access for all participants’ project 

teams to component interfaces and the 

organization’s experts necessary to make 

functional connections among security 

platform components. 

2. Support for development and 

demonstration of the Automation of the 

Cryptographic Module Validation 

Program (CMVP) project, which will be 

based on the most recent versions of 

FIPS 140, SP 800–140, and Handbook 

(HB) 150–17 and conducted in a manner 

consistent with the most recent version 

of the following standards and 

guidance: FIPS 200, SP 800–37, SP 800– 

52, SP 800–53, SP 800–63, and SP 

1800–16. Additional details about the 

Automation of the Cryptographic 

Module Validation Program (CMVP) 

project are available at https://

www.nccoe.nist.gov/projects/buildingblocks/applied-cryptography/cmvpautomation. 

NIST cannot guarantee that all of the 

products proposed by respondents will 

be used in the demonstration. Each 

prospective participant will be expected 

to work collaboratively with NIST staff 

and other project participants under the 

terms of the consortium CRADA in the 

development of the Automation of the 

Cryptographic Module Validation 

Program (CMVP) project. Prospective 

participants’ contribution to the 

collaborative effort will include 

assistance in establishing the necessary 

interface functionality, connection and 

set-up capabilities and procedures, 

demonstration harnesses, environmental 

and safety conditions for use, integrated 

platform user instructions, and 

demonstration plans and scripts 

necessary to demonstrate the desired 

capabilities. Each participant will train 

NIST personnel, as necessary, to operate 

its product in capability 

demonstrations. Following successful 

demonstrations, NIST will publish a 

description of the security platform and 

its performance characteristics sufficient 

to permit other organizations to develop 

and deploy security platforms that meet 

the security objectives of the 

Automation of the Cryptographic 

Module Validation Program (CMVP) 

project. These descriptions will be 

public information. 

Under the terms of the consortium 

CRADA, NIST will support 

development of interfaces among 

participants’ products by providing IT 

infrastructure, laboratory facilities, 

office facilities, collaboration facilities, 

and staff support to component 

composition, security platform 

documentation, and demonstration 

activities. 

The dates of the demonstration of the 

Automation of the Cryptographic 

Module Validation Program (CMVP) 

project capability will be announced on 

the NCCoE website at least two weeks 

in advance at https://nccoe.nist.gov/. 

The expected outcome will demonstrate 

how the components of the solutions 

that address Automation of the 

Cryptographic Module Validation 

Program (CMVP) can enhance security 

capabilities that provide assurance of 

mitigation of identified risks while 

continuing to meet industry sectors’ 

compliance requirements. Participating 

organizations will gain from the 

knowledge that their products are 

interoperable with other participants’ 

offerings. 

For additional information on the 

NCCoE governance, business processes, 

and NCCoE operational structure, visit 

the NCCoE website https://

nccoe.nist.gov/. 

Alicia Chambers, 

NIST Executive Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18868 Filed 8–31–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB327] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Fuel Pier 

Inboard Pile Removal Project in San 

Diego, California 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

United States Navy to incidentally 

harass, by Level B harassment only, 

marine mammals during pile driving/ 

removal activities associated with the 

Fuel Pier Inboard Pile Removal Project 

in San Diego Bay, California. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from January 15, 2022 through January 

14, 2023. 

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/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-us-navyfuel-pier-removal-naval-base-san-diegocalifornia. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 48987 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On February 3, 2021, NMFS received 

a request from United States Navy 

(Navy) for an IHA to take marine 

mammals incidental to pile driving/ 

removal activities at Naval Base Point 

Loma in San Diego Bay, California. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on May 17, 2021. The Navy’s 

request is for 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 this activity 

and, 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 IHA includes up to 84 days 

of in-water pile driving/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-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities). 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The purpose of this project is to 

remove old piles from the Fuel Pier at 

Naval Base Point Loma to allow for 

continued Naval Fleet readiness 

activities. More specifically, the inwater 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 by using only two pile 

clippers. 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. 

A detailed description of the planned 

project is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 

FR 38274; July 20, 2021). Since that 

time, no changes have been made to the 

planned pile removal activities. 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Mitigation 

and the Monitoring and Reporting 

sections). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to the Navy was published in 

the Federal Register on July 20, 2021 

(86 FR 38274). That notice described, in 

detail, the Navy’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

public comments from one commenter. 

The United States Geological Survey 

noted that they have ‘‘no comment at 

this time’’. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 1 lists all 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 

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 recently finalized 2020 

U.S. Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 

2020b). Upon the finalizing of the 2020 

SARs, none of the stock information for 

the species that are expected to occur in 

the project area for this project has 

changed. 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 2020 Pacific 

SARs (available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessment-reports). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48988 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 1—SPECIES EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance (CV, 

Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2PBR 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. 

