24950 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

respective proxies. All sessions are open 

to the public and time will be set aside 

for public comments at the end of each 

day and after specific sessions at the 

discretion of the meeting Chair. The 

meeting Chair will announce public 

comment times and instructions to 

provide comment at the start of each 

meeting day. There will be 

opportunities for public comments to be 

provided in-person and remotely via 

phone/webinar. Updates to this 

meeting, briefing materials, public 

comment instructions and additional 

information will be posted when 

available on https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/partners/councilcoordination-committee and http://

www.fisherycouncils.org/ccc-meetings/ 

may-2022. 

Proposed Agenda 

Tuesday, May 17, 2022, 1 p.m.–5:15 

p.m., EDT 

1. Welcome and Introduction; Approval 

of Agenda and Minutes 

2. NMFS Update and Upcoming 

Priorities 

3. Funding and Budget Update 

4. NMFS Science Update 

5. Legislative Outlook 

6. Public Comment 

Adjourn Day 1 

Wednesday, May 18, 2022, 9 a.m.–5 

p.m., EDT 

7. Climate Change and Fisheries 

8. America the Beautiful/Area-Based 

Management 

9. Recreational Fisheries Management 

10. Management Strategy Evaluations 

11. National Seafood Strategy 

12. Public Comment 

Adjourn Day 2 

Thursday, May 19, 2022, 9 a.m.–1 p.m., 

EDT 

13. Environmental Justice 

14. Report on National Fish Habitat 

Board 

15. International Affairs 

16. Integration of ESA Section 7 with 

MSA 

17. CCC Committees/Work Group 

Reports 

18. Public Comment 

19. Wrap Up and Other Business 

Adjourn Day 3 

The timing and order in which agenda 

items are addressed may change as 

required to effectively address the 

issues. The CCC will meet as late as 

necessary to complete scheduled 

business. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during this 

meeting. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Shelley Spedden, (302) 526–5251, at 

least 5 days prior to the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C.1801 et seq. 

Dated: April 22, 2022. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08998 Filed 4–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB980] 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold a joint public meeting of its 

Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish, and 

River Herring and Shad Advisory 

Panels. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for agenda details. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Friday, May 13, 2022, from 9 a.m. until 

12 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

via webinar. Connection information 

will be posted to the calendar prior to 

the meeting at www.mafmc.org. 

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 800 N State 

Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; 

telephone: (302) 674–2331; 

www.mafmc.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, telephone: (302) 

526–5255. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Council’s Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish, and River Herring and Shad 

Advisory Panels will meet via webinar. 

The purposes of this meeting are for the 

Advisory Panels to develop 

recommendations regarding Atlantic 

Mackerel rebuilding, associated 

specifications, and recent river herring 

and shad spatial analyses. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aid should be directed to 

Shelley Spedden, (302) 526–5251, at 

least 5 days prior to the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: April 22, 2022. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08999 Filed 4–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB948] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Chevron Point 

Orient Wharf Removal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorizations; request for 

comments on proposed authorizations 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Chevron Products Company 

(Chevron) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to 2 years 

activity of vibratory pile removal 

associated with the Point Orient Wharf 

Removal in San Francisco Bay, 

California (CA). Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is requesting comments on its proposal 

to issue two consecutive one-year 

incidental harassment authorizations 

(IHA) to incidentally take marine 

mammals during the specified activities. 

NMFS is also requesting comments on 

a possible one-time, one-year renewal 

that could be issued under certain 

circumstances and if all requirements 

are met, as described in Request for 

Public Comments at the end of this 

notice. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24951 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than May 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.taylor@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Taylor, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) 

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

direct the Secretary of Commerce (as 

delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental harassment authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHAs qualify to 

be categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review. We will review all 

comments submitted in response to this 

notice prior to concluding our NEPA 

process or making a final decision on 

the IHA requests. 

Summary of Request 

On January 11, 2022, NMFS received 

a request from Chevron for 2 

consecutive IHAs to take marine 

mammals incidental to vibratory pile 

removal during the Point Orient Wharf 

Removal in San Francisco Bay, CA over 

a two-year period. The application was 

deemed adequate and complete on April 

4, 2022. Chevron’s request is for take of 

seven species of marine mammals by 

Level B harassment only. Neither 

Chevron nor NMFS expects serious 

injury or mortality to result from this 

activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued IHAs to 

Chevron for pile driving and removal 

work (82 FR 27240, June 14, 2017; 83 FR 

27548, June 13, 2018; 84 FR 28474, June 

19, 2019; 85 FR 37064, June 19, 2020; 

86 FR 28582, May 27, 2021). Chevron 

complied with all the requirements (e.g., 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of 

the previous IHAs and information 

regarding their monitoring results may 

be found in the Description of Marine 

Mammals in Areas of the Specified 

Activity section. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Chevron proposes to remove the 

decommissioned Point Orient Wharf 

(the Wharf) located in northeastern San 

Francisco Bay (the Bay), CA. The Point 

Orient Wharf covers an area of 

approximately 8,094 m (2 acres) and 

extends approximately 396 m (1,300 ft) 

into San Francisco Bay. Over the course 

of 2 years spanning June 1–November 

30, 2022 and June 1–November 30, 

2023, Chevron will remove the Wharf in 

its entirety and restore eelgrass to the 

surrounding subtidal habitat. Piles will 

be extracted using a variety of methods, 

including vibratory pile removal. 

Vibratory pile removal is a nonimpulsive continuous noise source that 

may result in the incidental take of 

marine mammals by Level B harassment 

in the form of behavioral harassment. 

Chevron has requested an IHA 

concurrently for each of the 2 project 

years. Given the similarities in activities 

between project years, NMFS is issuing 

this single Federal Register notice to 

solicit public comments on the issuance 

of the two similar, but separate, IHAs. 

Dates and Duration 

Chevron anticipates that removal of 

the Wharf will occur over 2 years. The 

in-water work window is anticipated to 

last from June 1 to November 30 in 2022 

(Year 1) and June 1 to November 30 in 

2023 (Year 2), although vibratory 

extraction is expected to occur only in 

12 weeks of each annual work period. 

NMFS expects that a seasonal work 

window of June through November each 

year will best protect sensitive life 

stages of listed fish species in the area. 

Construction will consist of 

approximately 100 in-water work days 

only during daylight hours. Year 1 IHA 

would be valid from June 1, 2022–May 

31, 2023, and Year 2 IHA would span 

June 1, 2023–May 31, 2024. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The Point Orient Wharf is located in 

the central Bay on the western side of 

Point San Pablo, approximately 2.9 km 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
24952 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

(1.8 miles) north of the eastern terminus 

of the Richmond San-Rafael Bridge 

(RSRB) in Contra Costa County (Figure 

1). The Brothers Islands and Lighthouse 

are approximately 800 meters (2,600 

feet) to the north of the Wharf. The 

Point Orient Wharf is located near a 

shipping channel, and regular boat 

traffic in the vicinity accounts for the 

majority of ambient underwater noise in 

the area. 

The Point Orient Wharf consists of 

two portions: a narrower portion of the 

Wharf that runs perpendicular to the 

shoreline, known as the Causeway and 

which will be removed in Year 1, and 

a wider portion that runs parallel to the 

shoreline, known as the Main Wharf 

and which will be removed in Year 2. 

While the Wharf was in use, a dredged 

channel and berthing area with a depth 

of approximately 10 m (33 feet) below 

mean lower low water (MLLW) was 

maintained on the western side of the 

Main Wharf. However, since the Wharf 

was decommissioned, the channel and 

berthing area have filled in with 

sediment. A deep scour pocket of 

approximately 15.2 m (50 feet) below 

MLLW is maintained by tidal action 

west of the Main Wharf and 10 m (33 

feet) below MLLW southeast of the Main 

Wharf. Bathymetry along the Causeway 

ranges from the upper intertidal at the 

eastern end of the Causeway to a depth 

of approximately 4.9 m (16 feet) below 

MLLW at its western end. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Chevron intends to remove the Wharf 

in its entirety, and restore eelgrass to the 

subtidal habitat in areas under the 

Causeway portion of the Wharf that are 

currently affected by the shading 

imposed by the structure. This project 

will utilize direct pull or vibratory 

removal methods to extract 

approximately 910 timber piles and 90 

steel piles from the Bay. During Year 1, 

Chevron plans to remove the Causeway 

portion of the Wharf and repair an area 

of unstable shoreline embankment just 

north of the Causeway. The shoreline 

embankment stabilization, involving 

only upland work, will not result in the 

take of marine mammals and will not be 

considered further. Removal of the 

Causeway will involve the extraction of 

534 12′′ treated timber piles (133 of 

which are concrete encased) through 

direct pull or vibratory removal 

methods. Only one pile will be removed 

at a time. The condition of the piles 

would dictate the methods that would 

be implemented. If the piles have 

sufficient structural integrity, the pile 

would be wrapped with chain or cable 

attached to a crane and pulled directly 

upward, pulling the pile from the 

sediment. Vibratory extraction would 

likely be the primary method of removal 

and involve the use of a vibratory pile 

driving hammer to loosen the pile with 

vibration. The vibration causes 

liquefaction of the surrounding 

sediment, allowing the pile to be pulled 

straight up and out. If a pile is unable 

to be removed entirely or breaks when 

pulled, the pile may be cut 0.6 m (2 feet) 

under the mudline using a hydraulic 

chainsaw or underwater torch cutting 

system, however, vibratory extraction 

would be the most impactful removal 

method. Additional materials removed 

from the Causeway would include 488 

m (1,600 feet) of process piping, steel 

pipes, wooden decking, pipe supports, 

light poles, and pile caps. Removal of 

these additional materials from the 

above-water portion of the pier would 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN27AP22.003</GPH>

Figure 1. Point Orient Wharf Removal Project Location 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24953 

not result in takes of marine mammals 

and as such, this will not be considered 

further. All materials removed would be 

loaded onto barges for transport to a 

permitted disposal or recycling facility. 

