28768 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

Dial by your location 

+1 939 945 0244 Puerto Rico 

+1 787 945 1488 Puerto Rico 

+1 787 966 7727 Puerto Rico 

Meeting ID: 862 2265 9918 

Passcode: 623876 

DAP–STX 

Join Zoom Meeting 

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/ 

84523918830?pwd=ZWdleXVrN2Vz

RW5MdVdJOStBZVRNQT09 

Meeting ID: 845 2391 8830 

Passcode: 507957 

One tap mobile 

+17879451488,,84523918830#,,,,

*507957# Puerto Rico 

+17879667727,,84523918830#,,,,

*507957# Puerto Rico 

Dial by your location 

+1 787 945 1488 Puerto Rico 

+1 787 966 7727 Puerto Rico 

+1 939 945 0244 Puerto Rico 

Meeting ID: 845 2391 8830 

Passcode: 507957 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miguel Rolo ́n, Executive Director, 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 

270 Mun ̃ oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1903, 

telephone: (787) 398–3717. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following items included in the 

tentative agenda will be discussed: 

—Call to Order 

—Roll Call 

—Adoption of Agenda 

—5-Year Strategic Plan 

—Other Business 

All three meetings will be discussing 

the same agenda items. 

The order of business may be adjusted 

as necessary to accommodate the 

completion of agenda items. The 

meetings will begin on June 15, 2021 at 

10 a.m. EDT, and will end on June 16, 

2021, at 12 p.m. EDT. Other than the 

start time, interested parties should be 

aware that discussions may start earlier 

or later than indicated, at the discretion 

of the Chair. 

Special Accommodations 

Simultaneous interpretation will be 

provided for the DAP–PR, on June 15, 

2021. 

Se proveera ́ interpretacio ́n en espan ̃ ol. 

Para interpretacio ́n en espan ̃ ol puede 

marcar el siguiente nu ́mero para entrar 

a la reunio ́n: US/Canada ́: llame al +1– 

888–947–3988, cuando el sistema 

conteste, entrar el nu ́mero 1*999996#. 

For English interpretation you may 

dial the following number to enter the 

meeting: US/Canada: call +1–888–947– 

3988, when the system answers enter 

the number 2*999996#. 

For any additional information on this 

public virtual meeting, please contact 

Diana Martino, Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council, 270 Mun ̃oz 

Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, 

Puerto Rico, 00918–1903, telephone: 

(787) 226–8849. 

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

Dated: May 25, 2021. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11326 Filed 5–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB120] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Army Corps of 

Engineers Debris Dock Replacement 

Project, Sausalito, California 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACOE) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to the Debris Dock 

Replacement Project in Sausalito, 

California. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is requesting comments on its proposal 

to issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-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 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 June 28, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

sent to ITP.Meadows@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 received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

https://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: 

Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427– 

8401. Electronic copies of the 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 28769 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On March 17, 2021, NMFS received 

an application from ACOE requesting an 

IHA to take small numbers of seven 

species of marine mammals incidental 

to pile driving associated with the 

Debris Dock Replacement Project. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on May 20, 2021. The ACOE’s 

request is for take of a small number of 

these species by Level A or Level B 

harassment. Neither the ACOE nor 

NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The purpose of the project is to 

replace the existing decaying dock and 

other onshore infrastructure used to 

move marine debris collected from San 

Francisco Bay onto land for disposal. 

The existing dock will be removed and 

replaced. The work will involve impact 

hammering 31 24-inch diameter 

concrete deck support piles and 17 14- 

inch diameter timber fender piles for the 

replacement dock and removal of the 

decayed dock by cutting or otherwise 

removing 31 18-inch diameter concrete 

deck support piles and 17 14-inch 

diameter timber fender piles. This 

construction work will occur from 

September 1, 2021 through August 31, 

2022 and will take no more than 26 days 

of in-water pile work. 

The pile driving/removal can result in 

take of marine mammals from sound in 

the water which results in behavioral 

harassment or auditory injury. 

Dates and Duration 

The work described here is scheduled 

for September 1, 2021 through August 

31, 2022. In-water activities are planned 

for daylight hours only. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The activities would occur in 

Richardson’s Bay in north San Francisco 

Bay (Figure 1). The debris dock is 

situated adjacent to the ACOE Bay 

Model Facility in their San Francisco 

District Base Yard. The debris dock is 

neighbored by docks for long term 

mooring of private vessels to the north, 

and to the south there is a dock used for 

mooring of ACOE vessels and public use 

for storing kayaks. Nearby docks within 

approximately 0.15 miles (mi) (241 

meters (m)) may serve as potential 

haulout locations for pinnipeds. Due to 

sinuosity of the shoreline, the haulout 

locations are not within line of site of 

the project. Pacific herring spawning 

events are known to take place within 

Richardson’s Bay, which usually begin 

in late February. Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) listed Central California Coast 

Steelhead smolts are known to traverse 

Richardson’s Bay in late February 

through April. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

28770 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The purpose of the project is to 

replace the decaying seaward portion of 

a dock. Demolition of the existing debris 

dock would begin by first removing the 

fencing that borders the debris dock. 

The timber fender system would then be 

removed by pulling or cutting the 17 14- 

inch diameter timber piles at 

approximately 2 feet below the mudline 

without dewatering. The piles would be 

hoisted out with a crane or tractor from 

land. The concrete deck would then be 

removed, along with a bulkhead wall (a 

vertical concrete retaining wall) which 

encloses the soil filled inner part of the 

dock. Temporary shoring (support 

beams) would be placed to fortify the 

bulkhead wall while soil is removed 

from the landward side, then the 

bulkhead wall would be demolished 

and removed. The bulkhead wall will be 

removed in similar fashion to the 

concrete deck, by breaking it apart with 

a tractor and hoisting it out with a 

crane. Riprap stones would then be 

removed and stored temporarily, for 

reuse with the finished dock. Finally, to 

complete demolition, the 31 18-inch 

square concrete piles that supported the 

concrete deck would be cut 

approximately 2 feet below the mudline 

without dewatering. They would then 

be removed by either a crane or tractor 

from land, such that no barge or other 

water borne vessel would be used in the 

demolition. The need to leave the insitu portion of the piles in place, as 

opposed to removing them, stems from 

the risk of soil liquefaction and creating 

voids too close to the new pile locations 

which could cause the piles to shift 

their alignment or affect other parts of 

the debris dock structure which will not 

to be removed. Vibratory methods for 

removal and installation are thus not 

possible. Pile cutting will be 

accomplished with the use of either 

hydraulic underwater chainsaws or 

hydraulic pile clippers depending on 

the contractor’s capability. 

Construction of the new dock would 

be in reverse of the demolition, by 

starting with the impact driving of 31 

new octagonal concrete piles (24-inch 

diameter). Driving the piles until 

bedrock (approximately 80 feet) would 

be accomplished with an impact 


EN28MY21.001</GPH>

Legend * Debris Dock 

Aerial Imagery: ESRI 

Figure 1-- Map of Proposed Project Area in San Francisco Bay, CA. 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 28771 

hammer. After the piles are driven, the 

6–10 ton rip rap stones would be 

replaced and then a new bulkhead wall 

would be built. The deck of the debris 

dock would be built by cast-in-place 

pile caps, pre-cast concrete panels, and 

a cast-in-place concrete topping. The 

earthen fill behind the bulkhead 

retaining wall would then be backfilled. 

A new timber pile fender system with 

a total of 17 timber piles (14-inch 

diameter) would be installed. Timber 

piles would also be installed using an 

impact hammer. Pile driving equipment 

such as a crane will be deployed and 

operated from the landside from the 

inner part of the ACOE Base Yard for 

concrete piles, with timber piles being 

driven by equipment deployed on a 

barge. A bubble curtain to attenuate 

sound will be used for impact 

hammering of both timber and concrete 

piles. Pile driving and removal activities 

are summarized in Table 1. Finally, to 

complete the installation, the perimeter 

fencing, and other incidentals will be 

installed. 

A staging area will be used to store 

building supplies and construction 

equipment. The location of the staging 

area would be immediately adjacent to 

the debris dock portion that is to be 

replaced, within the ACOE Base Yard. 

The proposed project is currently 

scheduled to only take one construction 

season, with construction completed by 

December. 

In summary, the project period 

includes 10 days of pile removal and 16 

days of pile installation activities for 

which incidental take authorization is 

requested. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES

Method Pile type Number of 

piles 

Minutes/ 

strikes per 

pile 

Piles per day Duration 

(days) 

Cutting ............................................... 18-inch concrete ............................... 31 5 min .............. 10 7

Cutting ............................................... 14-inch timber .................................. 17 5 min .............. 10 3 

Impact Driving ................................... 24-inch concrete ............................... 31 1,000 strikes .. 10 10 

Impact Driving ................................... 14-inch timber .................................. 17 1,000 strikes .. 10 6 

Totals ......................................... ........................................................... 96 ........................ ........................ 26 

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 with expected 

potential for occurrence in the project 

area in San Francisco Bay and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Pacific SARs and draft 

SARs (e.g., Caretta et al., 2020a and b). 

TABLE 2—SPECIES THAT SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE ACTIVITY TO THE DEGREE THAT TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY

TO OCCUR

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

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

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

Family Delphinidae: 

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ............. Phocoena phocoena ............ San Francisco/Russian River -, -, N 9,886 (0.51, 2019) ................ 66 0 


I I 

I I I I 
28772 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 2—SPECIES THAT SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE ACTIVITY TO THE DEGREE THAT TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY

TO OCCUR—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

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California Sea Lion ......... Zalophus californianus ......... United States ........................ -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 

2014).

14,011 >321 

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

Eastern North Pacific ........... -, D, N 620,660 (0.2, 525,333, 2016) 11,295 399 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Northern elephant seal ... Mirounga angustirostris ........ California Breeding ............... -, -, N 179,000 (N/A, 81,368, 2010) 4,882 8.8 

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

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual Mortality/Serious Injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV 

associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

Harbor seal, California sea lion, 

bottlenose dolphin and Harbor porpoise 

spatially co-occur with the activity to 

the degree that take is reasonably likely 

to occur, and we have proposed 

authorizing take of these species. For 

gray whale, northern fur seal and 

northern elephant seal, occurrence is 

such that take is possible, and we have 

proposed authorizing take of these 

species also. All species that could 

potentially occur in the proposed survey 

areas are included in the ACOE’s IHA 

application (see application, Table 2). 

Humpback whales could potentially 

occur in the area. However the spatial 

and temporal occurrence of this species 

is very rare, the species is readily 

observed, and the applicant would shut 

down pie driving if humpback whales 

enter the project area. Thus take is not 

expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

The California coastal stock of 

common bottlenose dolphin is found 

within 0.6 mi (1 kilometer (km)) of 

shore (Defran and Weller, 1999) and 

occurs from northern Baja California, 

Mexico to Bodega Bay, CA. Their range 

has extended north over the last several 

decades with El Nin ̃ o events and 

increased ocean temperatures (Hansen 

and Defran, 1990). Genetic studies have 

shown that no mixing occurs between 

the California coastal stock and the 

offshore common bottlenose dolphin 

stock (Lowther-Thieleking et al., 2015). 

Bottlenose dolphins are opportunistic 

foragers: Time of day, tidal state, and 

oceanographic habitat influence where 

they pursue prey (Hanson and Defran, 

1993). Dive durations up to 15 minutes 

have been recorded for trained Navy 

bottlenose dolphins, (Ridgway et al., 

1969), but typical dives are shallower 

and of a much shorter duration 

(approximately 30 ;et al., 1999, Mate et 

al., 1995). 

Bottlenose dolphins began entering 

San Francisco Bay in 2010 

(Szczepaniak, 2013). They primarily 

occur in the western Central and South 

Bay, from the Golden Gate Bridge to 

Oyster Point and Redwood City. 

However, one individual has been 

regularly seen in San Francisco Bay 

since 2016 near the former Alameda Air 

Station (Perlman, 2017; W. Keener, pers. 

comm. 2017), and five animals were 

regularly seen in the summer and fall of 

2018 in the same location (W. Keener, 

pers. comm. 2019). 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoise occur along the US 

west coast from southern California to 

the Bering Sea (Carretta et al., 2019). 

They rarely occur in waters warmer 

than 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit (17 

degrees Celsius; Read, 1990). The San 

Francisco-Russian River stock is found 

from Pescadero, 18 mi (30 km) south of 

the San Francisco Bay, to 99 mi (160 

km) north of the bay at Point Arena 

(Carretta et al., 2014). In most areas, 

harbor porpoise occur in small groups of 

just a few individuals. 

Harbor porpoise sightings in the San 

Francisco Bay declined in the 1930’s 

and were functionally extirpated shortly 

after. Harbor porpoise occur frequently 

outside San Francisco Bay and reentered the bay beginning in 2008 (Stern 

et al., 2017). They now commonly occur 

year-round within San Francisco Bay, 

primarily on the west and northwest 

side of the Central Bay near the Golden 

Gate Bridge, near Marin County, and 

near the city of San Francisco (Duffy 

2015, Keener et al., 2012; Stern et al., 

2017). In the summer of 2017 and 2018, 

mom-calf pairs and small groups (one to 

four individuals) were seen to the north 

and west of Treasure Island, and just 

south of Yerba Buena Island (Caltrans 

2018a, 2019; M. Schulze, pers. comm. 

2019). 

Harbor porpoise must forage nearly 

continuously to meet their high 

metabolic needs (Wisniewska et al., 

2016). They consume up to 550 small 

fish (1.2–3.9 in [3–10 cm]; e.g. 

anchovies) per hour at a nearly 90 

percent capture success rate 

(Wisniewska et al., 2016). 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions occur from 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to 

the southern tip of Baja California. Sea 

lions breed on the offshore islands of 

southern and central California from 

May through July (Heath and Perrin, 

2008). During the non-breeding season, 

adult and subadult males and 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 (Heath and 

Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney 2005). 

Females and some juveniles tend to 

remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et 

al., 1990; Melin et al., 2008). 

California sea lions have occupied 

docks near Pier 39 in San Francisco, a 

few miles from the project area, since 


I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 28773 

1987. The highest number of sea lions 

recorded at Pier 39 was 1,701 

individuals in November 2009. 