For Risso’s dolphins (Grampus 

griseus) and gray whales (Eschrichtius 

robustus), occurrence is such that take 

is unlikely and we have not authorized 

take of these species. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the project, 

including brief introductions to the 

species and relevant stocks as well as 

available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 

38274; July 20, 2021); since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for 

generalized species accounts. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

the Navy’s construction activities have 

the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the project area. The notice 

of proposed IHA that was published in 

the Federal Register (86 FR 38274; July 

20, 2021) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from the Navy’s 

construction on marine mammals and 

their habitat. That information and 

analysis is incorporated by reference 

into this final IHA determination and is 

not repeated here; please refer to the 

notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 38274; 

July 20, 2021). 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes are for 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 

Mitigation and the Monitoring and 

Reporting sections, Level A harassment 

is neither anticipated nor will be 

authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 48989 

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 take 

estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

will 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 driving/removal 

activities includes the use of stationary, 

non-impulsive, 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 driving/ 

removal activities includes the use of 

non-impulsive (vibratory pile removal 

and other cutting and removal methods) 

sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 2 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. 

TABLE 2—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 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds would be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels, 

durations, and transmission loss 

coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from this 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48990 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 

Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020). The 

only exception to this is 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 will 

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 

project would remove 16-inch concrete 

piles instead of the much larger variants 

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 driving/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, will depend on the 

specific methods chosen by the 

contractor, and will 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 3). 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 3—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. 

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 will incur 

PTS. 

The Navy provided estimates to 

NMFS for the duration of sound 

exposure for each pile removal activity. 

The durations used in this 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 realworld data. These values were likely 

considered more realistic for past 

projects and could safely be assumed as 

conservative for this 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 

4. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 48991 

TABLE 4—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 will 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 5). 

TABLE 5—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 

activity in the absence of specific 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48992 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 

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 will 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 5 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 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 will drop to ambient levels and 

then increase to higher levels at greater 

distances. An example of this will 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 

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 

will likely be artificially high relative to 

the transmission loss associated with 

the project-related activities. 

Furthermore, in the turning basin 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 south-central 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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 48993 

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 will 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 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 distribution 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 6. 

TABLE 6—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 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. Therefore, 

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 

authorized in the event Northern 

elephant seals are present during this 

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 project 

for similar or the same species during 

past projects. Here we describe how the 

information provided 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 will expect 

that 15 California sea lions, 1 harbor 

seal, 9 common dolphins, 1 Pacific 

white-sided dolphin, and 1 bottlenose 

dolphin will be sighted per day. 

Multiplication of the above daily 

occurrences times the number of pile 

removal days planned (84) results in the 

Level B harassment take of 1,260 

California sea lions, 84 harbor seals, 756 

common dolphins, 84 Pacific whitesided dolphins, and 84 bottlenose 

dolphins (see Table 7 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48994 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 

Base Point Loma, we authorize seven 

Level B takes. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED TAKE USING THE PAST SIGHTING APPROACH FOR EACH SPECIES AND STOCK DURING THE

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 5. 

Given the very small Level A 

harassment isopleths for all species, no 

take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or authorized. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The following mitigation measures are 

included 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 8). 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 

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 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 nonauthorized 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 will 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 48995 

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 8—SHUTDOWN AND HARASSMENT ZONES

[(Meters)] 

Pile information Removal method Harassment 

zone 

Shutdown 

zone1

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. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

submitted Monitoring Plan and the 

Mitigation and the Monitoring and 

Reporting sections 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 will be 

designated as the ‘‘Command’’, or lead 

PSO, and will coordinate all monitoring 

efforts. The lead PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of an 

observer; 

• In the event of concurrent pile 

removal activities, two lead PSOs may 

be designated and will coordinate and 

communicate all monitoring efforts if a 

single observer cannot observe the two 

concurrent activities. Each position will 

act independently and both will 

maintain the ability to call for a 

shutdown. Each lead PSOs will 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48996 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 

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 will be employed. 

PSO locations will provide an 

unobstructed view of all water within 

the shutdown zone, and as much of the 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

as possible. PSO locations 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 will start 

south of the Project area (where 

potential marine mammal occurrence is 

lowest) before the pile removal activity 

has begun and move north. 

Monitoring will 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 that hydroacoustic 

monitoring will occur during this 

project. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

and acoustic measurement report will 

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 will 

include an overall description of work 

completed, a narrative regarding marine 

mammal sightings, and associated PSO 

data sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including how many and what type of 

piles were 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 will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

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 will 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); 

• 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 48997 

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 Mitigation and 

the Monitoring and Reporting sections). 