During Year 2, the Main Wharf 

portion would be removed and eelgrass 

would be planted after its removal. 

Removal of the Main Wharf would 

include the removal of 376 12′′ timber 

piles (156 of which are concrete 

encased), 34 36′′ steel piles, 40 30′′ piles, 

and 16 24′′ piles by similar methods as 

in Year 1. Only one pile would be 

removed at a time, and only one type of 

pile would be removed per day. 

Additional materials removed from the 

Main Wharf would include steel pipe 

bridges, steel fendering, and wooden 

decking. Removing these additional 

materials would not result in takes of 

marine mammals and will not be 

considered further. As in Year 1, all 

materials removed would be loaded 

onto barges for transport to a permitted 

disposal or recycling facility. After the 

Main Wharf is removed, eelgrass will be 

planted in suitable areas to restore 

habitat quality to the Bay. Planting 

eelgrass will not result in the take of 

marine mammals and will not be 

considered further. Table 1 below 

provides additional detail on duration 

of construction activities: 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILE REMOVAL ACTIVITIES BY YEAR

Pile type Diameter 

(inches) 

Number of 

piles 

Approximate 

duration of 

vibration 

per pile 

(minutes) 

Approximate 

number 

of piles 

removed 

per day 

Total number 

of work days 

Year 1 Vibratory Extraction 

Timber ............................................... 12 ..................................................... 401 6 18 * 35 

Timber concrete encased ................. 18 (12-inch timber core) ................... 133 9 11 

Year 2 Vibratory Extraction 

Timber ............................................... 12 ..................................................... 220 6 18 * 27 

Timber concrete encased ................. 18 (12-inch timber core) ................... 156 9 11 

Steel .................................................. 36 ..................................................... 34 45 2 18 

Steel .................................................. 30 ..................................................... 40 32 3 10 

Steel .................................................. 24 ..................................................... 16 26 4 6 

* Removal of bare timber pile and concrete encased piles will be co-mingled during these work days. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/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 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for both proposed IHAs, 

and summarizes information related to 

the population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2021). PBR is 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal 

SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2021). All 

values presented in Table 2 are the most 

recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2020 SARs (Carretta et al., 2021) and 

draft 2021 SARs (available online at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports). 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS LIKELY 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) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 
24954 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Gray whale ....................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern N Pacific ................... -, -, N 29960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) ... 801 131 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Bottlenose Dolphin ........... Tursiops truncatus .................. California Coastal ................... -, -, N 453 (0.06, 346, 2011) ............ 2.7 ≥2.0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor Porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. San Francisco-Russian River -, -, N 7,777 (0.62, 4,811, 2017) ...... 73 ≥0.4 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California Sea Lion ........... Zalophus californianus ........... U.S. ........................................ -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 2014) 14,011 >320 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

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

Northern Elephant Seal .... Mirounga angustirostris .......... California Breeding ................. -, -, N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 2013) 5,122 5.3 

Northern Fur Seal ............ Callorhinus ursinus ................. California ................................ -, D, N 14,050 (N/A, 7,524, 2013) ..... 451 1.8 

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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case]. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI (mortality/serious injury) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

As indicated above, all 7 species (with 

7 managed stocks) in Table 2 temporally 

and spatially co-occur with the activity 

to the degree that take is reasonably 

likely to occur. All species that could 

potentially occur in the proposed survey 

areas are included in Table 4–1 of the 

IHA application. While Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus) and humpback 

whales (Megaptera noveangliae) have 

been documented in the area, their 

occurrence in the Bay is sufficiently rare 

that take is not expected to occur, and 

they are not discussed further beyond 

the explanation provided here. 

Steller sea lions have been reported at 

An ̃o Nuevo Island between Santa Cruz 

and Half Moon Bay as well as at the 

Farallon Islands about 48 kilometers (30 

miles) off the coast of San Francisco 

(Fuller 2012). However, very few studies 

have detected Steller sea lions in San 

Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay 

Subtidal Habitat Goals Report contains 

one reference to Steller sea lions in the 

Bay (Cohen 2010), however, this species 

is considered a rare visitor and not 

expected to occur in the project area 

during construction activities. 

Humpback whales are also rare 

visitors to the project area as they are 

more commonly observed in offshore 

waters or just inside the Bay entrance. 

Limited sightings of humpback whales 

have occurred inside the Bay. In 1985, 

one humpback whale traveled into the 

Bay and up the Sacramento River; the 

same whale re-entered the Bay in the 

fall of 1990 and stranded (Fimrite 2005). 

In May 2007, a humpback whale mother 

and calf spent slightly more than 2 

weeks in the Bay and Sacramento River 

before returning to coastal waters (CBS 

News 2007). Due to the limited sightings 

of humpback whales in the Bay, this 

species is not expected to occur in the 

project area during construction 

activities. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales are large baleen whales, 

easily recognized by their mottled gray 

color and lack of a dorsal fin. They are 

one of the most frequently seen whales 

along the California coast. Gray whales 

feed in the northern waters, primarily 

off the Bering, Chukchi, and western 

Beaufort seas during the summer, 

although a small number of whales, 

known as the Pacific Coast Feeding 

Group (PCFG), is known to feed along 

the Pacific coast between Kodiak Island, 

AK and northern California (Carretta et 

al., 2021). Most whales begin their 

southward migration from the feeding 

grounds in November and December, 

traveling south along the eastern Pacific 

coast to their winter breeding and 

calving areas in lagoons along the coast 

of Baja California, Mexico. The 

southward migration occurs from 

December through February, peaking in 

January (NOAA NCCOS 2007). The 

northward migration to the feeding 

occurs from February through May, 

peaking in March (NOAA NCCOS 2007). 

Gray whales also feed in nearshore 

waters just outside of San Francisco 

Bay, and a few individuals will enter 

San Francisco Bay during the northward 

migration. Since 2019, it has become 

more common for gray whales on their 

northward migration to enter San 

Francisco Bay during the months of 

February and March to feed (Bartlett 

2022). 

Monitors from the RSRB recorded 12 

living and 2 dead gray whales in either 

the Central or North Bay. All but 2 

sightings occurred during the months of 

April and May: One whale was sighted 

in June and one in October (Winning 

2008). In March 2022, a mom and calf 

were sighted between Alcatraz and 

Angel Island (Bartlett 2022). During the 

spring of 2019, 12 dead gray whales 

washed up on the shoreline of the Bay 

and on Ocean Beach on the west side of 

San Francisco. Since 2018, the number 

of gray whale strandings per year in the 

Bay area have varied between 5 whales 

in 2018 and 2020, and 15 whales in 

2021 (Bartlett 2022). Ship strikes, 

malnutrition, and entanglement were 

the cause of death for strandings 

(Bartlett 2022; TMMC 2019). The 

Oceanic Society found that all age 

classes of gray whales may enter the 

Bay, either as singles or in groups of up 

to five individuals (Winning 2008). It is 

likely that gray whales would typically 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24955 

enter the Bay from February to May; 

however, it is also possible that a gray 

whale may enter the project area during 

pile extraction. 

Eastern North Pacific gray whales 

experienced an unusual mortality event 

(UME) beginning in 2019 when large 

numbers of whales began stranding from 

Mexico to Alaska. Necropsy results 

indicated that many whales showed 

signs of nutritional stress (NOAA 2020). 

This UME is ongoing and similar to that 

of 1999 and 2000 when large numbers 

of gray whales stranded along the 

eastern Pacific coast (Moore et al., 2001; 

Gulland et al., 2005). Oceanographic 

factors limiting food availability for 

whales was identified as a likely cause 

of the prior UME and may also be 

influencing the current UME (LeBouef 

et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2001; Minobe 

2002; Gulland et al., 2005). 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

The common bottlenose dolphin is 

found in all oceans across the globe, and 

is one of the most commonly observed 

marine mammal species in coastal 

waters and estuaries. Two genetically 

distinct stocks occur off the coast of 

California, the California coastal stock 

and the California/Oregon/Washington 

offshore stock. The range of the 

California coastal stock has expanded 

northward along the coast since the 

1982–1983 El Nin ̃ o event (Hansen and 

Defran, 1990; Wells et al., 1990). This 

stock now occurs as far north as the San 

Francisco Bay region. Individuals show 

very little site fidelity to any portion of 

the California coast (Szczepaniak et al., 

2013; Weller et al., 2016), although, as 

of 2019, the Golden Gate Cetacean 

Research Dolphin Project had identified 

91 individual dolphins in the Bay 

(APER 2019). Since 2008, coastal 

bottlenose dolphins have been observed 

regularly in San Francisco Bay with 

many observations occurring in the 

proximity of the Golden Gate near the 

mouth of the Bay (Bay Nature Institute 

2014). A limited number of individuals 

may approach the project area during 

in-water construction. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are typically found 

in cool temperate to sub-polar waters 

less than 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit (17 

degrees Celsius) (Read 1999) where prey 

aggregations are concentrated (Watts 

and Gaskin, 1985). In the eastern 

Pacific, harbor porpoises occur in 

coastal and inland waters from Point 

Conception, California to Alaska 

(Gaskin 1984). Four genetically distinct 

stocks have been identified along the 

coast of California (Carretta et al., 2021). 

The non-migratory San FranciscoRussian River stock ranges from 

Pescadero to Point Arena, California, 

utilizes relatively shallow nearshore 

waters (<100 meters), and feeds on 

small schooling fishes such as northern 

anchovy and Pacific herring which enter 

San Francisco Bay (Caretta et al., 2021; 

Stern et al., 2017). Harbor porpoises 

tend to occur in small groups and are 

considered to be relatively shy animals. 

Previous estimates for harbor porpoises 

were based upon aerial surveys 

conducted between coastal waters and 

the 50 fm-isobath (Forney 1999), 

however, surveys have been expanded 

further offshore and to include 

shipboard platforms. 

Before 2008, harbor porpoises were 

observed primarily outside of San 

Francisco Bay although the Bay has 

historically been considered habitat for 

harbor porpoises (Broughton 1999). 

Recently, there have been increasingly 

common observations of harbor 

porpoises within the Bay (Duffy 2015; 

Stern et al., 2017). From 2011–2014, a 

visual count conducted by the Golden 

Gate Cetacean Research (GGCR) program 

identified 2,698 porpoise groups from 

the Golden Gate Bridge (Stern et al., 

2017). Harbor porpoise movements into 

the Bay are linked to tidal cycle with the 

greatest numbers of porpoises being 

sighted during high tide to ebb tide 

periods. Movements into the Bay are 

likely influenced by prey availability 

(Duffy 2015; Stern et al., 2017). 

Although harbor porpoise sightings are 

generally concentrated in the vicinity of 

the Golden Gate Bridge and Angel 

Island, southwest of the project site 

(Keener 2011), this species is more 

frequently venturing into the Bay east of 

Angel Island and may approach the 

project area during pile removal 

activities. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions breed mainly on 

offshore islands, ranging from Southern 

California’s Channel Islands to Mexico 

during the spring (Heath and Perrin, 

2008), although a few pups have been 

born on An ̃o Nuevo and the Farallon 

Islands (TMMC 2020). During the nonbreeding season, adult and sub-adult 

males as well as juveniles migrate 

northward along the coast, to central 

and northern California, Oregon, 

Washington, and Vancouver Island 

(Jefferson et al., 1993). They return 

south the following spring (Lowry and 

Forney, 2005; Heath and Perrin, 2008) 

while females tend to remain closer to 

rookeries (Antonelis et al., 1990; Melin 

et al., 2008). Based upon statistical 

analysis of annual pup count, annual 

survivorship, and human-induced 

impacts, the California stock appears to 

have experienced an annual increase 

from 1975–2014 (Laake et al., 2018). 

Although California sea lions forage 

and conduct many activities within the 

water, they also use haul outs. In San 

Francisco Bay, sea lions haul out 

primarily on floating docks at Pier 39 at 

the Fisherman’s Wharf area of the San 

Francisco Marina, approximately 12.5 

kilometers (7.8 miles) southwest of the 

project area. In addition to the Pier 39 

haul out, California sea lions haul out 

on buoys, wharfs, and similar structures 

throughout the Bay. Occurrence of sea 

lions in typically lowest in June during 

the breeding season and higher during 

El Nin ̃ o seasons. During monitoring for 

the RSRB project, observers sighted at 

least 90 sea lions in the northern Bay 

and at least 57 in the central Bay, 

although no pupping activity was 

observed (Caltrans 2012). 

California sea lions are mainly seen 

swimming off the San Francisco and 

Marin shorelines within the Bay, but 

may occasionally enter the project area 

to forage. They feed seasonally on 

schooling fish and cephalopods, 

including salmon, herring, sardines, 

anchovy, mackerel, whiting, rockfish, 

and squid (Lowry et al., 1990, 1991; 

Lowry and Carretta, 1999; Weise 2000; 

Carretta et al., 2021). Seasonal and 

annual dietary shifts vary with 

environmental fluctuations that affect 

prey populations. In central California 

sea lion populations, short term 

seasonal variations in diet are related to 

prey movement and life history patterns 

while long-term annual changes 

correlate to large-scale ocean climate 

shifts and foraging competition with 

commercial fisheries (Weise and Harvey 

2008; McClatchie et al., 2016). Climate 

change, specifically increasing sea 

surface temperatures in the California 

current, negatively impact prey species 

availability and reduce California sea 

lion survival rates (DeLong et al., 2017; 

Laake et al., 2018). Other conservation 

concerns for California sea lions include 

vessel strikes, non-commercial fishery 

human caused mortality, hookworms, 

and competition for forage with 

commercial fisheries (Carretta et al., 

2018; Carretta et al., 2021). 

California sea lions experienced a 

UME, not correlated to an El Nin ̃ o event, 

from 2013–2017 (Carretta et al., 2021). 

Pup and juvenile age classes 

experienced high mortality during this 

time, likely attributed to sea lion prey 

availability, specifically sardines. 

California sea lions are also susceptible 

to the algal neurotoxin, domoic acid 

(Brodie et al., 2006; Carretta et al., 

2021). This neurotoxin is expected to 

cause future mortalities among 

California sea lions due to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
24956 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

prevalence of harmful algal blooms 

within their habitat. 

In San Francisco Bay, California sea 

lions have been observed foraging near 

Pier 39, in the shipping channel south 

of Yerba Buena Island, and along the 

west side of the Chevron Long Wharf 

(AECOM 2019). The relatively deep 

shipping channel west and north of the 

Point Orient Wharf would also provide 

foraging area for sea lions. During 

monitoring at the Chevron Long Wharf 

Maintenance and Efficiency Project 

(CLWMEP), Protected Species Observers 

(PSOs) documented a sea lion foraging 

on a small shark in 2019 and 8 sea lions 

in the project area in 2020 (AECOM 

2019; 2020). As sea lions may forage 

widely throughout San Francisco Bay, 

there is the potential that this species 

may enter the project area during 

construction activities. 

Harbor Seal 

Pacific harbor seals are distributed 

from Baja California north to the 

Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Seals 

primarily haul out on remote mainland 

and island beaches, reefs, and estuary 

areas. At haul outs, they will congregate 

to rest, socialize, breed, and molt. Haul 

outs are relatively consistent from year 

to year (Kopec and Harvey, 1995), and 

females have been documented to return 

to their own natal haul out when 

breeding (Green et al., 2006). 

The Pacific harbor seal population 

experienced an increase from 1981– 

2004, followed by a steady decrease 

from between 2005–2010. The 

maximum statewide count showed that 

the California stock sharply declined in 

2009 and 2012 (Duncan 2019). The 

California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) conducted extensive marine 

mammal surveys in San Francisco Bay 

before and during seismic retrofit on the 

RSRB from 1998–2002. Caltrans 

determined that a minimum of 500 

harbor seals occur within San Francisco 

Bay (Green et al., 2002), an estimate that 

agrees with more recent seal counts 

(Lowry et al., 2008; Codde et al., 2020). 

The California harbor seal stock may be 

stabilizing at or near carrying capacity, 

although conservation concerns such as 

vessel strikes, disturbance, fishing gear 

entanglement, and habitat loss are still 

a concern in the San Francisco Bay area 

(Duncan 2019). The nearest major haul 

out site to the project area is Castro 

Rocks, located approximately 2,600 

meters (1.6 miles) south of the 

southernmost point on the Wharf. Use 

of Castro Rocks as a haul out site has 

been increasing over the years (Codde et 

al., 2020). Smaller numbers of harbor 

seals have also been reported to haul out 

on the western Brother Island, 

approximately 800 meters (2,600 ft) to 

the north of the Wharf. 

The number of harbor seals in San 

Francisco Bay increases during the 

winter foraging period as compared to 

the spring breeding season. In the Bay, 

harbor seals are known to forage on a 

variety of fish, crustaceans, and 

cephalopods in found in shallow 

intertidal waters. Based upon fecal 

samples obtained from haul out sites in 

the Bay, major prey items include the 

yellowfin goby, northern anchovy, 

Pacific herring, staghorn sculpin, 

plainfin midshipman, and white croaker 

(Harvey and Torok, 1994). Seals haul 

out on Castro Rocks year-round during 

medium to low tides, and usage of this 

haul out site is highest during the 

summer molting period of June–July. 

Based upon visual monitoring 

conducted by PSOs during the 

CLWMEP in 2019 (AECOM 2020), the 

number of hauled out seals on Castro 

Rocks may vary greatly, from 0 to 50 

seals, depending upon the tide. Due to 

the proximity of the Wharf to the Castro 

Rocks haul out site, it is likely that 

harbor seals will be in the project area 

during construction activities. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals commonly 

pup, breed, rest, and molt on California 

coastal mainland and island sites. In the 

vicinity of San Francisco Bay, seals 

breed, molt, and haul out at An ̃ o Nuevo 

Island, the Farallon Islands, and Point 

Reyes Seashore (Lowry et al., 2014). The 

birthing and breeding season occurs 

from December through March. Pups 

remain onshore or in adjacent shallow 

waters through May, when they may 

make brief stops in San Francisco Bay 

(Caltrans 2015). Pups of the year may 

also make brief stops in the Bay when 

they return in late summer and fall to 

haul out at rookery sites. Adults 

typically reside in offshore pelagic 

waters when not breeding or molting, 

however, a healthy juvenile male was 

observed basking at Aquatic Park in San 

Francisco in the spring of 2019 

(Herna ́ndez 2020). Caltrans (2015) 

estimates that approximately 100 

juvenile northern elephant seals of the 

California breeding stock strand in San 

Francisco Bay each year. Although rare 

visitors to the Bay, it is possible that a 

few individuals may be present during 

construction activities. 

Northern Fur Seal 

Northern fur seals range from 

southern California north to the Bering 

Sea, and west to the Okhotsk Sea and 

Honshu Island, Japan in the west 

(Carretta et al., 2021). The majority of 

the population breeds on the Pribilof 

Islands in the southern Bering Sea, 

although a small percentage of the 

population breed at San Miguel Island 

and the Farallon Islands off the coast of 

California. Northern fur seals show high 

site fidelity to breeding and rookery 

locations, and may swim long distances 

for prey. Their diet is composed of small 

schooling fish such as walleye Pollock, 

herring, hake, anchovy, and squid. Diet 

and population trends vary with 

environmental conditions, such as El 

Nin ̃ o (Carretta et al., 2021). The 

California stock of northern fur seals is 

known to forage in waters outside of 

San Francisco Bay. Juvenile northern fur 

seals occasionally strand in San 

Francisco Bay, especially during El 

Nin ̃ o events (TMMC 2016). The Marine 

Mammal Center (TMMC) responds to 

approximately five northern fur seal 

strandings per year in San Francisco 

Bay (TMMC 2016). Although rarely 

observed in San Francisco Bay, it is 

possible individuals may be present 

during construction activities. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 3. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24957 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing range * 

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

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

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus 

cruciger & L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al., 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Seven marine 

mammal species (three cetacean and 

four pinniped (one otariid and three 

phocid) species) have the reasonable 

potential to co-occur with the proposed 

survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. 

Of the cetacean species that may be 

present, one is classified as lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete 

species), one is classified as midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid 

and ziphiid species and the sperm 

whale), and one is classified as highfrequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor 

porpoise and Kogia spp.). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take section, and the Proposed 

Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far. The sound level of an area is 

defined by the total acoustical energy 

being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

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

precipitation, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

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

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (determined by current weather 

conditions and levels of biological and 

shipping activity) but also on the ability 

of sound to propagate through the 

marine environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent upon the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor. As a result of the dependence 

upon a large number of varying factors, 

ambient sound levels can be expected to 

vary widely over both coarse and fine 

spatial and temporal scales. Sound 

levels at a given frequency and location 

can vary by 10–20 dB per day 

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

that, depending upon the source type 

and its intensity, sound from the 

specified activity may be a negligible 

addition to the local environment or 

could form a distinctive signal that 

could affect marine mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include vibratory pile removal, a type of 

non-impulsive sound. Non-impulsive 

sounds (e.g., aircraft, machinery 

operations such as drilling or dredging, 

vibratory pile driving/removal, and 

active sonar systems) can be broadband, 

narrowband, or tonal, brief or prolonged 

(continuous or intermittent), and 

typically do not have the high peak 

sound pressure with rapid rise/decay 

time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI 

1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018). 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile 

driving) are typically transient, brief 

(less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure 

with rapid rise time and rapid decay 

(ANSI 1986; NIOSH 1998; ANSI 2005; 

NMFS 2018). The distinction between 

impulsive and non-impulsive sounds is 

important because they have differing 

potential to cause physical effects, 

particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., 

Ward 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). 

Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto 

a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. 

Sound generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). Vibratory hammers install or 

remove piles by vibrating them, 

allowing the weight of the hammer to 

push the pile into the sediment during 

installation. The vibrations produced 

also cause liquefaction of the substrate 

surrounding the pile, enabling the pile 

to be extracted or driven into the ground 

more easily. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, 

but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than 

SPLs generated during pile driving of 

the same size pile (Oestman et al., 

2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the 

probability and severity of injury, and 

sound energy is distributed over a 

greater amount of time (Nedwell and 

Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005). 

The likely or possible impacts of 

Chevron’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to be acoustic in nature. 

Acoustic stressors involve effects of 

vibratory pile removal. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
24958 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

Acoustic Impacts 

In general, animals exposed to natural 

or anthropogenic sound may experience 

physical and psychological effects, 

ranging in magnitude from none to 

severe (Southall et al., 2007). Exposure 

to pile removal noise has the potential 

to result in auditory threshold shift and 

behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, 

temporary cessation of foraging and 

vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). 

Exposure to anthropogenic noise can 

also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses, such as an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions 

such as communication and predator 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

removal noise on marine mammals are 

dependent upon several factors, 

including but not limited to the species, 

age, and sex class (e.g., adult male vs. 

mom with calf), duration of exposure, 

the distance between the pile and the 

animal, received levels, behavior at time 

of exposure, and previous history with 

exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall 

et al., 2007). Here we discuss the 

physical auditory effects (threshold 

shifts) followed by behavioral effects 

and potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold (TS) as a change, usually an 

increase, in the threshold of audibility 

at a specified frequency or portion of an 

individual’s hearing range above a 

previously established reference level 

(NMFS 2018). The amount of threshold 

shift is customarily expressed in 

decibels (dB). A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

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

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of a TS, time to recover 

(seconds to minutes or hours to days), 

the frequency range of the exposure (i.e., 

spectral content), the hearing and 

vocalization frequency range of the 

exposed species relative to the signal’s 

frequency spectrum (i.e., how an animal 

uses sound within the frequency band 

of the signal; e.g., Kalstein et al., 2014), 

and the overlap between the animal and 

the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and 

spectral). 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see Ward et 

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

1966; Miller 1974; Henderson et al., 

2008). PTS levels for marine mammals 

are estimates, as with the exception of 

a single study unintentionally inducing 

PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 

2008), there are no empirical data 

measuring PTS in marine mammals 

largely due to the fact that, for various 

ethical reasons, experiments involving 

anthropogenic noise exposure at levels 

inducing PTS are not typically pursued 

or authorized (NMFS 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)— 

TTS is a temporary, reversible increase 

in the threshold of audibility at a 

specified frequency or portion of an 

individual’s hearing range above a 

previously established reference level 

(NMFS 2018). Based on data from 

cetacean TTS measurements (see 

Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is 

considered the minimum threshold shift 

clearly larger than any day-to-day or 

session-to-session variation in a 

subject’s normal hearing ability 

(Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 

2000, 2002). As described in Finneran 

(2015), marine mammal studies have 

shown the amount of TTS increases 

with cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze 

finless porpoise (Neophocoena 

asiaeorientalis) and five species of 

pinnipeds exposed to a limited number 

of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and 

octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 

(Finneran 2015). TTS was not observed 

in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and 

ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to 

impulsive noise at levels matching 

previous predictions of TTS onset 

(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, 

harbor seals and harbor porpoises have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran 

2015). Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

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

summaries of data on TTS in marine 

mammals or for further discussion of 

TTS onset thresholds, please see 

Southall et al., (2007), Finneran and 

Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and 

Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Extracting 

piles for this project requires vibratory 

pile removal, yet removal of only one 

pile type would occur at a time. There 

would also be pauses in pile removal 

activities; given these pauses and that 

any marine mammals in the ensonified 

area would likely move through the area 

and not remain for extended periods of 

time, the potential for TS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile removal also has the 

potential to behaviorally disturb marine 

mammals. Available studies show wide 

variation in response to underwater 

sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Forney et al., 

2017; Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 

2007). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24959 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

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

depending on characteristics associated 

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

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from source). Please 

see Appendices B–C of Southall et al. 

(2007) for a review of studies involving 

marine mammal behavioral responses to 

sound. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 

Moberg 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

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

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

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

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

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

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

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

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002a) and, 

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

(e.g., Romano et al., 2002b). For 

example, Rolland et al., (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC 2003), 

however distress is an unlikely result of 

this project based on observations of 

marine mammals during previous, 

similar projects in the area. 

Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior 

through masking, or interfering with, an 

animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

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

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

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

direction), in relation to each other and 

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

sensitivity, frequency range, critical 

ratios, frequency discrimination, 

directional discrimination, age or TTS 

hearing loss), and existing ambient 

noise and propagation conditions. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

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

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. 

Habituation—Habituation can occur 

when an animal’s response to a stimulus 

wanes with repeated exposure, usually 

in the absence of unpleasant associated 

events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals 

are most likely to habituate to sounds 

that are predictable and unvarying. The 

opposite process is sensitization, when 

an unpleasant experience leads to 

subsequent responses, often in the form 

of avoidance, at a lower level of 

exposure. Behavioral state may affect 

the type of response. For example, 

animals that are resting may show 

greater behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; NRC 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
24960 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud-impulsive 

sound sources (typically seismic airguns 

or acoustic harassment devices) have 

been varied but often consist of 

avoidance behavior or other behavioral 

changes suggesting discomfort (Morton 

and Symonds 2002; see also Richardson 

et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects from the 

Proposed Activities—Pinnipeds that 

occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with pile removal that have the 

potential to cause behavioral 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from construction activities. Cetaceans 

are not expected to be exposed to 

airborne sounds that would result in 

harassment as defined under the 

MMPA. 

Airborne noise will primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels elevated 

above the acoustic criteria. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with heads above water. 

Most likely, airborne sound would 

cause behavioral responses similar to 

those discussed above in relation to 

underwater sound. However, these 

animals would previously have been 

‘‘taken’’ as a result of exposure to 

underwater sound above the behavioral 

harassment thresholds, which are in all 

cases larger than those associated with 

airborne sound. Multiple instances of 

exposure to sound above NMFS’ 

thresholds for behavioral harassment are 

not believed to result in increased 

behavioral disturbance, in either nature 

or intensity of disturbance reaction. As 

the behavioral harassment of these 

animals is already accounted for in 

these estimates of potential take, effects 

of airborne noise will not be considered 

further. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

Chevron’s construction activities 

could have localized temporary impacts 

on marine mammal prey and foraging 

habitat by increasing in-water sound 

pressure levels and slightly decreasing 

water quality. However, construction 

activities are of relatively short duration 

and the removal of the creosote treated 

piles of the Wharf will have a long-term 

beneficial effect on marine mammal 

habitat. 

Effects on Potential Prey—Sound may 

affect marine mammals through impacts 

on the abundance, behavior, or 

distribution of prey species (e.g., fish). 

Marine mammal prey varies by species, 

season, and location. Here, we describe 

studies regarding the effects of noise on 

known marine mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

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

Zelick et al., 1999; Fay 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

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

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. The reaction 

of fish to noise depends on the 

physiological state of the fish, past 

exposures, motivation (e.g., feeding, 

spawning, migration), and other 

environmental factors. Hastings and 

Popper (2005) identified several studies 

that suggest fish may relocate to avoid 

certain areas of sound energy. However, 

some studies have shown no or slight 

reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et 

al., 2013; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 

2009; Cott et al., 2012). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al., (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile removal activities at the project area 

would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of an area after pile 

removal stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

In addition, the affected area represents 

an extremely small portion of the total 

foraging area available to marine 

mammals within San Francisco Bay. 

Effects on Potential Foraging 

Habitat—A temporary, small-scale loss 

of foraging habitat may occur for marine 

mammals if marine mammals avoid the 

area during Wharf demolition. Pile 

removal may temporarily impact 

foraging habitat by increasing turbidity 

resulting from suspended sediments. 