Occurrence of sea lions here is typically 

lowest in June (during pupping and 

breeding seasons) and highest in 

August. Approximately 85 percent of 

the animals that haul out at this site are 

males, and no pupping has been 

observed here or at any other site in San 

Francisco Bay. Pier 39 is the only 

regularly used haulout site in the project 

vicinity, but sea lions occasionally haul 

out on human-made structures such as 

bridge piers, jetties, or navigation buoys 

(Riedman 1990). 

Pupping occurs primarily on the 

California Channel Islands from late 

May until the end of June (Peterson and 

Bartholomew 1967). Weaning and 

mating occur in late spring and summer 

during the peak upwelling period 

(Bograd et al., 2009). After the mating 

season, adult males migrate northward 

to feeding areas as far away as the Gulf 

of Alaska (Lowry et al., 1992), and they 

remain away until spring (March–May), 

when they migrate back to the breeding 

colonies. Adult females generally 

remain south of Monterey Bay, 

California throughout the year, feeding 

in coastal waters in the summer and 

offshore waters in the winter, 

alternating between foraging and 

nursing their pups on shore until the 

next pupping/breeding season (Melin 

and DeLong, 2000; Melin et al., 2008). 

Northern Fur Seal 

Two northern fur seal stocks may 

occur near San Francisco Bay: The 

California and Eastern North Pacific 

stocks. The California stock breeds and 

pups on the offshore islands of 

California, and forages off the California 

coast. The Eastern Pacific stock breeds 

and pups on islands in the North Pacific 

Ocean and Bering Sea, including the 

Aleutian Islands, Pribilof Islands, and 

Bogoslof Island, but females and 

juveniles move south to California 

waters to forage in the fall and winter 

months (Gelatt and Gentry, 2018). 

Breeding and pupping occur from midto late-May into July. Pups are weaned 

in September and move south to feed 

offshore California (Gentry, 1998). 

Both the California and Eastern North 

Pacific stocks forage in the offshore 

waters of California, but usually only 

sick or emaciated juvenile fur seals 

seasonally enter the bay. The Marine 

Mammal Center (TMMC) occasionally 

picks up stranded fur seals around 

Yerba Buena and Treasure Islands 

(NMFS, 2019b). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals are common 

on California coastal mainland and 

island sites, where the species pups, 

breeds, rests, and molts. The largest 

rookeries are on San Nicolas and San 

Miguel islands in the northern Channel 

Islands. Near San Francisco Bay, 

elephant seals breed, molt, and haul out 

at An ̃ o Nuevo Island, the Farallon 

Islands, and Point Reyes National 

Seashore. 

Northern elephant seals haul out to 

give birth and breed from December 

through March. Pups remain onshore or 

in adjacent shallow water through May. 

Both sexes make two foraging 

migrations each year: One after breeding 

and the second after molting (Stewart, 

1989; Stewart and DeLong, 1995). Adult 

females migrate to the central North 

Pacific to forage, and males migrate to 

the Gulf of Alaska to forage (Robinson 

et al., 2012). Pup mortality is high when 

they make the first trip to sea in May, 

and this period correlates with the time 

of most strandings. Young-of-the-year 

pups return in the late summer and fall 

to haul out at breeding rookeries and 

small haulout sites, but occasionally 

may make brief stops in San Francisco 

Bay. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are found from Baja 

California to the eastern Aleutian 

Islands of Alaska (Harvey and Goley, 

2011). In California there are 

approximately 500 haulout sites along 

the mainland and on offshore islands, 

including intertidal sandbars, rocky 

shores, and beaches (Hanan, 1996; 

Lowry et al., 2008). 

Harbor seals are the most common 

marine mammal species observed in the 

San Francisco Bay. Within the bay they 

primarily haul out on exposed rocky 

ledges and on sloughs in the southern 

San Francisco Bay. Harbor seals are 

central-place foragers (Orians and 

Pearson, 1979) and tend to exhibit 

strong site fidelity within season and 

across years, generally forage close to 

haulout sites, and repeatedly visit 

specific foraging areas (Grigg et al., 

2012; Suryan and Harvey, 1998; 

Thompson et al., 1998). Harbor seals in 

San Francisco Bay forage mainly within 

7 mi (10 km) of their primary haulout 

site (Grigg et al., 2012), and often within 

just 1–3 mi (1–5 km; Torok, 1994). 

Depth, bottom relief, and prey 

abundance also influence foraging 

location (Grigg et al., 2012). 

Harbor seals molt from May through 

June. Peak numbers of harbor seals haul 

out in central California during late May 

to early June, which coincides with the 

peak molt. During both pupping and 

molting seasons, the number of seals 

and the length of time hauled out per 

day increase, from an average of 7 hours 

per day to 10–12 hours (Harvey and 

Goley, 2011; Huber et al., 2001; Stewart 

and Yochem, 1994). 

Harbor seals tend to forage at night 

and haul out during the day with a peak 

in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 

p.m. (Grigg et al., 2012; London et al., 

2001; Stewart and Yochem, 1994; 

Yochem et al., 1987). Tide levels affect 

the maximum number of seals hauled 

out, with the largest number of seals 

hauled out at low tide, but time of day 

and season have the greatest influence 

on haul out behavior (Manugian et al., 

2017; Patterson and Acevedo-Gutie ́rrez, 

2008; Stewart and Yochem, 1994). 

The closest haulout to the project area 

is on Yerba Buena Island. This haulout 

site has a daily range of zero to 109 

harbor seals during fall months, with 

the highest numbers hauled out during 

afternoon low tides (Caltrans, 2004). 

The Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area contains a number of haul out 

areas in San Francisco Bay including 

Alcatraz Island and Point Bonita at the 

entrance to the bay (NPS, 2016). 

Large concentrations of spawning 

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) and 

migrating salmonids likely attract seals 

into San Francisco Bay during the 

winter months (Greig and Allen, 2015). 

Harbor seals forage for Pacific herring in 

eelgrass beds in the winter (Schaeffer et 

al., 2007). 

Pupping occurs from March through 

May in central California (Codde and 

Allen, 2018). Pups are weaned in four 

weeks, most by mid-June (Codde and 

Allen, 2018). Harbor seals molt from 

June through July (Codde and Allen, 

2018) and breed between late March and 

June (Greig and Allen, 2015). The 

closest recognized harbor seal pupping 

site to the project is at Castro Rocks, 

approximately 12 mi (20 km) from the 

project area. 

Gray Whale 

In the fall, gray whales migrate from 

their summer feeding grounds, heading 

south along the coast of North America 

to spend the winter in their breeding 

and calving areas off the coast of Baja 

California, Mexico. From mid-February 

to May, the Eastern North Pacific stock 

of gray whales can be seen migrating 

northward with newborn calves along 

the west coast of the U.S. During the 

migration, gray whales will occasionally 

enter rivers and bays (such as San 

Francisco Bay) along the coast but not 

in high numbers. In recent years there 

have been an increased number of gray 

whales in the San Francisco Bay (W. 

28774 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

Keener, pers. comm. 2019) and there is 

an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event 

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

national/marine-life-distress/2019-2021- 

gray-whale-unusual-mortality-eventalong-west-coast-and). 

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. 

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. California sea 

lions are in the otariid family group. 

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. 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activity can occur 

from impact pile driving and removal by 

underwater chainsaws or pile clippers. 

The effects of underwater noise from the 

ACOE’s proposed activities have the 

potential to result in Level A or Level 

B harassment of marine mammals in the 

action area. 