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, 

except for bottlenose dolphins, 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 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 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the 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 six 

species (Table 7). For most requested 

species, the take of individuals is less 

than 1 percent of the abundance of the 

affected stock (with exception for 

common bottlenose dolphins at 18.54 

percent). 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 Navy’s activity (including 

the Mitigation and the Monitoring and 

Reporting sections) and the anticipated 

take of marine mammals, NMFS finds 

that small numbers of marine mammals 

would be taken relative to the 

population size of the affected species 

or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

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 authorized or expected to 

result from this activity. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that formal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48998 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Notices 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

is not required for this action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

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 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 

will preclude this categorical exclusion. 

Accordingly, NMFS has determined that 

the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy 

for the potential harassment of small 

numbers of six marine mammal species 

incidental to the pile removal activities 

at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego 

Bay, California from January 15, 2022 

through January 14, 2023, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: August 27, 2021. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18877 Filed 8–31–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; Scientific Research, 

Exempted Fishing, and Exempted 

Activity Submissions 

AGENCY: National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Information 

Collection, request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to comment on 

proposed and continuing information 

collections, which helps us assess the 

impact of our information collection 

requirements and minimize the public’s 

reporting burden. The purpose of this 

notice is to allow for 60 days of public 

comment preceding submission of the 

collection to the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, 

comments regarding this proposed 

information collection must be received 

on or before November 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments to 

Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, 

at Adrienne.thomas@noaa.gov. Please 

reference Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Control Number 0648– 

0309 in the subject line of your 

comments. Do not submit Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

specific questions related to collection 

activities should be directed to Karen 

Abrams, Supervisory Fishery 

Management Specialist, NOAA 

Fisheries, 1315 East West Highway 

Silver Spring MD 20910, 301–427–8508, 

and Karen.abrams@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This request is for an extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. Under section 318 (d) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) [16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.], as amended by the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act [Pub. L. 104–297], the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) is 

required to promulgate regulations that 

create an expedited, uniform, and 

regionally-based process to promote 

issuance, where practicable, of 

experimental fishing permits. 

Regulations under 50 CFR 648.12 and 

50 CFR 600.745 establish processes for 

scientific research plans as well as 

exempted fishing and exempted 

educational activities that are exempted 

from applicable fishing regulations. 

Fishing regulations do not generally 

affect scientific research activities 

conducted by a scientific research 

vessel. Persons planning to conduct 

such research are encouraged to submit 

a scientific research plan to ensure that 

the activities are considered research 

and not fishing. NMFS reviews each 

scientific research plan submitted to 

establish that the sponsoring 

organization and personnel involved are 

recognized scientific investigators, that 

the specific project contemplated 

appears to be scientific research and not 

fishing, and that the vessel or vessels to 

be used are or will be used exclusively 

for research for the duration of the 

scientific research cruise. The 

researchers are also requested to submit 

reports of their scientific research 

activity after its completion. NMFS 

Regions, Fishery Science Centers, and 

NMFS and Coast Guard enforcement 

personnel use information obtained 

from voluntarily submitted research 

plans and subsequent reports in 

monitoring such activities to ensure 

they are bona fide scientific research 

activities. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) may also grant exemptions from 

fishery regulations for educational or 

other activities (e.g., using nonregulation gear). Exempted fishing, by 

definition, is fishing outside of the 

standard regulations. To control this 

fishing and determine the extent of this 

fishing, NMFS needs information to 

determine the justification of granting 

an exempted fishing permit (EFP) or 

exempted educational activity 

authorization (EEAA), and 

documentation of catches landed as a 

result of granting the permit/ 

authorization. A NMFS Regional 

Administrator or Director may 

authorize, for limited testing, public 

display, data collection, exploratory 

fishing, compensation fishing, 

conservation engineering, health and 

safety surveys, environmental cleanup, 

and/or hazard removal purposes, the 

target or incidental harvest of species 

managed under a Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) or fishery regulations that 

would otherwise be prohibited. The 

applications for these exemptions must 

be submitted, as well as reports on 

activities. NMFS Regions, Regional 

Fishery Management Councils, Fishery 

Science Centers, and NMFS and USCG 

enforcement personnel use the EFP 

application statement of purpose and 

goals in evaluating proposals to 

determine their usefulness to the overall 

goals of the applicable fishery 

management plan and for issuance of 

permits, and evaluate them 

comparatively with other applicants for 

the same fishery. NMFS evaluates EEAA 

applications to confirm their 

educational value and determine their 

usefulness to the overall goals of the 

applicable fishery management plan and 

for issuance of permits. NMFS Regions, 

Centers, and enforcement personnel use 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES