Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45811 

until October 3, 1998. See Amendments to the 

Agreement Suspending the Antidumping 

Investigation on Uranium from the Russian 

Federation, 61 FR 56665, 56667 (November 4, 

1996). 

5See Amendment to the Agreement Suspending 

the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium From 

the Russian Federation, 73 FR 7705 (February 11, 

2008). 

HEU is within the scope of the 

underlying investigation, and HEU is 

covered by this Suspension Agreement. 

For the purpose of this Suspension 

Agreement, HEU means uranium 

enriched to 20 percent or greater in the 

isotope uranium-235. 

Imports of uranium ores and 

concentrates, natural uranium 

compounds, and all forms of enriched 

uranium are currently classifiable under 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 

2612.10.00, 2844.10.20, 2844.20.00, 

respectively. Imports of natural uranium 

metal and forms of natural uranium 

other than compounds are currently 

classifiable under HTSUS subheadings: 

2844.10.10 and 2844.10.50. HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes. 

The written description of the scope of 

this proceeding is dispositive. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Investigation 

As a result of the determinations by 

the Department and the ITC that 

termination of the Agreement and the 

suspended investigation would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence, 

respectively, of dumping and material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of 

the Act, the Department hereby orders 

the continuation of the Agreement. The 

effective date of continuation of the 

Agreement will be the date of 

publication in the Federal Register of 

this notice of continuation. Pursuant to 

Section XII of the 2008 Amendment to 

the Agreement, the Department intends 

to terminate the Agreement, and the 

underlying antidumping investigation, 

on December 31, 2020.5

This five-year (sunset) review and 

notice are in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and published 

pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2017. 

Carole Showers, 

Executive Director, performing the nonexclusive duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21211 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

National Sea Grant Advisory Board; 

Public Meeting of the National Sea 

Grant Advisory Board’s Fall 2017 

Meeting 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Department of Commerce (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting of the 

National Sea Grant Advisory Board 

(NSGAB). 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

schedule and proposed agenda of a 

forthcoming meeting of the NSGAB. 

NSGAB members will discuss and 

provide advice on the National Sea 

Grant College Program (NSGCP) in the 

areas of program evaluation, strategic 

planning, education and extension, 

science and technology programs, and 

other matters as described in the agenda 

found on the NSGCP Web site at http:// 

seagrant.noaa.gov/WhoWeAre/ 

Leadership/NationalSeaGrantAdvisory

Board/UpcomingAdvisoryBoard

Meetings.aspx. 

DATES: The announced meeting is 

scheduled for Monday, October 16 from 

8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. ET and Tuesday, 

October 17 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

ET. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Embassy Suites by Hilton, 605 West 

Oglethorpe Avenue, Savannah, Georgia 

31401. 

Status: The meeting will be open to 

public participation with a 15-minute 

public comment period on Tuesday, 

October 17, 2017 at 11:30 a.m. ET. 

(Check agenda using link in the 

Summary section to confirm time prior 

to attending.) 

The NSGAB expects that public 

statements presented at its meetings will 

not be repetitive of previously 

submitted verbal or written statements. 

In general, each individual or group 

making a verbal presentation will be 

limited to a total time of three (3) 

minutes. Written comments should be 

received by Elizabeth Rohring by 

Friday, October 13, 2017 to provide 

sufficient time for NSGAB review. 

Written comments received after the 

deadline will be distributed to the 

NSGAB, but may not be reviewed prior 

to the meeting date. Seats will be 

available on a first-come, first-serve 

basis. 

Contact Information: For any 

questions concerning the meeting, 

please contact Elizabeth Rohring, 

National Sea Grant College Program, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Room 11861, Silver Spring, 

Maryland 20910, 301–734–1082, or via 

email at elizabeth.rohring@noaa.gov. 

Special Accomodations: These 

meetings are physically accessible to 

people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Elizabeth Rohring by Friday, October 6, 

2017. See Contact Information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

NSGAB, which consists of a balanced 

representation from academia, industry, 

state government, and other relevant 

fields, was established in 1976 by 

Section 209 of the Sea Grant 

Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94–461, 33 

U.S.C. 1128). The NSGAB advises the 

Secretary of Commerce and the Director 

of the NSGCP with respect to operations 

under the Act, and such other matters 

as the Secretary refers to them for 

review and advice. 

Dated: September 22, 2017. 

David Holst, 

Acting Chief Financial Officer/CAO, Office 

of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21090 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–KA–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF541 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Pier 

Replacement Project in San Diego, CA 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Navy to incidentally harass, by Level B 

harassment only, marine mammals 

during construction activities associated 

with the pier replacements project at 

Naval Base Point Loma. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from October 8, 2017, through October 

7, 2018. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45812 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura McCue, 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: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/construction.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (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 authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in CE 

B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Summary of Request 

On June 19, 2017, we received a 

request from the Navy for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to pile 

installation and demolition associated 

with a pier replacement project in San 

Diego Bay at Naval Base Point Loma 

(NBPL) in San Diego, CA, including a 

separate monitoring plan. The Navy also 

submitted a draft monitoring report on 

June 13, 2017, pursuant to requirements 

of the previous IHA. These final 

application and monitoring plan were 

deemed adequate and complete on July 

20, 2017. The pier replacement project 

is planned to occur over multiple years; 

this IHA would cover only the fifth year 

of work and would be valid for a period 

of one year from the date of issuance. 

Hereafter, use of the generic term ‘‘pile 

driving’’ may refer to both pile 

installation and removal unless 

otherwise noted. The Navy’s request is 

for take of nine species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment. 

Neither the Navy nor NMFS expect 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Monitoring reports are available 

online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/construction.htm 

and provide environmental information 

related to issuance of this IHA. 

This IHA will cover one year of a 

larger project for which the Navy 

obtained prior IHAs and this request for 

take authorization is for the fifth year of 

the project, following the IHAs issued 

effective from October 8, 2016, through 

October 7, 2017 (81 FR 66628), from 

September 1, 2013, through August 31, 

2014 (78 FR 44539), from October 8, 

2014, through October 7, 2015 (79 FR 

65378), and from October 8, 2015, 

through October 7, 2016 (80 FR 62032). 

The Navy complied with all the 

requirements (e.g., mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHA. Monitoring reports are 

available online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm 

and provide environmental information 

related to issuance of this IHA. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

NBPL provides berthing and support 

services for Navy submarines and other 

fleet assets. The existing fuel pier serves 

as a fuel depot for loading and 

unloading tankers and Navy underway 

replenishment vessels that refuel ships 

at sea (‘‘oilers’’), as well as transferring 

fuel to local replenishment vessels and 

other small craft operating in San Diego 

Bay, and is the only active Navy fueling 

facility in southern California. Portions 

of the pier are over one hundred years 

old, while the newer segment was 

constructed in 1942. The pier as a whole 

is significantly past its design service 

life and does not meet current 

construction standards. 

The Navy plans to demolish and 

remove the existing pier and associated 

pipelines and appurtenances while 

simultaneously replacing it with a 

generally similar structure that meets 

relevant standards for seismic strength 

and is designed to better accommodate 

modern Navy ships. Demolition and 

construction are planned to occur in 

two phases to maintain the fueling 

capabilities of the existing pier while 

the new pier is being constructed. 