Description of Sound Sources 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far (ANSI 1994, 1995). The sound level 

of an area is defined by the total 

acoustical energy being generated by 

known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, wind, precipitation, earthquakes, 

ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

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

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact pile driving and pile 

removal by underwater chainsaws or 

pile clippers. The sounds produced by 

these activities fall into one of two 

general sound types: impulsive and 

non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) are typically 

transient, brief (less than 1 second), 

broadband, and consist of high peak 

sound pressure with rapid rise time and 

rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; 

ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018). Nonimpulsive sounds (e.g., machinery 

operations such as drilling or dredging, 

vibratory pile driving, underwater 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 28775 

chainsaws, pile clippers, and active 

sonar systems) can be broadband, 

narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged 

(continuous or intermittent), and 

typically do not have the high peak 

sound pressure with raid rise/decay 

time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI 

1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018). The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is important because they have 

differing potential to cause physical 

effects, particularly with regard to 

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

al., 2007). 

One type of pile hammer would be 

used on this project: impact. 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). 

Pile clippers and underwater 

chainsaws are hydraulically operated 

equipment. A pile clipper is a large, 

heavy elongated horizontal guillotinelike structure that is mechanically 

lowered over a pile down to the 

mudline or substrate where hydraulic 

force is used to push a sharp blade to 

cut a pile. Sounds generated by this 

demolition equipment are nonimpulsive and continuous (NAVAC 

Southwest, 2020). 

The likely or possible impacts of the 

ACOE’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of the 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to primarily be acoustic in 

nature. Acoustic stressors include 

effects of heavy equipment operation 

during pile installation and removal. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving and the various demolition 

equipment is the primary means by 

which marine mammals may be 

harassed from the ACOE’s specified 

activity. In general, animals exposed to 

natural or anthropogenic sound may 

experience physical and psychological 

effects, ranging in magnitude from none 

to severe (Southall et al., 2007). 

Generally, exposure to pile driving and 

removal and other construction noise 

has the potential to result in auditory 

threshold shifts and behavioral 

reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary 

cessation of foraging and vocalizing, 

changes in dive behavior). Exposure to 

anthropogenic noise can also lead to 

non-observable physiological responses 

such an increase in stress hormones. 

Additional noise in a marine mammal’s 

habitat can mask acoustic cues used by 

marine mammals to carry out daily 

functions such as communication and 

predator and prey detection. The effects 

of pile driving and demolition noise on 

marine mammals are dependent on 

several factors, including, but not 

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

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

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

calf), duration of exposure, the distance 

between the pile and the animal, 

received levels, behavior at time of 

exposure, and previous history with 

exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall 

et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB. A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

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

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

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

hearing and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

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

how animal uses sound within the 

frequency band of the signal; e.g., 

Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap 

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

spatial, temporal, and spectral). 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see Ward et 

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

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

1996; Henderson and Hu, 2008). PTS 

levels for marine mammals are 

estimates, 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)—A 

temporary, reversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS, 

2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS 

measurements (see Southall et al., 

2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the 

minimum threshold shift clearly larger 

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

hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; 

Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As 

described in Finneran (2016), marine 

mammal studies have shown the 

amount of TTS increases with 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze 

finless porpoise (Neophocoena 

asiaeorientalis)) and five species of 

pinnipeds exposed to a limited number 

28776 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

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

octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 

(Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed 

in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and 

ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to 

impulsive noise at levels matching 

previous predictions of TTS onset 

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

harbor seals and harbor porpoises have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 

2015). The potential for TTS from 

impact pile driving exists. After 

exposure to playbacks of impact pile 

driving sounds (rate 2760 strikes/hour) 

in captivity, mean TTS increased from 

0 dB after 15 minute exposure to 5 dB 

after 360 minute exposure; recovery 

occurred within 60 minutes (Kastelein 

et al., 2016). Additionally, the existing 

marine mammal TTS data come from a 

limited number of individuals within 

these species. No data are available on 

noise-induced 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). 

Installing piles requires impact pile 

driving. There would likely be pauses in 

activities producing the sound during 

each day. Given these pauses and that 

many marine mammals are likely 

moving through the action area and not 

remaining for extended periods of time, 

the potential for TS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal also 

has the potential to behaviorally disturb 

marine mammals. Available studies 

show wide variation in response to 

underwater sound; therefore, it is 

difficult to predict specifically how any 

given sound in a particular instance 

might affect marine mammals 

perceiving the signal. If a marine 

mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

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

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

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

depending on characteristics associated 

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

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Please see Appendices B and 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. 

In 2016, the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF) documented observations 

of marine mammals during construction 

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

Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636, 

October 7, 2015). In the marine mammal 

monitoring report for that project (ABR 

2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were 

observed within the Level B disturbance 

zone during pile driving or drilling (i.e., 

documented as Level B harassment 

take). Of these, 19 individuals 

demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were 

fleeing, and 19 swam away from the 

project site. All other animals (98 

percent) were engaged in activities such 

as milling, foraging, or fighting and did 

not change their behavior. In addition, 

two sea lions approached within 20 m 

of active vibratory pile driving 

activities. Three harbor seals were 

observed within the disturbance zone 

during pile driving activities; none of 

them displayed disturbance behaviors. 

Fifteen killer whales and three harbor 

porpoise were also observed within the 

Level B harassment zone during pile 

driving. The killer whales were 

travelling or milling while all harbor 

porpoises were travelling. No signs of 

disturbance were noted for either of 

these species. Given the similarities in 

activities and habitat, we expect similar 

behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to the ACOE’s specified 

activity. That is, disturbance, if any, is 

likely to be temporary and localized 

(e.g., small area movements). 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 

Moberg 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

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

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 28777 

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., 2002b) and, 

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

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

example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. 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. The San Francisco area 

contains active military and commercial 

shipping, ferry operations, as well as 

numerous recreational and other 

commercial vessel and background 

sound levels in the area are already 

elevated. 

Potential Effects of Underwater 

Chainsaw and Pile Clipper Sounds— 

Underwater chainsaws and pile clippers 

may be used to assist with removal of 

piles. The sounds produced by these 

activities are of similar frequencies to 

the sounds produced by vessels 

(NAVFAC Southwest, 2020), and are 

anticipated to diminish to background 

noise levels (or be masked by 

background noise levels) in San 

Francisco Bay relatively close to the 

project site. Therefore, the effects of this 

equipment are likely to be similar to 

those discussed above in the Behavioral 

Harassment section. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds 

that occur near the project site could be 

exposed to airborne sounds associated 

with pile driving and removal that have 

the potential to cause behavioral 

harassment, depending on their distance 

from pile driving activities. Cetaceans 

are not expected to be exposed to 

airborne sounds that would result in 

harassment as defined under the 

MMPA. 

Airborne noise would primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels elevated 

above the acoustic criteria. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with their heads above 

water. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, these animals would likely 

previously have been ‘taken’ because of 

exposure to underwater sound above the 

behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are generally larger than those 

associated with airborne sound. Thus, 

the behavioral harassment of these 

animals is already accounted for in 

these estimates of potential take. 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

The ACOE’s construction activities 

could have localized, temporary impacts 

on marine mammal habitat and their 

prey by increasing in-water sound 

pressure levels and slightly decreasing 

water quality. Increased noise levels 

may affect acoustic habitat (see masking 

discussion above) and adversely affect 

marine mammal prey in the vicinity of 

the project area (see discussion below). 

During impact and vibratory pile 

driving or removal, elevated levels of 

underwater noise would ensonify 

Richardson’s and San Francisco Bay 

where both fishes and mammals occur 

and could affect foraging success. 

Additionally, marine mammals may 

avoid the area during construction, 

however, displacement due to noise is 

expected to be temporary and is not 

expected to result in long-term effects to 

the individuals or populations. 

Construction activities are of short 

duration and would likely have 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

and airborne sound. 

A temporary and localized increase in 

turbidity near the seafloor would occur 

in the immediate area surrounding the 

area where piles are installed or 

removed. In general, turbidity 

associated with pile installation is 

localized to about a 25-foot (7.6-m) 

radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 

1980). The sediments of the project site 

are sandy and will settle out rapidly 

when disturbed. Cetaceans are not 

expected to be close enough to the pile 

driving areas to experience effects of 

turbidity, and any pinnipeds could 

avoid localized areas of turbidity. Local 

strong currents are anticipated to 

disburse any additional suspended 

sediments produced by project activities 

at moderate to rapid rates depending on 

tidal stage. Therefore, we expect the 

impact from increased turbidity levels 

28778 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

to be discountable to marine mammals 

and do not discuss it further. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat (e.g., the impacted 

area is mostly in Richardson’s Bay only) 

of San Francisco Bay and does not 

include any Biologically Important 

Areas or other habitat of known 

importance. The area is highly 

influenced by anthropogenic activities. 

The total seafloor area affected by pile 

installation and removal is a very small 

area compared to the vast foraging area 

available to marine mammals in San 

Francisco Bay. At best, the impact area 

provides marginal foraging habitat for 

marine mammals and fish. Furthermore, 

pile driving and removal at the project 

site would not obstruct movements or 

migration of marine mammals. 

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

of the immediate area due to the 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat is 

also possible. The duration of fish 

avoidance of this area after pile driving 

stops is unknown, but a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral 

avoidance by fish of the disturbed area 

would still leave significantly large 

areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey—Sound may affect 

marine mammals through impacts on 

the abundance, behavior, or distribution 

of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, 

cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine 

mammal prey varies by species, season, 

and location. Here, we describe studies 

regarding the effects of noise on known 

marine mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

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

Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay, 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

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

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

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

other environmental factors. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

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

2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 

Several studies have demonstrated that 

impulse sounds might affect the 

distribution and behavior of some 

fishes, potentially impacting foraging 

opportunities or increasing energetic 

costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 

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

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

2017). However, some studies have 

shown no or slight reaction to impulse 

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

et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 

2009; Cott et al., 2012). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

Because of the rarity of use and 

research, the effects of pile clippers and 

underwater chainsaws are not fully 

known; but given their similarity to ship 

noises we do not expect unique effects 

from these activities. 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile driving and removal and 

demolition activities at the project area 

would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of this area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

Construction activities, in the form of 

increased turbidity, have the potential 

to adversely affect forage fish in the 

project area. Forage fish form a 

significant prey base for many marine 

mammal species that occur in the 

project area. Increased turbidity is 

expected to occur in the immediate 

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

less) of construction activities. However, 

suspended sediments and particulates 

are expected to dissipate quickly within 

a single tidal cycle. Given the limited 

area affected and high tidal dilution 

rates any effects on forage fish are 

expected to be minor or negligible. 

Finally, exposure to turbid waters from 

construction activities is not expected to 

be different from the current exposure; 

fish and marine mammals in San 

Francisco Bay are routinely exposed to 

substantial levels of suspended 

sediment from natural and 

anthropogenic sources. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving events and the 

relatively small areas being affected, 

pile driving activities associated with 

the proposed action are not likely to 

have a permanent, adverse effect on any 

fish habitat, or populations of fish 

species. Any behavioral avoidance by 

fish of the disturbed area would still 

leave significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. Thus, we conclude that 

impacts of the specified activity are not 

likely to have more than short-term 

adverse effects on any prey habitat or 

populations of prey species. Further, 

any impacts to marine mammal habitat 

are not expected to result in significant 

or long-term consequences for 

individual marine mammals, or to 

contribute to adverse impacts on their 

populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 28779 

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 use of the 

acoustic source (i.e., vibratory or impact 

pile driving) has the potential to result 

in disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result for 

pinnipeds and harbor porpoise because 

predicted auditory injury zones are 

larger. 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 marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. We note 

that while these basic factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of takes, 

additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Due to the lack of marine mammal 

density, NMFS relied on local 

occurrence data and group size to 

estimate take for some species. Below, 

we describe the factors considered here 

in more detail and present the proposed 

take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

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

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 

microPascal (mPa) (root mean square 

(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory 

pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., 

impact pile driving) or intermittent (e.g., 

scientific sonar) sources. 

The ACOE’s proposed activity 

includes the use of continuous 

(underwater chainsaw and pile clippers) 

and impulsive (impact pile-driving) 

sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The ACOE’s activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile-driving) and non-impulsive (pile 

cutting methods) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 4. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2018 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

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

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

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

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

28780 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

the project (i.e., impact pile driving, pile 

clippers and underwater chainsaws). 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment sound thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring 

data from other locations to develop 

source levels for the various pile types, 

sizes and methods (see Table 5). Data for 

the pile clippers and underwater 

chainsaws come from data gathered at 

U.S. Navy projects in San Diego Bay 

(NAVFAC SW, 2020), the source levels 

used are from the averages of the 

maximum source levels measured, a 

somewhat more conservative measure 

than the median sound levels we 

typically use. The source level for an 

underwater chainsaw is 150 db RMS 

and the source level for a large pile 

clipper is 161 dB RMS (NAVFAC SW, 

2020). Because the ACOE’s as yet 

unhired contractor has not decided 

which of the various pile removal 

methods it will use, we only use a 

worst-case scenario of operation using 

the loudest sound producing method 

(large pile clippers) to consider the 

largest possible harassment zones and 

estimated take. 

TABLE 5—PROJECT SOUND SOURCE LEVELS

Method Pile type Estimated noise level Source 

Cutting ................................. 18-inch concrete ................ 161 dB RMS ...................... NAVFAC SW 2020. 

Cutting ................................. 14-inch timber .................... 161 dB RMS ...................... NAVFAC SW 2020. 

Impact Driving ...................... 24-inch concrete ................ 159 dB SEL, 184 dB Peak Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc., 2019.

Impact Driving ...................... 14-inch timber .................... 155 dB SEL, 175 dB Peak Table I.2–3 (CalTrans 2015). 

Note: SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB Peak = peak sound level; RMS = root mean square. Impact driving source levels reduced 

by 5 dB to account for use of bubble curtain. 

Level B Harassment Zones 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 

where 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

The recommended TL coefficient for 

most nearshore environments is the 

practical spreading value of 15. This 

value results in an expected propagation 

environment that would lie between 

spherical and cylindrical spreading loss 

conditions, which is the most 

appropriate assumption for the ACOE’s 

proposed activity in the absence of 

specific modelling. 

The ACOE determined underwater 

noise would fall below the behavioral 

effects threshold of 160 dB RMS for 

impact driving at 22 m and the 120 dB 

rms threshold for pile cutting at 5,412 

m. It should be noted that based on the 

bathymetry and geography of San 

Francisco Bay, sound will not reach the 

full distance of the Level B harassment 

isopleths in all directions. 

Level A Harassment Zones 

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which may result in some degree of 

overestimate of take by Level A 

harassment. However, these tools offer 

the best way to predict appropriate 

isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 

modeling methods are not available, and 

NMFS continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as impact pile driving or 

removal using any of the methods 

discussed above, NMFS User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which, if a marine mammal 

remained at that distance the whole 

duration of the activity, it would not 

incur PTS. We used the User 

Spreadsheet to determine the Level A 

harassment isopleths. Inputs used in the 

User Spreadsheet or models are reported 

in Table 1 and the resulting isopleths 

are reported in Table 6 for each of the 

construction methods and pile types. 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B ISOPLETHS (METERS) FOR EACH PILE TYPE AND METHOD

Method Pile type Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans Phocids Otariids Level B 

Cutting ........................................ 18-inch concrete ....................... 6 0.5 8.9 3.7 0.3 5412 

Cutting ........................................ 14-inch timber ........................... 6 0.5 8.9 3.7 0.3 5412 

Impact Driving ............................ 24-inch concrete ....................... 116.4 4.1 138.7 62.3 4.5 22 

Impact Driving ............................ 14-inch timber ........................... 63 2.2 75.1 33.7 2.5 22 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Density data for this species in the 

project vicinity do not exist. San 

Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) 

project monitoring showed two 

observations of this species over 6 days 

of monitoring in 2017 (CalTrans 2018). 

One common bottlenose dolphin is 

sighted with regularity near Alameda 

(GGCR 2016). Based on the regularity of 

the sighting in Alameda and the SFOBB 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 28781 

observations of approximately 0.33 

dolphin a day, we propose the Level B 

harassment take equivalent to 0.33 

dolphins per day for the 26 proposed 

days of the project, or 9 common 

bottlenose dolphin (Table 70. Because 

the Level A harassment zones are 

relatively small and we believe the 

Protected Species Observer (PSO) will 

be able to effectively monitor the Level 

A harassment zones, we do not 

anticipate or propose take by Level A 

harassment of bottlenose dolphins. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Density data for this species from 

SFOBB monitoring was 0.17/km2

(CalTrans 2018). Based on the different 

pile types and methods there are three 

different sized ensonified areas to be 

considered to estimate Level B 

harassment take (Table 8). 

Multiplication of the above density 

times the corresponding ensonified area 

and duration, summing the results for 

the three methods, and subtracting the 

overlap of Level A take (below) to avoid 

double-counting of take, leads to a 

proposed Level B harassment take of 21 

harbor porpoise (Table 7). 

Similarly, calculating expected Level 

A harassment take as density times the 

corresponding Level A harassment 

ensonified area and duration for each 

method results in an estimate that less 

than one harbor porpoise may enter a 

Level A harassment zone during the 

project (see Table 14 of application). 

Given the relatively high density and 

larger size of the Level A isopleths for 

harbor porpoises (Table 6, highfrequency cetaceans) we consider Level 

A harassment take is a possibility. 

However, we recognize that harbor 

porpoises travel in groups of up to 10 

individuals and can be quick and 

somewhat cryptic, so there is potential 

that underwater mammals may go 

undetected before spotted in the Level 

A harassment and shutdown zone. 

Based on this observation we propose 

Level A harassment take of 2 harbor 

porpoise. 

California Sea Lion 

Density data for this species from 

SFOBB monitoring was 0.16/km2

(CalTrans 2018). Based on the different 

pile types and methods there are three 

different sized ensonified areas to be 

considered to estimate Level B 

harassment take (Table 8). 

Multiplication of the above density 

times the corresponding ensonified area 

and duration, and summing the results 

for the three methods, and subtracting 

the overlap of Level A take (below) to 

avoid double-counting of take, leads to 

a proposed Level B harassment take of 

20 California sea lions (Table 7). 

Similarly, calculating expected Level 

A harassment take as density times the 

corresponding Level A harassment 

ensonified area and duration for each 

method results in an estimate that less 

than one California sea lion will enter 

a Level A harassment zone (see Table 13 

of application). Given the relatively high 

density and behavior of California sea 

lions we consider Level A harassment 

take is a possibility. Based on this 

observation we propose Level A 

harassment take of 2 California sea 

lions. 

Northern Fur Seal 

Density data for this species in the 

project vicinity do not exit. SFOBB 

monitoring showed no observations of 

this species (CalTrans 2018). None were 

observed for the Treasure Island Ferry 

Dock project in 2019 (Matt Osowski, 

personal communication). The Marine 

Mammal Center rescues about five 

northern fur seals in a year, and they 

occasionally rescue them from Yerba 

Buena Island and Treasure Island 

(TMMC, 2019). To be conservative we 

propose Level B harassment take of 

three northern fur seals. Because the 

Level A harassment zones are relatively 

small and we believe the Protected 

Species Observer (PSO) will be able to 

effectively monitor the Level A 

harassment zones, and the species is 

rare, we do not anticipate or propose 

take by Level A harassment of northern 

fur seals. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Density data for this species in the 

project vicinity do not exist. SFOBB 

monitoring showed no observations of 

this species (CalTrans 2018). None were 

observed for the Treasure Island Ferry 

Dock project in 2019 (Matt Osowski, 

personal communication). Out of the 

approximately 100 annual northern 

elephant seal strandings in San 

Francisco Bay, approximately 10 

individuals strand nearby at Yerba 

Buena or Treasure Islands each year 

(TMMC, 2020). Therefore, we propose 

the Level B harassment take of 5 

northern elephant seals. Because the 

Level A harassment zones are relatively 

small and we believe the PSO will be 

able to effectively monitor the Level A 

harassment zones, and the species is 

rare, we do not anticipate or propose 

take by Level A harassment of northern 

elephant seals. 

Harbor Seal 

Density data for this species from 

SFOBB monitoring was 3.92/km2

(CalTrans 2018). Based on the different 

pile types and methods there are three 

different sized ensonified areas to be 

considered to estimate Level B 

harassment take (Table 8). 

Multiplication of the above density 

times the corresponding ensonified area 

and duration, summing the results for 

the three methods, and subtracting the 

overlap of Level A take (below) to avoid 

double-counting of take, leads to a 

proposed Level B harassment take of 

527 harbor seals (Table 7). 

Similarly, calculating expected Level 

A harassment take as density times the 

corresponding Level A harassment 

ensonified area and duration for each 

method results in an estimate that less 

than one harbor seal may enter a Level 

A harassment zone during the project 

(see Table 12 of application). Given the 

relatively high density and size of the 

Level A isopleths for harbor seals (Table 

6, phocid pinnipeds) we consider Level 

A harassment take is a possibility. We 

recognize that harbor seals can occur in 

moderate and rarely large size groups 

and can be quick and somewhat cryptic, 

so there is potential that underwater 

mammals may go undetected before 

spotted in the Level A harassment and 

shutdown zone. Based on this 

observation we propose Level A 

harassment take of 2 harbor seals. 

Gray Whale 

Density data for this species in the 

project vicinity do not exist. SFOBB 

monitoring showed no observations of 

this species (CalTrans 2018). None were 

observed for the Treasure Island Ferry 

Dock project in 2019 (Matt Osowski, 

personal communication). 

Approximately 12 gray whales were 

stranded in San Francisco Bay from 

January to May of 2019 (TMMC, 2019) 

and four stranded in the vicinity on one 

week in 2021 (https://

www.washingtonpost.com/science/ 

2021/04/11/whales-sf-bay-beaches/). 

Because recent observations are not well 

understood, Sausalito sits near the 

entrance to the bay, and as a 

conservative measure, we propose Level 

B harassment take of 2 gray whales. 

Because the Level A harassment zones 

are relatively small and we believe the 

PSO will be able to effectively monitor 

the Level A harassment zones, and the 

species is rare, we do not anticipate or 

propose take by Level A harassment of 

gray whales. 

28782 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

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

SPECIES AND STOCK AND PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Common name Scientific name Stock Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

Percent 

of stock 

Harbor seal ........................... (Phoca vitulina) ................... California Stock ................... 2 527 1.7 

Harbor porpoise ................... (Phocoena phocoena) ......... San Francisco—Russian 

River Stock.

2 21 0.3 

California sea lion ................ (Zalophus californianus) ...... U.S. Stock ........................... 2 20 <0.1 

Gray whale ........................... (Eschrichtius robustus) ........ Eastern North Pacific Stock 0 2 <0.1 

Bottlenose dolphin ................ (Tursiops truncatus) ............ California Coastal Stock ...... 0 9 2 

Northern elephant seal ......... (Mirounga angustirostris) .... California Breeding Stock ... 0 5 <0.1 

Northern fur seal .................. (Callorhinus ursinus) ........... California and Eastern North 

Pacific Stocks.

0 3 <0.1 

TABLE 8—CALCULATIONS TO ESTIMATE LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE

Harbor seal Sea lion Harbor 

porpoise 

SFOBB Species density (animals/square kilometer (km2)) ......................................................... 3.96 0.16 0.17 

Days of Pile Driving/Cutting: 

24-inch Concrete .................................................................................................................. 10 10 10 

14-inch Timber ...................................................................................................................... 6 6 6 

Pile Cutting ........................................................................................................................... 10 10 10 

Area of Isopleth in km2: 

24-inch Concrete .................................................................................................................. 0.00151 0.00151 0.00151 

14-inch Timber ...................................................................................................................... 0.00151 0.00151 0.00151 

Pile Cutting ........................................................................................................................... 13.3456 13.3456 13.3456 

Per day take Level B: 

24-inch Concrete .................................................................................................................. 0.006 0.0002 0.0003 

14-inch Timber ...................................................................................................................... 0.006 0.0002 0.0003 

Pile Cutting ........................................................................................................................... 52.8486 2.1353 2.2688 

Total Level B Take Calculated ...................................................................................... 528.58 21.36 22.69 

Total Level B Take Estimated ....................................................................................... 529 22 23 

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, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The following mitigation measures are 

proposed in the IHA: 

• Avoid direct physical interaction 

with marine mammals during 

construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m of such 

activity, operations must cease and 

vessels must reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions; 

• Conduct training between 

construction supervisors and crews and 

the marine mammal monitoring team 

and relevant ACOE staff prior to the 

start of all pile driving activity and 

when new personnel join the work, so 

that responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood; 

• Pile driving activity must be halted 

upon observation of either a species for 

which incidental take is not authorized 

or a species for which incidental take 

has been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met, entering 

or within the harassment zone; 

• The ACOE will establish and 

implement the shutdown zones 

indicated in Table 9. The purpose of a 

shutdown zone is generally to define an 

area within which shutdown of the 

activity would occur upon sighting of a 

marine mammal (or in anticipation of an 

animal entering the defined area). 

Shutdown zones typically vary based on 

the activity type and marine mammal 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 28783 

hearing group. The ACOE wishes to 

simplify implementation of the 

relatively small shutdown zones and 

has proposed using a single shutdown 

zone distance for each activity rather 

than separate zones for each hearing 

group as we minimally require 

typically. Therefore the shutdown zones 

in Table 9 are based on the largest 

possible Level A harassment zones 

calculated from the isopleths in Table 6. 

• Employ PSOs and establish 

monitoring locations as described in the 

application and Section 5 of the IHA. 

The Holder must monitor the project 

area to the maximum extent possible 

based on the required number of PSOs, 

required monitoring locations, and 

environmental conditions For all pile 

driving and removal one PSO must be 

used. The PSO will be stationed as close 

to the activity as possible; 

• The placement of the PSO during 

all pile driving and removal and drilling 

activities will ensure that the entire 

shutdown zone is visible during pile 

installation. Should environmental 

conditions deteriorate such that marine 

mammals within the entire shutdown 

zone will not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy 

rain), pile driving and removal must be 

delayed until the PSO is confident 

marine mammals within the shutdown 

zone could be detected; 

• Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activity through 30 minutes 

post-completion of pile driving activity. 

Pre-start clearance monitoring must be 

conducted during periods of visibility 

sufficient for the lead PSO to determine 

the shutdown zones clear of marine 

mammals. Pile driving may commence 

following 30 minutes of observation 

when the determination is made; 

• If pile driving is delayed or halted 

due to the presence of a marine 

mammal, the activity may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily exited and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or 15 minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal; 

• The ACOE must use soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors to provide 

an initial set of three strikes at reduced 

energy, followed by a 30-second waiting 

period, then two subsequent reducedenergy strike sets. A soft start must be 

implemented at the start of each day’s 

impact pile driving and at any time 

following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of 30 minutes or 

longer; 

• Use a bubble curtain during impact 

pile driving and ensure that it is 

operated as necessary to achieve 

optimal performance, and that no 

reduction in performance may be 

attributable to faulty deployment. At a 

minimum, the ACOE must adhere to the 

following performance standards: The 

bubble curtain must distribute air 

bubbles around 100 percent of the piling 

circumference for the full depth of the 

water column. The lowest bubble ring 

must be in contact with the substrate for 

the full circumference of the ring, and 

the weights attached to the bottom ring 

shall ensure 100 percent substrate 

contact. No parts of the ring or other 

objects shall prevent full substrate 

contact. Air flow to the bubblers must 

be balanced around the circumference 

of the pile. 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN ZONES (METERS) FOR EACH PILE TYPE AND

METHOD

Pile size, type, and method Shutdown 

zone 

24-inch concrete, impact .............. 140 

14-inch timber, impact .................. 80 

14 and 18-inch pile cutting ........... 10 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

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); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

• Monitoring must be conducted by 

qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in 

accordance with the following: PSOs 

must be independent (i.e., not 

construction personnel) and have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. At least one PSO must have 

prior experience performing the duties 

of a PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization. Other PSOs may 

substitute other relevant experience, 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field), or training. PSOs must 

be approved by NMFS prior to 

beginning any activity subject to this 

IHA. 

• PSOs must record all observations 

of marine mammals as described in the 

Section 5 of the IHA, regardless of 

distance from the pile being driven. 

PSOs shall document any behavioral 

reactions in concert with distance from 

piles being driven or removed; 

PSOs must have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

28784 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary; 

• The ACOE must establish the 

following monitoring locations. For all 

pile driving and cutting activities, a 

minimum of one PSO must be assigned 

to the active pile driving or cutting 

location to monitor the shutdown zones 

and as much of the Level B harassment 

zones as possible. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities, or 

60 days prior to a requested date of 

issuance of any future IHAs for projects 

at the same location, whichever comes 

first. The report will include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including the number and type of piles 

driven or removed and by what method 

(i.e., impact or cutting) and the total 

equipment duration for cutting for each 

pile or total number of strikes for each 

pile (impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• 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: 

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 bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); Estimated number of animals 

(min/max/best estimate); Estimated 

number of animals by cohort (adults, 

juveniles, neonates, group composition, 

etc.); Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; 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); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

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

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

IHA-holder must immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 

NMFS and to West Coast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. If the death or injury was 

clearly caused by the specified activity, 

the ACOE must immediately cease the 

specified activities until NMFS is able 

to review the circumstances of the 

incident and determine what, if any, 

additional measures are appropriate to 

ensure compliance with the terms of the 

IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving and removal activities 

have the potential to disturb or displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

project activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level A and Level B 

harassment from underwater sounds 

generated from pile driving and 

removal. Potential takes could occur if 

individuals are present in the ensonified 

zone when these activities are 

underway. 

The takes from Level A and Level B 

harassment would be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No mortality is anticipated given the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 28785 

nature of the activity and measures 

designed to minimize the possibility of 

injury to marine mammals. The 

potential for harassment is minimized 

through the construction method and 

the implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

The Level A harassment zones 

identified in Table 6 are based upon an 

animal exposed to impact pile driving 

multiple piles per day. Considering 

duration of impact driving each pile (up 

to 20 minutes) and breaks between pile 

installations (to reset equipment and 

move pile into place), this means an 

animal would have to remain within the 

area estimated to be ensonified above 

the Level A harassment threshold for 

multiple hours. This is highly unlikely 

given marine mammal movement 

throughout the area. If an animal was 

exposed to accumulated sound energy, 

the resulting PTS would likely be small 

(e.g., PTS onset) at lower frequencies 

where pile driving energy is 

concentrated, and unlikely to result in 

impacts to individual fitness, 

reproduction, or survival. 

The nature of the pile driving project 

precludes the likelihood of serious 

injury or mortality. For all species and 

stocks, take would occur within a 

limited, confined area (north-central 

San Francisco Bay including 

Richardson’s Bay) of the stock’s range. 

Level A and Level B harassment will be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact through use of 

mitigation measures described herein. 

Further the amount of take proposed to 

be authorized is extremely small when 

compared to stock abundance. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile driving at the project 

site, if any, are expected to be mild and 

temporary. Marine mammals within the 

Level B harassment zone may not show 

any visual cues they are disturbed by 

activities (as noted during modification 

to the Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could 

become alert, avoid the area, leave the 

area, or display other mild responses 

that are not observable such as changes 

in vocalization patterns. Given the short 

duration of noise-generating activities 

per day and that pile driving and 

removal would occur across nine 

months, any harassment would be 

temporary. There are no other areas or 

times of known biological importance 

for any of the affected species. 

In addition, it is unlikely that minor 

noise effects in a small, localized area of 

habitat would have any effect on the 

stocks’ ability to recover. In 

combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activities will have only 

minor, short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activities are not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our 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; 

• Authorized Level A harassment 

would be very small amounts and of 

low degree; 

• No important habitat areas have 

been identified within the project area; 

• For all species, San Francisco Bay 

is a very small and peripheral part of 

their range’ 

• The ACOE would implement 

mitigation measures such as bubble 

curtains, soft-starts, and shut downs; 

and 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in San Frnacisco Bay have 

documented little to no effect on 

individuals of the same species 

impacted by the specified activities. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The amount of take NMFS proposes to 

authorize is below one third of the 

estimated stock abundance of all species 

(in fact, take of individuals is less than 

10 percent of the abundance of the 

affected stocks, see Table 7). This is 

likely a conservative estimate because 

they assume all takes are of different 

individual animals which is likely not 

the case. Some individuals may return 

multiple times in a day, but PSOs would 

count them as separate takes if they 

cannot be individually identified. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the West Coast Region 

Protected Resources Division Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the ACOE to conduct the 

Debris Dock Replacement project in 

Sausalito, CA from September 1, 2021 

through August 31, 2022, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at https:// 

28786 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 102 / Friday, May 28, 2021 / Notices 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed Debris Dock 

Replacement project. We also request at 

this time comment on the potential 

renewal of this proposed IHA as 

described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time one-year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical, or nearly identical, 

activities as described in the Description 

of Proposed Activity section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a Renewal would allow 

for completion of the activities beyond 

that described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that Renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA); 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take); and 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized; 

and 

• Upon review of the request for 

Renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: March 25, 2021. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11333 Filed 5–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; West Coast Region Gear 

Identification Requirements 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, on or after the date of publication 

of this notice. We invite the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

comment on proposed, and continuing 

information collections, which helps us 

assess the impact of our information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. Public 

comments were previously requested 

via the Federal Register on January 25, 

2021, (86 FR 6873) during a 60-day 

comment period. This notice allows for 

an additional 30 days for public 

comments. 

Agency: National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

Title: West Coast Region Gear 

Identification Requirements. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0352. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

current information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 942. 

Average Hours per Response: 15 

minutes per marking. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 848. 

Needs and Uses: This request is for 

extension of a currently approved 

information collection. 

The success of fisheries management 

programs depends significantly on 

regulatory compliance. The 

requirements that fishing gear be 

marked are essential to facilitate 

enforcement. The ability to link fishing 

gear to the vessel owner or operator is 

crucial to enforcement of regulations 

issued under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. The 

marking of fishing gear is also valuable 

in actions concerning damage, loss, and 

civil proceedings. The regulations 

specify that fishing gear must be marked 

with the vessel’s official number, 

Federal permit or tag number, or some 

other specified form of identification. 

The regulations further specify how the 

gear is to be marked (e.g., location and 

color). Law enforcement personnel rely 

on gear marking information to assure 

compliance with fisheries management 

regulations. Gear that is not properly 

identified is confiscated. Gear violations 

are more readily prosecuted when the 

gear is marked, and this allows for more 

cost-effective enforcement. Gear 

marking helps ensure that a vessel 

harvests fish only from its own traps/ 

pots/other gear and the gear are not 

illegally placed. Cooperating fishermen 

also use the gear marking numbers to 

report suspicious or non-compliant 

activities that they observe, and to 

report placement or occurrence of gear 

in unauthorized areas. The identifying 

number on fishing gear is used by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), the United States Coast Guard 

(USCG), and other marine agencies in 

issuing regulations, prosecutions, and 

other enforcement actions necessary to 

support sustainable fisheries behaviors 

as intended in regulations. Regulationcompliant fishermen ultimately benefit 

from these requirements, as 

unauthorized and illegal fishing is 

deterred, and more burdensome 

regulations are avoided. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Frequency: Every 5 years. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Legal Authority: 50 CFR 660.12. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. 

Follow the instructions to view the 

Department of Commerce collections 

currently under review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be 

submitted within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice on the 

following website www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function and 

entering either the title of the collection 

or the OMB Control Number 0648–0352. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Commerce 

Department. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11313 Filed 5–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P