Impacts to benthic invertebrate species 

would be primarily associated with 

disturbance of sediments that may cover 

or displace some invertebrates. The 

impacts will be highly localized, and no 

habitat will be permanently displaced 

by construction activities. As previously 

noted, the affected area represents a 

small portion of the total area within 

foraging range of marine mammals that 

may be present. Therefore, it is expected 

that impacts on foraging opportunities 

for marine mammals due to the removal 

of the Point Orient Wharf would be 

minimal. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through these IHAs, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as noise 

generated from in-water pile removal 

(vibratory) has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24961 

(Level A harassment) to result, primarily 

for high- and low-frequency species and 

phocids because predicted auditory 

injury zones are larger than for midfrequency species. However, auditory 

injury is unlikely to occur due to the 

proposed shutdown zones (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). Additionally, the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to minimize the 

severity of the taking to the extent 

practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these basic factors 

can contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of takes, 

additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Thresholds have also been developed 

identifying the received level of in-air 

sound above which exposed pinnipeds 

would likely be behaviorally harassed. 

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 

micropascal (mPa) root mean square 

(rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

Chevron’s Point Orient Wharf 

Removal includes the use of continuous 

non-impulsive (vibratory pile removal) 

sources, and therefore the 120 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) is applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Chevron’s Point Orient 

Wharf Removal includes the use of nonimpulsive vibratory pile removal. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lp,0-pk,flat: 219 dB; LE,p,LF,24h: 1183 dB ................ Cell 2: LE,p,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lp,0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,p,MF,24h: 1185 dB ............... Cell 4: LE,p,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lp,0-pk,flat: 202 dB; LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB ................. Cell 6: LE,p,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lp,0-pk.flat: 218 dB; LE,p,PW,24h: 1185 dB .............. Cell 8: LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lp,0-pk,flat: 232 dB; LE,p,OW,24h: 203 dB ................ Cell 10: LE,p,OW,24h: 219 

dB. 

* Dual metric 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 are recommended 

for consideration. 

Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to be more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized 

hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). 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 weighted 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 

thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

Pile extraction using a vibratory 

hammer will generate underwater noise 

that potentially could result in 

disturbance to marine mammals near 

the project area. A review of underwater 

sound measurements for similar projects 

was conducted to estimate the nearsource sound levels for vibratory pile 

extraction for each pile type. Vibratory 

pile extraction (and if not available, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
24962 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

vibratory driving) sound from similar 

type and sized piles have been 

measured from other projects and can be 

used to estimate the noise levels that 

this project would generate. This 

analysis uses the practical spreading 

loss model, a standard assumption 

regarding sound propagation for similar 

environments, to estimate transmission 

of sound through water. For this 

analysis, the transmission loss factor of 

15 (4.5 dB per doubling of distance) is 

used. A weighting adjustment factor of 

2.5, a standard default value for 

vibratory pile driving and removal, was 

used to calculate Level A harassment 

areas. 

Pile extraction will include the 

removal of existing 12-inch timber piles 

during Year 1 and Year 2, and the 

removal of various sizes of steel piles 

during Year 2. Approximately 543 

timber piles would be removed in Year 

1 and 376 timber piles in Year 2. Of the 

timber piles in Year 1, 133 piles are 

encased in concrete, however, since the 

concrete wrapping is only present on 

the upper portion of the pile, these piles 

are expected to behave as the 

unwrapped timber piles in regards to 

generation of underwater noise. 

Although some piles may be extracted 

with direct pulling, this analysis 

assumes that a vibratory pile driver will 

be used to remove all piles. Up to 18 of 

the unwrapped piles or 11 of the 

wrapped piles could be extracted in one 

work day, but on most days a comingling of the two types would likely 

be removed. Vibratory extraction time 

needed for each pile could require 

approximately 6 minutes for each of the 

unwrapped piles and 9 minutes for each 

of the concrete wrapped piles (Table 1). 

An estimated 35 work days will be 

spent in Year 1 removing timber piles 

and approximately 27 work days will be 

spent removing timber piles in Year 2 

(Table 1). The most applicable noise 

values for timber pile removal from 

which to base estimates for the 

proposed project are the values used for 

the Pier 62/63 pile removal in Seattle, 

Washington (City of Seattle 2017). 

During vibratory pile extraction 

associated with this project, the RMS 

was estimated to be approximately 152 

dB at a distance of 10 meters (City of 

Seattle, 2017) (Table 5). 

In Year 2, 34 36-inch steel piles will 

be extracted. Each 36-inch steel pipe 

pile may require approximately 45 

minutes of vibratory extraction for 

removal. Up to two of these piles could 

be removed in a single work day (Table 

1). Chevron is planning a total of 18 

work days to remove the 36-inch steel 

piles (Table 1). Installation of this pile 

type was hydro-acoustically monitored 

during the CLWMEP in 2019 (AECOM 

2020). As pile installation typically 

produces more sound than vibratory 

removal, the sound levels during 

vibratory extraction in this project are 

expected to be equal to or less than the 

maximum sound levels recorded during 

that installation. The maximum 

measured peak sound value was 196 dB 

measured at 10 meters, and the highest 

median RMS value recorded was 167 dB 

measured at 15 meters (AECOM 2020) 

(Table 5). 

Approximately 40 30-inch steel piles 

would also be removed in Year 2. Each 

30-inch steel pipe pile may require 

approximately 32 minutes of vibratory 

extraction for removal. Up to three of 

these piles could be removed in a single 

work day (Table 1). Chevron has 

planned approximately 10 work days to 

remove the 30-inch steel piles (Table 1). 

Installation of this pile type was hydroacoustically monitored at the WETA 

Downtown Ferry Terminal in San 

Francisco, CA (Caltrans 2020). The 

sound levels during vibratory extraction 

are expected to be equal to or less than 

the maximum sound levels recorded 

during that installation. The maximum 

measured peak sound value was 183 dB 

measured at 7 meters, and the highest 

median rms value recorded was 156 dB 

measured at 7 meters (Caltrans 2020) 

(Table 5). 

In Year 2, approximately 16 24-inch 

steel piles would be removed. Each 24- 

inch steel pile may require up to 26 

minutes of vibration to remove (Table 

1). Chevron has planned approximately 

6 work days to remove the 24-inch steel 

piles (Table 1). Installation of this pile 

type was hydro-acoustically monitored 

at the WETA Downtown Ferry Terminal 

in San Francisco, CA (Caltrans 2020). 

The sound levels during vibratory 

extraction are expected to be equal to or 

less than the maximum sound levels 

recorded during that installation. For 

the 24-inch piles, the maximum 

measured peak sound value was 178 dB 

measured at 15 meters, and the highest 

median RMS value recorded was 157 dB 

measured at 15 meters (Caltrans 2020) 

(Table 5). 

TABLE 5—SOURCE LEVELS FOR VIBRATORY REMOVAL OF PILES FOR YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2 

Pile type Diameter 

(in) 

Source levels/source distance 

(m) 

Peak RMS 

Year 1 

Timber .......................................................................................................................................... 12 NA 152/10 

Year 2 

Timber .......................................................................................................................................... 12 NA 152/10 

Steel ............................................................................................................................................. 36 196/10 167/15 

Steel ............................................................................................................................................. 30 183/7 156/7 

Steel ............................................................................................................................................. 24 178/15 157/15 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. For stationary 

sources (such as vibratory pile removal), 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24963 

the optional User Spreadsheet tool 

predicts the distance at which, if a 

marine mammal remained at that 

distance for the duration of the activity, 

it would be expected to incur PTS. 

Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet are 

reported in Table 1 and source levels 

used in the spreadsheet are reported in 

Table 5. The resulting Level A and Level 

B harassment isopleths as well as area 

encompassed by the Level B harassment 

isopleths are reported below in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS BY PILE TYPE

Pile type 

Hearing group 

Level B 

isopleths 

(m) 

Level B 

isopleth 

area 

(km2) 

Level A isopleths 

(m) 

LF 

cetaceans 

MF 

cetaceans 

HF 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Timber .................................................................... 3 1 4 2 1 1,359 3.81 

36′′ steel ................................................................. 34 3 50 21 2 20,390 26.93 

30′′ steel ................................................................. 3 1 5 2 1 1,758 0.93 

24′′ steel ................................................................. 8 1 12 5 1 4,393 5.14 

The maximum distance to the Level A 

harassment threshold during 

construction would be during the 

vibratory removal of the 36 inch steel 

piles during Year 2 (34 m for gray 

whales, 3 m for bottlenose dolphins, 50 

m for harbor porpoises, 21 m for harbor 

seals, and 2 m for sea lions). The largest 

Level B harassment zone extends out to 

20,390 m for extraction of the 36 inch 

steel piles. Area was calculated for each 

Level B harassment isopleth through a 

GIS exercise and incorporated into take 

calculations for California sea lions and 

harbor porpoises (see below). 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation and Calculation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

We will also describe how this 

information is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate for 

each species. 

Harbor Seals 

Limited at-sea densities are available 

for Pacific harbor seals in San Francisco 

Bay. To estimate the number of harbor 

seals potentially exposed to Level B 

harassment, take estimates were 

developed based upon annual surveys 

of haul outs in San Francisco Bay 

conducted by the National Park Service 

(NPS) (Codde and Allen 2013, 2015, 

2017, 2020; Codde 2020). Harbor seals 

spend more time hauled out and enter 

the water later in the evening during 

molting season (NPS 2014). The molting 

season occurs from June–July and 

overlaps with the construction period of 

June–November, therefore, haul out 

counts may provide accurate estimates 

of harbor seals in the area during that 

time. Due to the close proximity of 

Castro Rocks to the project area, haul 

out occupancy of Castro Rocks was 

selected to determine take estimates. 

Calculations of take estimates were 

based upon the highest mean value of 

harbor seals observed at Castro Rocks 

during the molting season in any recent 

NPS annual survey. The highest mean 

number of harbor seals was recorded in 

2019 as 237 seals (Table 7). 

Based upon radio and telemetry data 

in San Francisco Bay, it is expected that 

harbor seals concentrate within 10 m of 

Castro Rocks in all directions while 

foraging (Grigg et al., 2012). Due to the 

close proximity of the project area to 

Castro Rocks, it is expected that all seals 

assumed to be present (237) on a given 

day would enter the Level B harassment 

zone during steel pile extraction and 

half of the seals (119) would enter the 

Level B harassment zone during timber 

pile extraction. Chevron is requesting 

authorization of a total of 4,165 takes of 

harbor seals by Level B harassment 

across the 35 planned work days in Year 

1 (Table 8). In Year 2, Chevron is 

requesting authorization of a total of 

11,271 takes of harbor seals by Level B 

harassment across the 61 planned work 

days (Table 9). 

Chevron plans to implement 

shutdown zones based upon the 

distances to the Level A threshold for 

each hearing group (Table 6). Therefore, 

takes of harbor seals by Level A 

harassment were not requested, nor are 

takes by Level A harassment proposed 

for authorization by NMFS. 

California Sea Lions 

Although there are no haul out sites 

for California sea lions in close 

proximity to the Wharf, sea lions have 

consistently been sighted in San 

Francisco Bay while monitoring during 

past construction projects (AECOM 

2019, 2020; Caltrans 2017). During a 

long-term monitoring effort for the 

demolition and reuse of the original east 

span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay 

Bridge in the central Bay, 83 California 

sea lions were observed in the vicinity 

of the bridge over a 17-year period (2000 

to 2017) (Caltrans 2017). In order to 

calculate the estimated at-sea density of 

sea lions, the number of sea lions 

observed over the 17 year period (83 

animals) was divided by the number of 

monitoring days (257 days) to find the 

number of sea lions observed per day. 

The total number of sea lions observed 

per day was then divided by the area of 

the monitoring zone (2 km2) to derive an 

estimated at-sea density of 0.16 animals 

per square kilometer (Caltrans 2017) 

(Table 7). In order to calculate a daily 

take estimate for the current Wharf 

removal project, sea lion density was 

multiplied by the area of the Level B 

harassment zone for each pile type 

(Tables 6). The daily take estimate was 

then multiplied by the number of work 

days for that pile type to receive a total 

take estimate per year (Tables 1, 8, 9). 

Chevron is requesting authorization of a 

total of 22 takes of California sea lions 

by Level B harassment in Year 1, and a 

total of 542 takes of California sea lions 

by Level B harassment in Year 2 (Tables 

8, 9). 

Level A harassment takes of California 

sea lions were not requested by 

Chevron, nor with they be authorized by 

NMFS. As Chevron plans to implement 

a shutdown zone for all Level A 

harassment isopleths for each hearing 

group, Level A harassment takes are not 

expected. 

Harbor Porpoise 

The harbor porpoise population has 

been growing over time in San 

Francisco Bay (Stern et al., 2017). 

Although commonly sighted in the 

vicinity of Angel Island and the Golden 

Gate, approximately 6 and 12 kilometers 

(3.7 and 7.5 miles, respectively) 

southwest of the Wharf, individuals 

may use other areas of central San 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
24964 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

Francisco Bay (Keener 2011), as well as 

the project area. 

As in the case of California sea lions, 

density estimates temporally and 

spatially aligned with the project work 

period were available for harbor 

porpoises based upon long term 

monitoring for the demolition and reuse 

of the original east span of the San 

Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the 

central Bay (Caltrans 2017). During the 

257 days of monitoring from 2000–2017, 

approximately 24 harbor porpoises were 

observed in the bridge vicinity. The 

total number of harbor porpoises 

observed per day was calculated by 

dividing the total number of harbor 

porpoises observed by the number of 

monitoring days. This estimate per day 

was then divided by the area of the 

monitoring zone for harbor porpoises 

(15 km2) to calculate an at-sea density 

of harbor porpoises (0.17 harbor 

porpoises/square kilometer). In order to 

calculate a daily take estimate for the 

current Wharf removal project, the 

density of harbor porpoises (0.17) was 

multiplied by the area of the Level B 

harassment zone for each pile type 

(Table 6). To calculate a total take 

estimate of harbor porpoises per year, 

the daily estimate was multiplied by the 

number of anticipated work days for 

each pile type (Tables 1, 8, 9). Chevron 

is requesting authorization of a total of 

23 takes of harbor porpoises by Level B 

harassment in Year 1 (Table 8), and a 

total of 576 takes of harbor porpoises by 

Level B harassment in Year 2 (Table 9). 

Takes of harbor porpoises by Level A 

harassment are not expected as Chevron 

plans to shut down construction 

activities within the Level A harassment 

zones for all pile types and hearing 

groups. NMFS does not propose to 

authorize Level A harassment takes of 

harbor porpoises, nor have Level A 

harassment takes been requested. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Bottlenose dolphins in San Francisco 

Bay are typically observed west of 

Treasure Island, near the Golden Gate at 

the mouth of the Bay, and along the 

nearshore areas of San Francisco south 

to Redwood City (Bay Nature Institute 

2014; NMFS 2017). The numbers of 

dolphins in San Francisco Bay have 

been increasing over the years (Perlman 

2017; Szczepaniak et al., 2013). 

Although dolphins may occur in the 

Bay year-round, density estimates are 

limited. Beginning in 2015, two 

individuals have been observed 

frequently in the vicinity of Alameda 

(APER 2019; Perlman 2017). The 

average reported group size for 

bottlenose dolphins in this area is five. 

Assuming a group of five dolphins 

comes into San Francisco Bay on two 

week intervals and vibratory pile 

extraction occurs over 6 two-week 

periods, 30 bottlenose dolphin takes 

would be expected if the group enters 

the area over which the Level B 

harassment thresholds may be exceeded 

(Tables 8, 9). Chevron is requesting 

authorization of 30 takes of bottlenose 

dolphins by Level B harassment per 

year (Tables 8, 9). 

Takes of bottlenose dolphins by Level 

A harassment are not anticipated as 

Chevron plans to implement a 

shutdown zone for all Level A 

harassment isopleths. Takes of 

bottlenose dolphins by Level A 

harassment were not requested by 

Chevron nor will they be authorized by 

NMFS. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales are most often sighted in 

San Francisco Bay during February and 

March, however, Wharf removal is not 

planned to occur during this time. Prior 

monitoring reports for similar projects 

occurring during the same work 

windows did not document gray whales 

in the area (AECOM 2019, 2020). 

Limited sightings of gray whales in the 

Bay include strandings, (Bartlett 2022; 

TMMC 2019), monitoring during work 

on the RSRB (Winning 2008), and whale 

watch reports (Bartlett 2022). At-sea 

densities and regular observational data 

for gray whales in San Francisco Bay 

during the planned project time are not 

available. Therefore, take estimates are 

based upon the potential for one pair of 

gray whales to be present in the project 

area each year. In the event that gray 

whales are in the project area during the 

time of construction activities, Chevron 

is requesting authorization for two gray 

whale takes by Level B harassment per 

year (Tables 8, 9). 

Takes of gray whales by Level A 

harassment are not anticipated as 

Chevron plans to shut down 

construction activities within the Level 

A harassment zones for all pile types 

and hearing groups. NMFS does not 

plan to authorize any takes by Level A 

harassment of gray whales, nor have any 

takes by Level A harassment been 

requested. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Small numbers of elephant seals may 

haul out or strand within central San 

Francisco Bay (Caltrans 2015; 

Herna ́ndez 2020). Previous monitoring, 

however, has shown northern elephant 

seal densities to be very low in the area 

and out of season for the proposed 

Wharf removal project. Additionally, 

northern elephant seals were not 

observed during pile driving monitoring 

for the CLWMEP from 2018–2020, 

which was located just south of the 

proposed project area. However, as 

northern elephant seals have been 

sighted in the Bay, and on assumption 

that an elephant seal enters the Level B 

harassment zone once every three days 

during pile extraction, Chevron is 

requesting authorization of a total of 12 

takes of elephant seals by Level B 

harassment during Year 1 and 21 takes 

of elephant seals by Level B harassment 

during Year 2 (Tables 8, 9). 

Takes of elephant seals by Level A 

harassment are not anticipated as 

Chevron plans to implement a 

shutdown zone for all Level A 

harassment isopleths. Takes of elephant 

seals by Level A harassment were not 

requested by Chevron nor will they be 

authorized by NMFS. 

Northern Fur Seal 

The presence of northern fur seals in 

San Francisco Bay depends upon 

oceanic conditions, as more fur seals are 

likely to strand during El Nin ̃ o events 

(TMMC 2016). Equatorial sea surface 

temperatures of the Pacific Ocean have 

been below average across most of the 

Pacific, and La Nin ̃ a conditions are 

likely to remain for most of spring 2022. 

During summer 2022, La Nin ̃ a 

conditions are expected to remain or 

transition into neutral El Nin ̃ o 

conditions (NOAA 2022). Since there 

are no estimated at-sea densities for this 

species in San Francisco Bay, Chevron 

conservatively requested authorization 

for, and NMFS proposes to authorize, 10 

takes of fur seals per year by Level B 

harassment (Tables 8, 9). 

Takes of northern fur seals by Level 

A harassment are not anticipated as 

Chevron plans to shut down 

construction activities within the Level 

A harassment zones for all pile types 

and hearing groups. NMFS does not 

plan to authorize takes of northern fur 

seals by Level A harassment, nor have 

takes by Level A harassment been 

requested. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24965 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES AND OCCURRENCES

Species Stock Estimated density/occurrence References 

Harbor Seals ............................ California ................................ 237 per day in June–July (molt season) ........ (Codde and Allen 2013, 2015, 

2017, 2020; Codde 2020). 

California Sea Lions ................. U.S. ......................................... 0.16 animals/km2 ............................................ (Caltrans 2017). 

Harbor Porpoise ....................... SF-Russian River ................... 0.17 animals/km2 ............................................ (Caltrans 2017). 

Bottlenose Dolphin ................... CA Coastal ............................. Average group size of 5 present in the Bay in 

two week intervals.

(APER 2019; Perlman 2017). 

Gray Whale .............................. Eastern N Pacific .................... Rare; 2 whales per year ................................. (TMMC 2019; Winning 2008). 

Northern Elephant Seal ............ CA Breeding ........................... Rare; once every 3 days ................................ (Caltrans 2015; Herna ́ndez 

2020). 

Northern Fur Seal .................... California ................................ Rare; 10 seals per year .................................. (TMMC 2016). 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF MARINE MAMMAL LEVEL B TAKES BY SPECIES AND STOCK, AND PERCENT

OF TAKES BY STOCK YEAR 1 

Species Stock Pile type/size Requested 

total take 

Percent 

of stock 

Harbor Seals ................................................. California * ..................................................... timber 12′′ ......... * 4,165 * 13.4 

California Sea Lions ...................................... U.S ................................................................ timber 12′′ ......... 22 <0.01 

Harbor Porpoise ............................................ San Francisco-Russian River ....................... timber 12′′ ......... 23 0.3 

Bottlenose Dolphin ........................................ CA Coastal .................................................... timber 12′′ ......... 30 6.6 

Gray Whale ................................................... Eastern North Pacific .................................... timber 12′′ ......... 2 <0.01 

Northern Elephant Seal ................................. California Breeding ....................................... timber 12′′ ......... 12 <0.01 

Northern Fur Seal .......................................... California ....................................................... timber 12′′ ......... 10 0.07 

* Assumes multiple repeated takes of the same individuals from a small portion of the stock. Please see the small numbers section for additional information. 

Abundance estimates are taken from the 2020 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Carretta et al., 2021). 

TABLE 9—PROPOSED AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF MARINE MAMMAL LEVEL B TAKES BY SPECIES AND STOCK, AND PERCENT

OF TAKES BY STOCK YEAR 2 

Species Stock Pile type/size Requested 

total take 

Percent 

of stock 

Harbor Seals ................................................. California * ..................................................... timber 12′′ ......... 3,213 ........................

steel 36′′ ........... 4,266 ........................

steel 30′′ ........... 2,370 ........................

steel 24′′ ........... 1,422 ........................

Total ....................................................... ....................................................................... ........................... * 11,271 * 36.4 

California Sea Lions ...................................... U.S ................................................................ timber 12′′ ......... 17 ........................

steel 36′′ ........... 485 ........................

steel 30′′ ........... 9 ........................

steel 24′′ ........... 31 ........................

Total ....................................................... ....................................................................... ........................... 542 1.3 

Harbor Porpoise ............................................ San Francisco-Russian River ....................... timber 12′′ ......... 18 ........................

steel 36′′ ........... 515 ........................

steel 30′′ ........... 10 ........................

steel 24′′ ........... 33 ........................

Total ....................................................... ....................................................................... ........................... 576 7.4 

Bottlenose Dolphin ........................................ California Coastal ......................................... ........................... 30 6.6 

Gray Whale ................................................... Eastern North Pacific .................................... ........................... 2 <0.01 

Northern Elephant Seal ................................. California Breeding ....................................... ........................... 21 0.01 

Northern Fur Seal .......................................... California ....................................................... ........................... 10 0.07 

* Assumes multiple repeated takes of the same individuals from a small portion of the stock. Please see the small numbers section for additional information. 

Abundance estimates are taken from the 2020 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Carretta et al., 2021). 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 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)). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
24966 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

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. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

The following mitigation measures are 

proposed for Chevron’s removal of the 

Point Orient Wharf: 

• Time restriction: For all in-water 

pile removal activities, Chevron shall 

operate only when the shutdown zone 

is visible and visual monitoring of 

marine mammals can be conducted; 

• Establishment of shutdown zones: 

As proposed by Chevron, shutdown 

zones will be established for each pile 

type to include the Level A harassment 

zone for each hearing group. The Level 

A harassment zone encompasses all of 

the area where underwater sound 

pressure levels are expected to reach or 

exceed the cumulative SEL thresholds 

for Level A harassment (Table 6), and 

will be no less than 10 m. The radii of 

the shutdown zones are rounded to the 

next largest 5 m interval if the value is 

greater than 10 m; and 

• PSOs: Trained PSOs will conduct 

visual monitoring from clear, elevated 

vantage points, along the shoreline or 

construction barges, where the entirety 

of the shutdown zones can be observed. 

PSOs will monitor the shutdown zones 

for 30 minutes prior to any pile 

extraction activity to be sure marine 

mammals are not in the zones. Pile 

extraction will not commence until 

marine mammals have not been sighted 

within the shutdown zone for 30 

minutes. If a marine mammal is 

observed entering a shutdown zone 

during pile extraction, construction 

activities will stop until the marine 

mammal leaves the zone, and will not 

resume until no marine mammals are 

observed in the shutdown zone for 30 

minutes. If a marine mammal is seen 

above water and dives below, a 15 

minute wait period will begin. If the 

marine mammal is not redetected in that 

time, it will be assumed that the marine 

mammal has moved beyond the 

shutdown zone, and construction 

activities will continue. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

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. 

Chevron will monitor to collect 

sighting data and record behavioral 

responses to construction activities for 

all marine mammal species observed in 

the project location during the period of 

activity. The monitoring zone will 

include all shutdown zones and areas 

where underwater sound pressure levels 

are expected to reach or exceed the 

thresholds for Level B harassment. 

Monitoring will be conducted by 

qualified protected species observers 

(PSOs), trained biologists familiar with 

marine mammal species and their 

behavior. 

Chevron will monitor the shutdown 

zones and monitoring zones before, 

during, and after pile removal activities 

with at least two PSOs located at the 

best practicable vantage points. Based 

upon our requirements, the Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plan would 

implement the following procedures for 

pile removal: 

• PSOs must be independent 

observers (i.e., not construction 

personnel). All PSOs must have the 

ability to conduct field observations and 

collect data according to assigned 

protocols, be experienced in field 

identification of marine mammals and 

their behaviors, and submit their 

resumes to NMFS for approval; 

• Biological monitoring will occur 

within one week of the project’s start 

date to establish baseline observation; 

• Observation periods will 

encompass different tide levels at 

different hours of the day; 

• Monitoring will occur from elevated 

locations along the shoreline or on 

barges where the entire shutdown zones 

and monitoring zones are visible. If 

visibility decreases, such as due to fog 

or weather, vibratory pile extraction 

would be stopped until PSOs are able to 

view the entire shutdown zone; 

• PSOs will be equipped with high 

quality binoculars for monitoring and 

radios or cells phones for maintaining 

contact with work crews; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24967 

• PSOs will implement clearing of the 

shutdown and monitoring zones as well 

as shutdown procedures; and 

• At the end of the pile removal day, 

post-construction monitoring will be 

conducted for 30 minutes beyond the 

cessation of pile removal. 

Data Collection 

Chevron will record detailed 

information about implementation of 

shutdowns, counts and behaviors (if 

possible) of all marine mammal species 

observed, times of observations, 

construction activities that occurred, 

any acoustic and visual disturbances, 

and weather conditions. PSOs will use 

approved data forms to record the 

following information: 

• Date and time that permitted 

construction activity begins and ends; 

• Type of pile removal activities that 

take place; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cloud cover, percent glare, visibility, air 

temperature, tide level, Beaufort sea 

state); 

• Species counts, and, if possible, sex 

and age classes of any observed marine 

mammal species; 

• Marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of 

travel; 

• Any observed behavioral reactions 

just prior to, during, or after 

construction activities; 

• Location of marine mammal, 

distance from observer to the marine 

mammal, and distance from pile 

removal activities to marine mammals; 

• Record of whether an observation 

required the implementation of 

mitigation measures, including 

shutdown procedures and the duration 

of each shutdown; and 

• Any acoustic or visual disturbances 

that take place. 

Reporting Measures 

Chevron shall submit a draft report to 

NMFS within 90 days of the completion 

of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 

days prior to the issuance of any 

subsequent IHA for this project (if 

required), whichever comes first. The 

annual report would detail the 

monitoring protocol, summarize the 

data recorded during monitoring, and 

estimate the number of marine 

mammals that may have been harassed. 

If no comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 days, the draft final report 

will become final. If comments are 

received, a final report must be 

submitted up to 30 days after receipt of 

comments. All PSO datasheets and/or 

raw sighting data must be submitted 

with the draft marine mammal report. 

Reports shall contain the following 

information: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring. 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period 

including: (a) How many and what type 

of piles were removed; and (b) the total 

duration of time for removal of each 

pile; 

• PSO locations during monitoring; 

and 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance. 

Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information 

must be reported: 

• Name of PSO who sighted the 

animal(s) and PSO location and activity 

at time of sighting; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Identification of the animal (s) (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; 

• Distance and location of each 

observed marine mammal relative to 

pile removal for each sighting; 

• Estimated number of animals by 

species (min/max/best estimate); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.); 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity (e.g., no response or changes 

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); and 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specified actions that ensured, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such 

as an injury (Level A harassment), 

serious injury or mortality (e.g., shipstrike, gear interaction, and/or 

entanglement), Chevron would 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@

noaa.gov) and the West Coast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator. The report 

would include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved 

(if applicable); 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident (if applicable); 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source used in 

the 24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with Chevron to 

determine necessary actions to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Chevron would not be able 

to resume their activities until notified 

by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that Chevron discovers 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 

as described in the next paragraph), 

Chevron would immediately report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast 

Regional Stranding Coordinator. The 

report would include the same 

information identified in the section 

above. Activities would be able to 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Chevron to determine 

whether modifications in the activities 

are appropriate. 

In the event that Chevron discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the IHA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

Chevron would report the incident to 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, within 24 hours of the 

discovery. Chevron would provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
24968 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

Pile removal activities would be 

permitted to continue. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), 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’ 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 baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the discussion of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in Table 1, given that the 

anticipated effects of this activity on 

these different marine mammal stocks 

are expected to be similar. There is little 

information about the nature or severity 

of the impacts, or the size, status, or 

structure of any of these species or 

stocks that would lead to a different 

analysis for this activity. 

Pile removal activities have the 

potential to disturb or displace marine 

mammals. The proposed project 

activities may result in take in the form 

of Level B harassment from underwater 

sounds generated by vibratory pile 

removal. Potential takes could occur if 

individuals move into in the ensonified 

area when construction activities are 

underway. 

The takes from Level B harassment 

would be due to potential behavioral 

disturbance. No serious injury or 

mortality is anticipated for any stocks 

presented in this analysis given the 

nature of the activity and mitigation 

measures designed to minimize the 

possibility of injury. The potential for 

harassment is minimized through 

construction method and the 

implementation of planned mitigation 

strategies (see Proposed Mitigation 

section). 

No marine mammal stocks for which 

incidental take authorization is 

proposed are listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA or 

determined to be strategic or depleted 

under the MMPA. The relatively low 

marine mammal density, small 

shutdown zones, and proposed 

monitoring also make injury takes of 

marine mammals unlikely. The 

shutdown zones would be thoroughly 

monitored before the proposed vibratory 

pile removal begins and construction 

activities would be postponed if a 

marine mammal is sighted within the 

shutdown zone. There is a high 

likelihood that marine mammals would 

be detected by trained observers under 

environmental conditions described for 

the proposed project. Limiting 

construction activities to daylight hours 

will also increase detectability of marine 

mammal in the area. Therefore, the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to eliminate the 

potential for injury and Level A 

harassment as well as reduce the 

amount and intensity for Level B 

behavioral harassment. Furthermore, the 

pile removal activities analyzed here are 

similar to, or less impactful than, 

numerous construction activities 

conducted in other similar locations 

which have occurred with no reported 

injuries or mortality to marine 

mammals, and no known long-term 

adverse consequences from behavioral 

harassment. 

Anticipated and authorized takes are 

expected to be limited to short-term 

Level B harassment (behavioral 

disturbance) as construction activities 

will occur over the course of 12 weeks 

and removal of each pile lasts only 

approximately 6–45 minutes. Effects on 

individuals taken by Level B 

harassment, based upon reports in the 

literature as well as monitoring from 

other similar activities, may include 

increased swimming speeds, increased 

surfacing time, or decreased foraging 

(e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006). 

Individual animals, even if taken 

multiple times, will likely move away 

from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the area due 

to elevated noise level during pile 

removal. Marine mammals could also 

experience TTS if they move into the 

Level B monitoring zone. TTS is a 

temporary loss of hearing sensitivity 

when exposed to loud sound, and the 

hearing threshold is expected to recover 

completely within minutes to hours. 

Thus, it is not considered an injury. 

While TTS could occur, it is not 

considered a likely outcome of this 

activity. Repeated exposures of 

individuals to levels of sounds that 

could cause Level B harassment are 

unlikely to considerably significantly 

disrupt foraging behavior or result in 

significant decrease in fitness, 

reproduction, or survival for the affected 

individuals. In all, there would be no 

adverse impacts to the stock as a whole. 

As previously described, a UME has 

been declared for Eastern Pacific gray 

whales. However, we do not expected 

proposed takes for authorization in this 

action to exacerbate the ongoing UME. 

As mentioned previously, no injury or 

mortality is proposed for authorization, 

and Level B harassment takes of gray 

whales will be reduced to the level of 

least practicable adverse impact through 

incorporation of the proposed 

mitigation measures. Given that only 2 

takes by Level B harassment are 

proposed for this stock annually, we do 

not expect the proposed take 

authorization to compound the ongoing 

UME. 

The proposed project is not expected 

to have significant adverse effects on 

marine mammal habitat. There are no 

Biologically Important Areas or ESAdesignated habitat within the project 

area. While EFH for several fish species 

does exist in the proposed project area, 

the proposed activities would not 

permanently modify existing marine 

mammal habitat. The activities may 

cause fish to leave the area temporarily. 

This could impact marine mammals’ 

foraging opportunities in a limited 

portion of the foraging range, however, 

due to the short duration of activities 

and the relatively small area of affected 

habitat, the impacts to marine mammal 

habitat are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• No Level A harassment, including 

injury or serious injury, is anticipated or 

authorized; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 24969 

• Anticipated impacts of Level B 

harassment include temporary behavior 

modifications; 

• Short duration and intermittent 

nature of in-water construction 

activities; 

• The specified activity and 

associated ensonified areas are very 

small relative to the overall habitat 

ranges of all species and do not include 

habitat areas of special significance 

(Biologically Important Areas or ESAdesignated critical habitat); 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term effects to marine mammal 

habitat; 

• The presumed efficacy of the 

mitigation measures in reducing the 

effects of the specified activity; 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in San Francisco Bay have 

documented little to no effect on 

individuals of the same species 

impacted by the specified activities. 

These factors, in addition to the 

available body of evidence from prior 

similar activities, demonstrate that the 

potential effects of the specified activity 

will have only short-term effects on 

individuals. The specified activity is not 

expected to impact rates of recruitment 

or survival, and will therefore not result 

in population-level impacts. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds, 

specific to both the Year 1 and Year 2 

proposed IHAs, that the total marine 

mammal take from the proposed activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under 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 in Year 1 is below one-third 

of the estimated stock abundance for all 

impacted stocks (Table 8). The number 

of animals authorized to be taken during 

Year 1 would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks or 

populations, even if each estimated take 

occurred to a new individual. 

Furthermore, these takes are likely to 

only occur within a small portion of the 

overall regional stock and the likelihood 

that each take would occur to a new 

individual is low. 

The amount of take NMFS proposes to 

authorize in Year 2 is below one-third 

of the estimated stock abundance for 

California sea lions, harbor porpoises, 

bottlenose dolphins, gray whales, 

northern elephant seals, and northern 

fur seals (Table 9). The take percentage 

of the estimated stock of harbor seals is 

approximately 36.4 percent, however, 

take estimates are likely conservative as 

they assume all takes are of different 

individuals which is likely not the case. 

Some individuals may return to the area 

multiple times a week, but PSOs would 

count them as separate takes if they are 

not individually identified. Therefore, 

since take estimates likely include 

repeated takes of the same individuals 

over time, take estimates are expected to 

represent a smaller percentage of the 

total stock. Furthermore, the project area 

represents a small portion of the overall 

range of harbor seals and activities are 

will most likely to impact only a small 

portion of the stock. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds, specific to 

both the Year 1 and Year 2 proposed 

IHAs that small numbers of marine 

mammals will be taken relative to the 

population size of the affected species 

or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

two consecutive IHAs to Chevron for 

conducting the Point Orient Wharf 

Removal in San Francisco Bay, CA from 

June 1–November 30, 2022 and June 1– 

November 30, 2023, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. Drafts of the proposed 

IHAs can be found at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorizations, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHAs for the proposed Point Orient 

Wharf Removal. We also request at this 

time comment on the potential renewal 

of this proposed IHAs as described in 

the paragraph below. Please include 

with your comments any supporting 

data or literature citations to help 

inform decisions on the request for 

these IHAs or subsequent Renewal 

IHAs. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice would not be completed by the 

time the IHA expires and a renewal 

would allow for completion of the 

activities beyond that described in the 

Dates and Duration section of this 

notice, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
24970 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

that the Renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond 1 year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: April 21, 2022. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08888 Filed 4–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB979] 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys 

Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the 

Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of revised letter 

of authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended, its implementing 

regulations, and NMFS’ MMPA 

Regulations for Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Geophysical 

Surveys Related to Oil and Gas 

Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, 

notification is hereby given that NMFS 

has issued a revised Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) to Equinor Gulf of 

Mexico LLC (Equinor), in place of 

TotalEnergies E&P USA, Inc. 

(TotalEnergies), for the take of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: The LOA is effective from April 

20, 2022, through April 19, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: The LOA, original LOA 

request, request for transferal, and 

supporting documentation are available 

online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

action/incidental-take-authorization-oiland-gas-industry-geophysical-surveyactivity-gulf-mexico. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce 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 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 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. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, 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). 

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final 

rule with regulations to govern the 

unintentional taking of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activities conducted by oil and 

gas industry operators, and those 

persons authorized to conduct activities 

on their behalf (collectively ‘‘industry 

operators’’), in Federal waters of the 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the 

course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January 

19, 2021). The rule was based on our 

findings that the total taking from the 

specified activities over the 5-year 

period will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stock(s) of marine 

mammals and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of those species or stocks for 

subsistence uses. The rule became 

effective on April 19, 2021. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et 

seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to 

industry operators for the incidental 

take of marine mammals during 

geophysical survey activities and 

prescribe the permissible methods of 

taking and other means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat (often referred to as 

mitigation), as well as requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 

217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be 

based on a determination that the level 

of taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations and a 

determination that the amount of take 

authorized under the LOA is of no more 

than small numbers. 

Summary of Request 

On January 26, 2022, NMFS issued an 

LOA to TotalEnergies (87 FR 4866; 

January 31, 2022) to take marine 

mammals incidental to a 3D ocean 

bottom node (OBN) survey within the 

North Platte field. The survey area is 

located in Garden Banks, Green Canyon, 

Keathley Canyon, and Walker Ridge 

lease areas with approximate water 

depths ranging from 725 to 2,180 meters 

(m). See Figure 1 of TotalEnergies’ LOA 

application for a map of the area. 

Additional description of the planned 

survey, as well as analysis related to the 

issuance of that LOA, is available in 

TotalEnergies’ LOA application and the 

aforementioned Federal Register notice 

of issuance. 

On April 12, 2022, TotalEnergies 

notified NMFS that it had relinquished 

operatorship of the offshore asset, with 

which the subject geophysical survey 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1