During the fifth year of construction (the 

specified activity considered under this 

IHA), the Navy anticipates construction 

at two locations: The fuel pier area and 

at the Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine 

Warfare Command (NMAWC), where 

the Navy’s Marine Mammal Program 

(MMP) was temporarily moved during 

fuel pier construction (see Figure 1–1 in 

the Navy’s application). A detailed 

description of the planned Project is 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (82 FR 36360; 

August 4, 2017). Since that time, no 

changes have been made to the planned 

activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to the Navy was published in 

the Federal Register on August 4, 2017 

(82 FR 36360). That notice described, in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45813 

detail, the Navy’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission). 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS share the 

rounding criteria with the Commission 

such that the matter of when rounding 

should occur in the take calculation can 

be resolved in the near future. 

Response: NMFS will share the 

rounding criteria with the Commission 

soon and looks forward to working with 

them in the future to resolve this issue. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Species with the expected potential to 

be present during all or a portion of the 

in-water work window include the 

California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus), harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina richardii), northern elephant 

seal (Mirounga angustirostris), gray 

whale (Eschrichtius robustus), 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus 

truncatus), Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), Risso’s 

dolphin (Grampus griseus), and either 

short-beaked or long-beaked common 

dolphins (Delphinus spp.). California 

sea lions are present year-round and are 

very common in the project area, while 

bottlenose dolphins and harbor seals are 

common and likely to be present yearround but with more variable 

occurrence in San Diego Bay. Gray 

whales may be observed in San Diego 

Bay sporadically during migration 

periods. The remaining species are 

known to occur in nearshore waters 

outside San Diego Bay, but are generally 

only rarely observed near or in the bay. 

However, recent observations indicate 

that these species may occur in the 

project area and therefore could 

potentially be subject to incidental 

harassment from the aforementioned 

activities. 

There are four marine mammal 

species which are either resident or 

have known seasonal occurrence in the 

vicinity of San Diego Bay, including the 

California sea lion, harbor seal, 

bottlenose dolphin, and gray whale (see 

Figures 3–1 through 3–4 and 4–1 in the 

Navy’s application). In addition, 

common dolphins (see Figure 3–4 in the 

Navy’s application), the Pacific whitesided dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, and 

northern elephant seals are known to 

occur in deeper waters in the vicinity of 

San Diego Bay and/or have been 

observed within the bay during the 

course of this project’s monitoring. 

Although the latter three species of 

cetacean would not generally be 

expected to occur within the project 

area, the potential for changes in 

occurrence patterns in conjunction with 

recent observations leads us to believe 

that authorization of incidental take is 

warranted. Common dolphins have been 

documented regularly at the Navy’s 

nearby Silver Strand Training Complex, 

and were observed in the project area 

during previous years of project activity. 

The Pacific white-sided dolphin has 

been sighted along a previously used 

transect on the opposite side of the 

Point Loma peninsula (Merkel and 

Associates 2008) and there were several 

observations of Pacific white-sided 

dolphins during Year 2 monitoring. 

Risso’s dolphin is fairly common in 

southern California coastal waters (e.g., 

Campbell et al., 2010), and could occur 

in the bay. Northern elephant seals are 

included based on their continuing 

increase in numbers along the Pacific 

coast (Carretta et al., 2016) and the 

likelihood that animals that reproduce 

on the islands offshore of Baja California 

and mainland Mexico—where the 

population is also increasing—could 

move through the project area during 

migration, as well as the observation of 

a juvenile seal near the fuel pier in April 

2015. 

Note that common dolphins could be 

either short-beaked (Delphinus delphis 

delphis) or long-beaked (D. delphis 

bairdii) subspecies. While it is likely 

that common dolphins observed in the 

project area would be long-beaked, as it 

is the most frequently stranded species 

in the area from San Diego Bay to the 

U.S.-Mexico border (Danil and St. Leger 

2011), the species distributions overlap 

and it is unlikely that observers would 

be able to differentiate them in the field. 

Therefore, we consider that any 

common dolphins observed—and any 

incidental take of common dolphins— 

could be either long- or short-beaked 

common dolphins. 

In addition, other species that occur 

in the Southern California Bight may 

have the potential for isolated 

occurrence within San Diego Bay or just 

offshore. In particular, a short-finned 

pilot whale (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus) was observed off 

Ballast Point, and a Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis) was 

seen in the project area during Year 2. 

These species are not typically observed 

near the project area and, unlike the 

previously mentioned species, we do 

not believe it likely that they will occur 

in the future. Given the unlikelihood of 

their exposure to sound generated from 

the project, these species are not 

considered further. 

Table 1 lists all marine mammal 

species with expected potential for 

occurrence in the vicinity of NBPL 

during the project timeframe and 

summarizes key information, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. A detailed 

description of the species likely to be 

affected by the Navy’s project, including 

brief introductions to the species and 

relevant stocks as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (82 FR 36360; August 4, 2017); 

since that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 

and stocks; therefore, detailed 

descriptions are not provided here. 

Please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for these descriptions. Please also 

refer to NMFS’ Web site 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

mammals/) for generalized species 

accounts. 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF NBPL 

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most 

recent abundance 

survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

Relative occurrence 

in San Diego Bay; 

season of 

occurrence 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae 

Gray whale .................... Eastern North Pacific .... –; N 20,990 (0.05; 20,125; 

2011).

624 132 Occasional migratory 

visitor; winter. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45814 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF NBPL—Continued 

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most 

recent abundance 

survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

Relative occurrence 

in San Diego Bay; 

season of 

occurrence 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae 

Bottlenose dolphin ......... California coastal .......... –; N 453 (0.06; 346; 2011) ... 2.7 ≥2.0 Common; year-round. 

Short-beaked common 

dolphin.

California/Oregon/Washington.–; N 969,861 (0.17; 839,325; 

2014).

8,393 ≥40 Occasional; year-round 

(but more common in 

warm season). 

Long-beaked common 

dolphin.

California ....................... –; N 101,305 (0.49; 68,432; 

2014).

657 ≥35.4 Occasional; year-round 

(but more common in 

warm season). 

Pacific white-sided dolphin.California/Oregon/Washington.–; N 26,814 (0.28; 21,195; 

2014).

191 7.5 Uncommon; year-round. 

Risso’s dolphin .............. California/Oregon/Washington.–; N 6,336 (0.32; 4,817; 

2014).

46 ≥3.7 Rare; year-round (but 

more common in cool 

season). 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion .......... U.S. ............................... –; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 

2011).

9,200 389 Abundant; year-round. 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal .................... California ....................... –; N 30,968 (n/a; 27,348; 

2012).

1,641 43 Common; year-round. 

Northern elephant seal .. California breeding ........ –; N 179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 

2010).

4,882 8.8 Rare; year-round. 

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 (see footnote 3) 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 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks of 

pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from 

knowledge of the species (or similar species) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these 

cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore. 3Potential biological removal, 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 size (OSP). 4These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., 

commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a 

minimum value. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

Navy’s activities for the pier 

replacement project have the potential 

to result in behavioral harassment of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

action area. The Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (82 FR 36360; 

August 4, 2017) included a discussion 

of the effects of anthropogenic noise on 

marine mammals, therefore that 

information is not repeated here; please 

refer to the Federal Register notice (82 

FR 36360; August 4, 2017) for that 

information. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ 

and the negligible impact 

determination. Harassment is the only 

type of take expected to result from 

these activities. Except with respect to 

certain activities not pertinent here, 

section 3(18) of the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of pursuit, 

torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level 

A harassment); or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering (Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to acoustic sources. 

Based on the nature of the activity and 

the anticipated effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown, soft 

start, etc.—discussed in detail below in 

Mitigation Measures section), Level A 

harassment is neither anticipated nor 

authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45815 

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. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007). Based on what the available 

science indicates and the practical need 

to use a threshold based on a factor that 

is both predictable and measurable for 

most activities, NMFS uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner we 

consider Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above received levels of 120 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) for continuous (e.g. 

vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 

above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile 

driving) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. 

The Navy’s planned activity includes 

the use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving, demolition) and impulsive 

(impact pile driving) sources, and 

therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) are applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’s Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NOAA 2016) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The Navy’s construction 

project includes the use of impulsive 

(impact pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving) sources. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in the table 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 2—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-frequency cetaceans .............................................. Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ................. Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-frequency cetaceans .............................................. Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-frequency cetaceans ............................................. Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

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

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

* [NMFS 2016] 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

The intensity of pile driving or 

sounds is greatly influenced by factors 

such as the type of piles, hammers, and 

the physical environment in which the 

activity takes place. For the installation 

of 30-inch (in) steel piles and pile 

cutting activities, acoustic monitoring 

during the first and second IHA periods 

(NAVFAC 2015) resulted in empirical 

data that are directly applicable to the 

fifth IHA period in terms of the 

activities and the location, depth, sizes 

and types of piles. 

Table 3 identifies the sound source 

levels that are used in evaluating impact 

and vibratory pile driving and 

extraction in the current IHA 

application. Sound levels for the 

hydraulic pile cutter, diamond saw 

caisson cutting, and pile jetting were 

measured during the fourth IHA period 

(NAVFAC SW 2017). No acoustic data 

are available from the vibratory driving 

of 16-in concrete piles, so the data for 

vibratory installation of 30-in steel piles 

from the second IHA period are used as 

a conservative proxy (NAVFAC SW 

2015). Finally, SPLs were measured for 

the impact driving of 16-in polyconcrete piles during the third IHA 

monitoring period (NAVFAC SW 

2016a), and are used in this application 

for the same activities. 

TABLE 3—UNDERWATER SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS FROM SIMILAR IN SITU MONITORED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FROM

PREVIOUS YEARS

Project and location Pile size and type Method Water depth 

Measured sound pressure 

levels (rms) at 10 m 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

mean 1 max 2

NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, 

CA.

13 to 24-in concrete ............. Hydraulic pile cutting ............ 9 m (30 ft) 145 165.3 

NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, 

CA.

66- and 84-in steel caisson .. Diamond saw cutting ............ 9 m (30 ft) 149 155.6 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45816 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 3—UNDERWATER SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS FROM SIMILAR IN SITU MONITORED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FROM

PREVIOUS YEARS—Continued 

Project and location Pile size and type Method Water depth 

Measured sound pressure 

levels (rms) at 10 m 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

mean 1 max 2

NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, 

CA.

24-in concrete ....................... Jetting ................................... 9 m (30 ft) 155 159.9 

NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, 

CA.

30-in Steel Pipe .................... Vibratory ............................... 9 m (30 ft) 162.5 3 162.5 

NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, 

CA.

16-in Poly-Concrete .............. Impact ................................... 9 m (30 ft) 188.9 4 195 

1 Mean source levels used from data from previous monitoring reports (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017). Mean source levels were used to 

calculate Level B ZOIs. 2 Maximum source levels used from data from previous monitoring reports (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017). Max source levels were used to 

calculate Level A ZOIs. Maximum source levels used were proposed by the Navy. 3 Mean source levels for 30-in steel pipe piles were used as a proxy to calculate ZOIs for vibratory driving of 16-in concrete guide piles 

(NAVFAC SW 2015). 4The maximum source level is included for reference only. The distance to the Level B ZOI is based on in situ data collected for 16-in polyconcrete piles and was documented in NAVFAC SW (2016a). 

Scarce data exists on airborne and 

underwater noise levels associated with 

vibratory hammer extraction. However, 

it can reasonably be assumed that 

vibratory extraction emits SPLs that are 

no higher than SPLs caused by vibratory 

hammering of the same materials, and 

results in lower SPLs than caused by 

impact hammering comparable piles. 

For this application, the same value 

(162.5 decibels (dB) re 1 micropascal 

(mPa)) that was obtained for vibratory 

hammering of the 30-in steel piles at the 

Fuel Pier (NAVFAC SW 2015) is used 

for the vibratory hammering of 16-in 

round concrete piles at NMAWC. None 

of the peak sound pressure levels (SPL)s 

for the various sound sources reach the 

injury thresholds identified in the new 

NMFS (2016) Technical Guidance; 

therefore, injury from peak sound levels 

is not considered further. 

Table 5 provides the calculated areas 

of Level A and Level B zones of 

influence (ZOI)s associated with the 

impulsive and continuous sounds that 

are anticipated during the fifth-year IHA 

period. Table 4 provides the data that 

were used to calculate the distances to 

the Level A and B ZOIs presented in 

Table 5. It should be noted that the ZOI 

for Level A harassment would be closely 

monitored and subject to shutdowns if 

a marine mammal enters the area. The 

ZOI areas and maximum distances for 

the activities at the fuel pier and 

NMAWC are shown in Figures 6–1 and 

6–2, respectively of the Navy’s 

application. The figures reflect the 

conventional assumption that the 

natural or manmade shoreline acts as a 

barrier to underwater sound. It is 

generally accepted practice to model 

underwater sound propagation from pile 

driving as continuing in a straight line 

past a shoreline projection such as 

Ballast Point (Dahl 2012). Similarly, it is 

reasonable to assume that project sound 

would not propagate east of Zuniga Jetty 

(Dahl 2012). 

All of the ZOIs for potential Level A 

acoustic harassment (Table 5) would be 

buffered and encompassed by a larger 

shutdown zone. For example, the ZOIs 

for potential Level A acoustic 

harassment to pinnipeds from impact 

pile driving (Table 5) would be 

contained within a 60 meters (m) (196 

feet (ft)) shutdown zone. For impact pile 

driving at NMAWC, two methods 

identified in NMFS (2016) were 

evaluated to determine the most 

conservative distances to the Level A 

ZOIs using: (1) Root mean square (rms) 

SPL source levels; and (2) single strike 

equivalent SEL. The calculations 

showed that the first method was the 

most conservative and this method was 

subsequently used to determine the 

distances to the Level A ZOIs (Table 4). 

In all Level A ZOI calculations, the 

default values for the weighting factor 

adjustment and practical spreading for 

propagation loss were used (see 

Appendix A of the Navy’s application). 

TABLE 4—DATA USED TO CALCULATE DISTANCES TO LEVEL B ZOIS

Activity Impact pile driving Vibratory pile 

driving Pile jetting Caisson cutting Pile clipping 

References for Source Level and Duration.Year 3 report #1 

(NAVFAC SW 

2016a).

Year 2 report 

(NAVFAC SW 

2015).

Year 4 report 

(NAVFAC SW 

2017).

Year 3 report #1 

(NAVFAC SW 

2016a).

Year 4 report 

(NAVFAC SW 

2017). 

Size & Type of Piles used for Source 

Data.

16-in poly-concrete 

piles.

30-in steel piles .... 24x30-in concrete 

piles.

84-in caissons ...... 24-in concrete 

piles. 

Source Level (rms SPL) ..................... 188.9 .................... 162.5 .................... 159.9 .................... 155.6 .................... 165.3. 

Distance to Level B ZOI (m) ............... 270 ....................... 1,848 .................... 1,165 .................... 631 ....................... 2,511. 

The Level B ZOIs and distances are 

based on the validated SPLs directly 

measured during the IHA monitoring 

(NAVFAC SW 2014–2017), as available. 

For example, the distance to the Level 

B ZOI for impact driving of 16-in polyconcrete piles was 270 m (886 ft) during 

Year 3 monitoring (NAVFAC SW 

2016a). In cases where monitoring data 

are not available to empirically measure 

the extent of the Level B ZOI (activities 

at NMAWC), ‘‘practical spreading loss’’ 

from the source at 10 m has been 

assumed (15 log[distance/10]) and used 

to calculate the maximum extent of the 

ZOI based on the applicable threshold. 

Computed distances to the threshold for 

acoustic disturbance from nonimpulsive sources are based on the 

distances at which the project sound 

source declines to ambient. Because the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45817 

mean ambient sound levels in San Diego 

Bay in the vicinity of the project range 

from approximately 128 to 130 dB rms 

(NAVFAC SW 2015), the 120 dB 

acoustic threshold for the Level B ZOIs 

have been modified based on an 

approximate measured value between 

128 and 129 dB. The distances for all 

activities producing sound at NMAWC 

will be verified via hydrophone during 

project activities. 

TABLE 5—CALCULATED MAXIMUM AREAS OF ZOIS AND DISTANCES TO RELEVANT THRESHOLDS

Activity 

Measured/calculated distances to thresholds (m) and areas of ZOIs 

(m2 or km2) 

Underwater Airborne 

Level A123 Level B4 Level B 

LF MF PW OW 160 dB 120 dB5 100 dB6 90 dB6

Old Fuel Pier and Temporary Mooring Dolphin Demolition 

66-in and 84-in caissons (Diamond saw cutting).3.6 m 

41 m2 ............

0.3 m 

<1 m2 ............

2.2 m 

15 m2 ............

0.2m 

<1 m2 ............

N/A ................ 631 m 

0.7157 km2 ...

N/A 

Concrete piles (Pile clipping) ... 1.2 m 

4 m2 ..............

0.1 m 

<1 m2 ............

0.7 m 

<1 m2 ............

0.0 m 

0 m2 ..............

.................. 2,511 m 

4.4512 km2

NMAWC Construction and Demolition 

16-in concrete piles (Vibratory 

extraction/driving) 8.

8.3 m 

216 m2 ..........

0.7 m 

<1 m2 ............

5.1 m 

82 m2 ............

0.4 m 

<1 m2 ............

N/A ................ 1,848 m 

2.4473 km2 ...

42 m 

5,503 m2 .......

149 m 

69,646 m2

16-in concrete piles (Impact 

driving) 9.

63.4 m 

0.0126 km2 ...

2.3 m 

17 m2 ............

33.9 m 

3,610 m2 .......

2.5 m 

20 m2 ............

270 m 

0.1408 km2 ...

N/A.

16-in concrete piles (Jetting 

pile extraction).

3.9 m 

47.8 m2 .........

0.3 m 

<1 m2 ............

2.4 m 

18 m2 ............

0.2 m 

<1 m2 ............

N/A ................ 1,165 m 

1.4268 km2 ...

N/A 

1 If measured value thresholds are less than 10 m (33 ft), a minimum monitoring distance of 10 m (33 ft) would be implemented. 

2Based on measured mean source levels. The relevant data have been included in Appendix A of the Navy’s application, which provides information from previous 

years’ data collected as part of the Fuel Pier Project (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017). 3 LF = Low-frequency cetaceans; MF = Mid-frequency cetaceans; PW = Phocid pinnipeds; OW = Otariid pinnipeds. The high-frequency cetacean hearing group 

(HF) is omitted, because no species in the hearing group occur in, or around, the Project area. 4Based on measured maximum source levels, unless otherwise stated. The relevant data have been included in Appendix A, which provides information from previous years’ data collected as part of the Fuel Pier Project (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017). 5Average ambient sound levels in San Diego Bay are approximately 128 to 130 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), and all 120 dB Level B ZOIs are based on an approximate value between 128 and 129, which represents ambient levels in the Bay. 6Airborne ZOIs based on conservative representative data (collected during 30-inch vibratory pile driving from IHA #4). Airborne noise levels did not exceed thresholds during IHA #4 monitoring of demolition activities. 7Plasma torch noise levels are not expected to exceed underwater or airborne regulatory thresholds. 

8Based on conservative representative source levels of 162.5 dB rms (30-inch steel vibratory pile driving, NAVFAC SW 2015). 

9This SL that corresponds with the measured pulse duration is 185 db. However, the Navy used a more conservative source level of 188.9, derived from a compilation of measured source levels over several years, which resulted in these larger Level A zones. 

Airborne Sound 

Although sea lions are known to haulout regularly on man-made objects in 

the vicinity of the project site (see 

Figure 4–1 of the Navy’s application), 

and harbor seals are occasionally 

observed hauled out on rocks along the 

shoreline in the vicinity of the project 

site, none of these are within the ZOIs 

for airborne sound, and we believe that 

incidents of take resulting solely from 

airborne sound are unlikely. The zones 

for sea lions are within the minimum 

shutdown zone defined for underwater 

sound and, although the zones for 

harbor seals are larger, they have not 

been observed to haul out as readily on 

man-made structures in the immediate 

vicinity of the project site. There is a 

possibility that an animal could surface 

in-water, but with head out, within one 

of the defined zones and thereby be 

exposed to levels of airborne sound that 

we associate with harassment, but any 

such occurrence would likely be 

accounted for in our estimation of 

incidental take from underwater sound. 

We generally recognize that pinnipeds 

occurring within an estimated airborne 

harassment zone, whether in the water 

or hauled out, could be exposed to 

airborne sound that may result in 

behavioral harassment. However, any 

animal exposed to airborne sound above 

the behavioral harassment threshold is 

likely to also be exposed to underwater 

sound above relevant thresholds (which 

are typically in all cases larger zones 

than those associated with airborne 

sound). Thus, the behavioral harassment 

of these animals is already accounted 

for in these estimates of potential take. 

While the likelihood of multiple 

incidents of exposure to sound above 

NMFS’ thresholds for behavioral 

harassment to one individual could 

potentially result in increased 

behavioral disturbance, via either nature 

or intensity of disturbance reaction, if 

they occur within one day they are still 

only counted as one take and any 

differential impacts would be 

considered qualitatively. Therefore, we 

do not believe that authorization of 

additional incidental take resulting from 

airborne sound for pinnipeds is 

warranted, and airborne sound is not 

discussed further here. Distances 

associated with airborne sound and 

shown in Table 4 are for reference only. 

When 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 will result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A take. However, 

these tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools, and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For stationary sources such as vibratory 

pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet 

predicts the closest distance at which, if 

a marine mammal remained at that 

distance the whole duration of the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45818 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the 

resulting isopleths are reported below. 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A USER SPREADSHEET INPUT

Impact pile driving Vibratory pile driving Caisson cutting Pile clipping Pile jetting 

References for Source Level 

and Duration.

Year 3 report #1 

(NAVFAC SW 

2016a).

Year 2 report 

(NAVFAC SW 

2015).

Year 3 report #1 

(NAVFAC SW 

2016a).

Year 4 report 

(NAVFAC SW 

2017).

Year 4 report 

(NAVFAC SW 

2017). 

Spreadsheet Tab Used ............ (E.1) Impact pile 

driving.

(A.) Non-Impulse 

Stat-Cont.

(A.) Non-Impulse 

Stat-Cont.

(A.) Non-Impulse 

Stat-Cont.

(A.) Non-Impulse 

Stat-Cont. 

Source Level (Single Strike/ 

shot SEL).

188.9 * .................... 162.5 ...................... 149 ......................... 145 ......................... 155. 

Weighting Factor Adjustment 

(kHz).

2 ............................. 2.5 .......................... 2.5 .......................... 2.5 .......................... 2.5. 

(a) Activity Duration (h) within 

24-h period.

0.71 ........................ 0.95 ........................ 6 ............................. 2.82 ........................ 1.74. 

Propagation (xLogR) ................ 15 ........................... 15 ........................... 15 ........................... 15 ........................... 15. 

Distance of source level measurement (m).10 ........................... 10 ........................... 10 ........................... 10 ........................... 10. 

Pulse duration (sec) 1 .............. 0.03 ........................ n/a .......................... n/a .......................... n/a .......................... n/a. 

Number of strikes in 1 h .......... 193 ......................... n/a .......................... n/a .......................... n/a .......................... n/a. 

1Pulse duration was measured in previous construction years and the average pulse duration was 0.03 at 10 m (NAVFAC SW 2016a). 

* This SL that corresponds with the measured pulse duration is 185 db. However, the Navy used a more conservative source level of 188.9, 

derived from a compilation of measured source levels over several years, which resulted in larger Level A zones. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

For all species, the best scientific 

information available was considered 

for use in the marine mammal take 

assessment calculations. Although 

various regional offshore surveys for 

marine mammals have been conducted, 

it is unlikely that these data would be 

representative of the species or numbers 

that may be encountered in San Diego 

Bay. However, the Navy has conducted 

a large number of ongoing site-specific 

marine mammal surveys during 

appropriate seasons (e.g., Merkel and 

Associates 2008; Johnson 2010, 2011; 

Lerma 2012, 2014). Whereas analyses 

for the first-year IHA relied on surveys 

conducted from 2007–12, continuing 

surveys by the Navy have generally 

indicated increasing abundance of all 

species and the second-year IHA relied 

on 2012–14 survey data. In addition, the 

Navy has developed estimates of marine 

mammal densities in waters associated 

with training and testing areas 

(including Hawaii-Southern California) 

for the Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (NMSDD). A technical report 

(Hanser et al., 2015) describes 

methodologies and available 

information used to derive these 

densities, which are based upon the best 

available information, except where 

specific local abundance information is 

available and applicable to a specific 

action area. The document is publicly 

available online at: nwtteis.com/ 

DocumentsandReferences/NWTT

Documents/SupportingTechnical

Documents.aspx (accessed July 13, 

2017). 

Year 2 project monitoring showed 

even greater abundance of certain 

species, and we consider all of these 

data in order to provide the most up-todate estimates for marine mammal 

abundances during the period of this 

IHA. Although Years 3 and 4 project 

monitoring showed declines in marine 

mammal abundance in the vicinity of 

the project, we retain prior density 

estimates as a conservative measure for 

estimating exposure. Density 

information is shown in Table 8. These 

data are from dedicated line-transect 

surveys, required project marine 

mammal monitoring, opportunistic 

observations for more rarely observed 

species (see Figures 3–1 through 3–5 of 

the Navy’s application), or the NMSDD. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

The following assumptions are made 

when estimating potential incidences of 

take: 

• All marine mammal individuals 

potentially available are assumed to be 

present within the relevant area, and 

thus incidentally taken; 

• An individual can only be taken 

once during a 24-h period; 

• The assumed ZOIs and days of 

activity are as shown in Table 4; and, 

• Exposures to sound levels at or 

above the relevant thresholds equate to 

take, as defined by the MMPA. 

In this case, the estimation of marine 

mammal takes uses the following 

calculation: 

Exposure estimate = n * ZOI * days of 

total activity 

Where: 

n = density estimate used for each species/ 

season 

ZOI = sound threshold ZOI area; the area 

encompassed by all locations where the 

SPLs equal or exceed the threshold being 

evaluated. 

The ZOI impact area is estimated 

using the relevant distances in Table 4, 

assuming that sound radiates from a 

central point in the water column 

slightly offshore of the existing pier and 

taking into consideration the possible 

affected area due to topographical 

constraints of the action area (i.e., radial 

distances to thresholds are not always 

reached). 

TABLE 7—AREAS OF ACOUSTIC INFLUENCE AND DAYS OF ACTIVITY

Activity Number of 

days * 

ZOI 

(km2) 

66-in and 84-in caissons (Diamond saw cutting) .................................................................................................... 50 0.7157 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45819 

TABLE 7—AREAS OF ACOUSTIC INFLUENCE AND DAYS OF ACTIVITY—Continued 

Activity Number of 

days * 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Concrete piles (Pile clipping) ................................................................................................................................... 100 4.4512 

16-in concrete piles (Vibratory extraction/driving) 1 ................................................................................................. 25 2.4473 

16-in concrete piles (Jetting pile extraction) ............................................................................................................ 15 1.4268 

1We assume that impact driving of 16-in concrete piles would always occur on the same day as vibratory driving of the same piles. Therefore, 

the impact driving ZOI (0.1408 km2) would always be subsumed by the vibratory driving ZOI. 

* There are a total of 196 days of construction, but 6 of those days include piles being cut off at the mudline with a plasma torch, which would 

not create a ZOI. 

There are a number of reasons why 

estimates of potential incidents of take 

may be conservative, assuming that 

available density and estimated ZOI 

areas are accurate. We assume, in the 

absence of information supporting a 

more refined conclusion, that the output 

of the calculation represents the number 

of individuals that may be taken by the 

specified activity. In fact, in the context 

of stationary activities such as pile 

driving and in areas where resident 

animals may be present, this number 

more realistically represents the number 

of incidents of take that may accrue to 

a smaller number of individuals. While 

pile driving can occur any day 

throughout the period of validity, and 

the analysis is conducted on a per day 

basis, only a fraction of that time 

(typically a matter of hours on any given 

day) is actually spent pile driving. The 

potential effectiveness of mitigation 

measures in reducing the number of 

takes is typically not quantified in the 

take estimation process. For these 

reasons, these take estimates likely 

overestimate the number of individuals 

taken. See Table 8 for total estimated 

incidents of take. 

California Sea Lion 

During the second IHA period, an 

average of 90.35 California sea lions 

were seen per day within the maximum 

ZOI for pile driving, an area of 5.6752 

square kilometers (km2) extending 3,000 

m from the Fuel Pier. This equates to a 

density of 15.9201/km2. This density is 

used to estimate numbers of takes 

within the different ZOIs. NMFS 

estimates 8,971 Level B takes for this 

species. The maximum extents of the 

potential acoustic Level A ZOIs for 

cumulative exposure from all of the 

activities are much less than 10 m from 

the source, and therefore the 60-m 

shutdown zone will reduce the chance 

for Level A take. As a result, no Level 

A take of California sea lions is 

anticipated or authorized. 

Harbor Seal 

Sightings of harbor seals averaged 

2.83 individuals per day during the 

period of the second IHA (NAVFAC SW 

2015), a density of 0.4987/km2 within 

the maximum ZOI for pile driving. This 

density is used to estimate numbers of 

takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS 

estimates 281 Level B takes for this 

species. The maximum extent of the 

potential acoustic Level A ZOI for 

cumulative exposure from impact pile 

driving extends 34 m from the source; 

for all other activities, the Level A ZOIs 

are much less than 10 m from the 

source, therefore a 60-m shutdown zone 

will be in place to avoid Level A takes 

to harbor seals. Level A takes are not 

anticipated nor authorized. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Only a single individual elephant seal 

was sighted during the second IHA 

period (NAVFAC SW 2015), but with 

increasing numbers (Carretta et al., 

2016), they are considered a reasonable 

possibility to occur more frequently 

during the fifth IHA period. The 

regional density estimate of 0.0760/km2

(Navy 2017) is assumed for the project 

area. This density is used to estimate 

numbers of takes within the different 

ZOIs. NMFS estimates 43 Level B takes 

for this species. Potential takes would 

likely involve single individuals that are 

on the shoreline or structures at the 

identified location, or swimming in the 

vicinity, most likely near the mouth of 

the bay. The maximum extent of the 

potential acoustic Level A ZOI for 

cumulative exposure from impact pile 

driving extends 34 m from the source; 

for all other activities, the Level A ZOIs 

are much less than 10 m from the 

source, therefore a shutdown will be in 

place to avoid Level A takes to harbor 

seals. Level A takes are not anticipated 

nor authorized. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Coastal bottlenose dolphins can occur 

at any time of year in northern San 

Diego Bay. Numbers sighted have been 

highly variable but have increased in 

recent years (NAVFAC SW 2014, 2015). 

During the second IHA period, an 

average of 7.09 individuals were seen 

per day, a density of 1.2493/km2. This 

density is used to estimate numbers of 

takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS 

estimates 704 Level B takes for this 

species. The maximum extents of the 

potential acoustic Level A ZOIs for 

cumulative exposure from all of the 

activities are much less than 10 m from 

the source, and therefore the minimum 

10 m shutdown will reduce the chance 

for Level A take. As a result, no Level 

A take of bottlenose dolphins is 

anticipated nor authorized. 

Common Dolphin 

An average of 8.67 common dolphins 

was seen per day, a density of 1.5277/ 

km2 within the maximum ZOI, during 

the second IHA period (NAVFAC SW 

2015). This density is considerably 

higher than the regional density 

estimate for long-beaked common 

dolphins—the species most likely to 

occur (Navy 2017), but is reasonable for 

the project area given the group sizes 

observed for these species. Barlow 

(2010) reported average group sizes in 

southern California of 122 for shortbeaked common dolphins and 195 for 

long-beaked common dolphins, and 

during the second IHA period, groups of 

approximately 170 and 300 individuals 

entered the project area on different 

occasions (NAVFAC SW 2015). 

Considering the possibility for one or 

more large groups of common dolphins 

to enter San Diego Bay during in-water 

activities and the fact that the Level B 

ZOIs will extend completely across the 

bay during pile driving, the density 

estimate is considered appropriate. A 

density of 1.5277/km2 is used to 

estimate numbers of takes within the 

different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 861 

Level B takes for this species. The 

maximum extents of the potential 

acoustic Level A ZOIs for cumulative 

exposure from all of the activities are 

much less than 10 m from the source, 

and therefore the shutdown will reduce 

the chance for Level A take. As a result, 

no Level A take of common dolphins is 

anticipated nor authorized. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

Pacific white-sided dolphins are more 

commonly seen offshore, but were 

documented in the project area on 

several occasions during the second IHA 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45820 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

period. An average of 0.28 individuals 

per day was seen during the second IHA 

period (NAVFAC SW 2015), a density of 

0.0493/km2 within the maximum ZOI. 

This density is used to estimate 

numbers of takes within the different 

ZOIs. NMFS estimates 28 Level B takes 

for this species. The maximum extents 

of the potential acoustic Level A ZOIs 

for cumulative exposure from all of the 

activities are much less than 10 m from 

the source, and therefore the shutdown 

will reduce the chance for Level A take. 

As a result, no Level A take of Pacific 

white-sided dolphins is anticipated nor 

authorized. 

Risso’s Dolphin 

While there have been no sightings of 

Risso’s dolphin within the project area, 

the species is considered a reasonable 

possibility for the fifth IHA period given 

recent El Nin ̃ o conditions (Shane 1995) 

and its abundance in Southern 

California coastal waters (Jefferson et 

al., 2014). The upper limit of the 

regional density estimate, 0.2029/km2

(Navy 2017), is used to estimate 

numbers of takes within the different 

ZOIs. NMFS estimates 114 Level B takes 

for this species. The maximum extents 

of the potential acoustic Level A ZOIs 

for cumulative exposure from all of the 

activities are much less than 10 m from 

the source, and therefore the shutdown 

will reduce the chance for Level A take. 

As a result, no Level A take of Risso’s 

dolphins is anticipated nor authorized. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whale occurrence within 

northern San Diego Bay is sporadic and 

would likely consist of one to a few 

individuals that venture close to, or 

enter the bay for a brief period, and then 

continue on their migration. A density 

estimate based on the rare sightings of 

gray whales near the mouth of the bay 

during the second IHA period (NAVFAC 

SW 2015), would be less than 0.01/km2, 

which is slightly less than the regional 

density estimate of 0.0179/km2 in 

southern California waters during 

winter-spring (Navy 2017). The regional 

density estimate is applied here as a 

reasonable estimate given the possibility 

of animals moving closer to shore and 

entering the mouth of the bay during the 

fifth IHA period. This density is used to 

estimate numbers of takes within the 

different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 10 Level 

B takes for this species. The maximum 

extent of the potential acoustic Level A 

ZOI for cumulative exposure from 

impact pile driving extends 63 m from 

the source; for all other activities, the 

Level A ZOIs are much less than 10 m 

from the source. Gray whales are not 

expected to occur that close to the 

source; however, the Navy will 

implement a minimum of 10 m (100 m 

for impact driving) shutdown will be in 

place to avoid Level A takes to gray 

whales. Level A takes are not 

anticipated nor authorized. 

TABLE 8—CALCULATIONS FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE ESTIMATION

Species Density 

Diamond saw 

cutting of 

66-inch and 

84-inch 

caissons 

Pile clipping 

concrete piles 

Vibratory 

extraction/ 

driving of 

16-inch 

concrete piles 

Jetting pile 

extraction 

of 16 in 

concrete 

piles 

Total 

Level B 

takes * 

Total 

authorized 

takes 

(% of total 

stock) 

California sea lion ........ 15.9201 570 7086 974 341 8,971 3.023 

Harbor seal .................. 0.4987 18 222 31 11 281 0.907 

Northern elephant seal 0.076 3 34 5 2 43 0.024 

Bottlenose dolphin ....... 1.2493 45 556 76 27 704 2 155 

Common dolphin .......... 1.5277 55 680 93 33 861 3 0.088; 4 0.85 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ........................... 0.0493 2 22 3 1 28 0.104 

Risso’s dolphin ............. 0.2027 7 90 12 4 114 1.799 

Gray whale ................... 0.0179 1 8 1 0 10 0.048 

* Due to rounding of takes to the nearest whole number of animals, (which occurs at the very end, not per activity), totals may not always 

equal the sum of the takes from individual activities. 1We assume that impact driving of steel piles would occur on the same day as vibratory driving of the same piles and that the zone for vibratory driving would always subsume the zone for impact driving. Therefore, separate estimates are not provided for impact driving of steel piles. 2The numbers of authorized take for bottlenose dolphins are higher relative to the total stock abundance estimate and would not represent 

small numbers if a significant portion of the take was for a new individual. However, these numbers represent the estimated incidents of take, not 

the number of individuals taken. That is, it is likely that a relatively small subset of California coastal bottlenose dolphins would be incidentally 

harassed by project activities. 3SB = short-beaked common dolphin. 

4 LB = long-beaked common dolphin. 

Mitigation Measures 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such 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 such 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, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45821 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The mitigation strategies described 

below largely follow those required and 

successfully implemented under the 

first four IHAs associated with this 

project. For this IHA, data from acoustic 

monitoring conducted during the first 

four years of work was used to estimate 

zones of influence (ZOIs; see Estimated 

Take by Incidental Harassment); these 

values were used to develop mitigation 

measures for pile driving activities at 

NBPL. The ZOIs effectively represent 

the mitigation zone that would be 

established around each pile to 

minimize Level A harassment to marine 

mammals, while providing estimates of 

the areas within which Level B 

harassment might occur. In addition, the 

Navy has defined buffers to the 

estimated Level A harassment zones to 

further reduce the potential for Level A 

harassment. In addition to the measures 

described later in this section, the Navy 

would conduct briefings between 

construction supervisors and crews, 

marine mammal monitoring team, 

acoustic monitoring team, and Navy 

staff prior to the start of all pile driving 

activity, and when new personnel join 

the work, in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile 

Driving 

The following measures would apply 

to the Navy’s mitigation through 

shutdown and disturbance zones: 

Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving 

and removal activities, the Navy will 

establish a shutdown zone intended to 

contain the area in which SPLs equal or 

exceed the calculated Level A zones 

(refer to table). The purpose of a 

shutdown zone is to define an area 

within which shutdown of activity 

would occur upon sighting of a marine 

mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 

entering the defined area), thus 

preventing injury of marine mammals 

(serious injury or death are unlikely 

outcomes even in the absence of 

mitigation measures). Estimated radial 

distances to the relevant thresholds are 

shown in Table 4. For certain activities, 

the shutdown zone would not exist 

because source levels indicate that the 

radial distance to the threshold would 

be less than 10 m. However, a minimum 

shutdown zone of 10 m will be 

established during all pile driving and 

removal activities, regardless of the 

estimated zone. In addition the Navy 

plans to effect a buffered shutdown zone 

that is intended to significantly reduce 

the potential for Level A harassment 

given that, in particular, California sea 

lions are quite abundant in the project 

area and bottlenose dolphins may 

surface unpredictably and move 

erratically in an area with a large 

amount of construction equipment. 

These buffers are approximately double 

the distance to the Level A ZOI. These 

zones are also shown in Table 9. These 

precautionary measures are intended to 

prevent the already unlikely possibility 

of physical interaction with 

construction equipment and to establish 

a precautionary minimum zone with 

regard to acoustic effects. 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR LEVEL A ZOIS AND MONITORING ZONES FOR LEVEL B ZONES

Activity 

Monitored distances to thresholds 

(meters [feet]) 

Underwater 

Level A 

(shutdown) Level B 

LF 1 MF 1 PW 1 OW 1 160 dB 120 dB2

Old Fuel Pier and Temporary Mooring Dolphin Demolition 

66-inch and 84-inch caissons (Diamond 

saw cutting) .......................................... 10 N/A 631 

Concrete piles (Pile clipping) ................... 10 N/A 2,511 

NMAWC Construction and Demolition 

16-inch concrete piles (Vibratory extraction/driving) ........................................... 4 20 10 N/A 1,848 

16-inch concrete piles (Impact driving) .... 5 100 6 60 270 N/A 

16-inch concrete piles (Jetting pile extraction) ................................................. 10 N/A 1,165 

16-inch concrete piles (Pile dead-pull) .... 10 N/A 

1 LF = Low-frequency cetaceans; MF = Mid-frequency cetaceans; PW = Phocid pinnipeds; OW = Otariid pinnipeds. The high-frequency cetacean hearing group (HF) is omitted, because no species in the hearing group occur in, or around, Project area. 2 Mean ambient sound levels in San Diego Bay are approximately 128 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), and all 120 dB Level B ZOIs are based

on the ambient value. The distances for all activities producing sound at NMAWC will be verified via hydrophone during project activities. 3 Airborne noise levels did not exceed regulatory thresholds during previous IHAs. No airborne monitoring will take place for diamond saw cutting of caissons, plasma torch cutting of temporary mooring dolphin 30-inch steel piles, jetting or dead-pull extraction of concrete piles. 4 Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 20 m (65.6 ft). 5 Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 100 m (328 ft). 6 Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 60 m (328 ft). 

Disturbance Zone—Disturbance 

zones are the areas in which SPLs equal 

or exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for 

impulse and continuous sound, 

respectively). Disturbance zones provide 

utility for monitoring conducted for 

mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown 

zone monitoring) by establishing 

monitoring protocols for areas adjacent 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45822 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of 

disturbance zones enables observers to 

be aware of and communicate the 

presence of marine mammals in the 

project area but outside the shutdown 

zone and thus prepare for potential 

shutdowns of activity. However, the 

primary purpose of disturbance zone 

monitoring is for documenting incidents 

of Level B harassment; disturbance zone 

monitoring is discussed in greater detail 

later (see Monitoring and Reporting 

Measures). Nominal radial distances for 

disturbance zones are shown in Table 9. 

In order to document observed 

incidents of harassment, monitors 

record all marine mammal observations, 

regardless of location. The observer’s 

location, as well as the location of the 

pile being driven, is known from a GPS. 

The location of the animal is estimated 

as a distance from the observer, which 

is then compared to the location from 

the pile. If acoustic monitoring is being 

conducted for that pile, a received SPL 

may be estimated, or the received level 

may be estimated on the basis of past or 

subsequent acoustic monitoring. It may 

then be determined whether the animal 

was exposed to sound levels 

constituting incidental harassment in 

post-processing of observational and 

acoustic data, and a precise accounting 

of observed incidences of harassment 

created. Therefore, although the 

predicted distances to behavioral 

harassment thresholds are useful for 

estimating incidental harassment for 

purposes of authorizing levels of 

incidental take, actual take may be 

determined in part through the use of 

empirical data. 

Acoustic measurements will continue 

during the fifth year of project activity 

and zones would be adjusted as 

indicated by empirical data. Please see 

the Navy’s Acoustic and Marine Species 

Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan; 

available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/construction.htm) 

for full details. 

Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring 

would be conducted before, during, and 

after pile driving activities. In addition, 

observers shall record all incidents of 

marine mammal occurrence, regardless 

of distance from activity, and shall 

document any behavioral reactions in 

concert with distance from piles being 

driven. Observations made outside the 

shutdown zone will not result in 

shutdown; that pile segment would be 

completed without cessation, unless the 

animal approaches or enters the 

shutdown zone, at which point all pile 

driving activities would be halted. 

Monitoring will take place from fifteen 

minutes prior to initiation through 

thirty minutes post-completion of pile 

driving activities. Pile driving activities 

include the time to remove a single pile 

or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than thirty 

minutes. Please see the Monitoring Plan 

for full details of the monitoring 

protocols. 

The following additional measures 

apply to visual monitoring: 

(1) Monitoring will be conducted by 

qualified observers, who will be placed 

at the best vantage point(s) practicable 

(as defined in the Monitoring Plan) to 

monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown/delay procedures 

when applicable by calling for the 

shutdown to the hammer operator. 

Qualified observers are trained 

biologists, with the following minimum 

qualifications: 

(a) Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

(b) Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols 

(c) Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

(d) Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

(e) 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 and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

(f) 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. 

(2) Prior to the start of pile driving 

activity, the shutdown zone will be 

monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure 

that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile 

driving will only commence once 

observers have declared the shutdown 

zone clear of marine mammals; animals 

will be allowed to remain in the 

shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their 

own volition) and their behavior will be 

monitored and documented. The 

shutdown zone may only be declared 

clear, and pile driving started, when the 

entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., 

when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, 

etc.). In addition, if such conditions 

should arise during impact pile driving 

that is already underway, the activity 

would be halted. 

(3) If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during the 

course of pile driving operations, 

activity will be halted and delayed until 

either the animal has voluntarily left 

and been visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have 

passed without re-detection of small 

cetaceans or pinnipeds and 30 minutes 

for gray whales. Monitoring will be 

conducted throughout the time required 

to drive a pile and for thirty minutes 

following the conclusion of pile driving. 

Sound Attenuation Devices 

The use of bubble curtains to reduce 

underwater sound from impact pile 

driving was considered prior to the start 

of the project but was determined to not 

be practicable. Use of a bubble curtain 

in a channel with substantial current 

may not be effective, as unconfined 

bubbles are likely to be swept away and 

confined curtain systems may be 

difficult to deploy effectively in high 

currents. Data gathered during 

monitoring of construction on the San 

Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge indicated 

that no reduction in the overall linear 

sound level resulted from use of a 

bubble curtain in deep water with 

relatively strong current (Illingworth & 

Rodkin 2001). During project 

monitoring for pile driving associated 

with the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, 

also in San Francisco Bay, it was 

observed that performance in moderate 

current was significantly reduced 

(Oestman et al., 2009). Lucke et al. 

(2011) also note that the effectiveness of 

most currently used curtain designs may 

be compromised in stronger currents 

and greater water depths. We believe 

that conditions (relatively deep water 

and strong tidal currents of up to 3 

knots (kn)) at the project site would 

disperse the bubbles and compromise 

the effectiveness of sound attenuation. 

Timing Restrictions 

In-order to avoid impacts to least tern 

populations when they are most likely 

to be foraging and nesting, in-water 

work will be concentrated from October 

1–April 1 or, depending on 

circumstances, to April 30. However, 

this limitation is in accordance with 

agreements between the Navy and FWS, 

and is not a requirement of this IHA. All 

in-water construction activities would 

occur only from 45 minutes after sunrise 

to 45 minutes before sunset. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45823 

Soft Start 

The use of a soft start procedure is 

believed to provide additional 

protection to marine mammals by 

warning or providing a chance to leave 

the area prior to the hammer operating 

at full capacity, and typically involves 

a requirement to initiate sound from the 

hammer at reduced energy followed by 

a waiting period. This procedure is 

repeated two additional times. It is 

difficult to specify the reduction in 

energy for any given hammer because of 

variation across drivers and, for impact 

hammers, the actual number of strikes at 

reduced energy will vary because 

operating the hammer at less than full 

power results in ‘‘bouncing’’ of the 

hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting 

in multiple ‘‘strikes.’’ The project will 

utilize soft start techniques for impact 

pile driving. We require an initial set of 

three strikes from the impact hammer at 

reduced energy, followed by a 30- 

second waiting period, then two 

subsequent three strike sets. Soft start 

will be required at the beginning of each 

day’s impact pile driving work and at 

any time following a cessation of impact 

pile driving of thirty minutes or longer; 

the requirement to implement soft start 

for impact driving is independent of 

whether vibratory driving has occurred 

within the prior thirty minutes. 

Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s 

planned measures, as well as any other 

potential measures that may be relevant 

to the specified activity, we have 

determined that the mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting Measures 

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 incidental take 

authorizations must include the 

suggested means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species and of the level of taking or 

impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

history, dive patterns); (3) Cooccurrence 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 impacts 

from multiple stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of an individual; or 

(2) Population, species, or stock. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g. marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Please see the Monitoring Plan 

(available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/construction.htm) 

for full details of the requirements for 

monitoring and reporting. Notional 

monitoring locations (for biological and 

acoustic monitoring) are shown in 

Figures 3–1 and 3–2 of the Plan. The 

purpose of this Plan is to provide 

protocols for acoustic and marine 

mammal monitoring implemented 

during pile driving and removal 

activities. We have determined this 

monitoring plan, which is summarized 

here and which largely follows the 

monitoring strategies required and 

successfully implemented under the 

previous IHAs, to be sufficient to meet 

the MMPA’s monitoring and reporting 

requirements. The previous monitoring 

plan was modified to integrate adaptive 

changes to the monitoring 

methodologies as well as updates to the 

scheduled construction activities. 

Monitoring objectives are as follows: 

• Monitor in-water construction 

activities, including the implementation 

of in-situ acoustic monitoring efforts to 

continue to measure SPLs from in-water 

construction and demolition activities 

not previously monitored or validated 

during the previous IHAs. This would 

include collection of acoustic data for 

activities and pile types for which 

sufficient data has not previously been 

collected, including for diamond saw 

cutting of caissons and pile clipping of 

the concrete piles during fuel pier 

demolition. The Navy also plans to 

collect acoustic data for vibratory 

extraction and/or driving, impact 

driving, and jetting pile extraction of the 

concrete piles at NMAWC. 

• Monitor marine mammal 

occurrence and behavior during inwater construction activities to 

minimize marine mammal impacts and 

effectively document marine mammals 

occurring within ZOI boundaries. 

Collection of ambient underwater 

sound measurements in the absence of 

project activities has been concluded, as 

a rigorous baseline dataset for the 

project area has been developed. 

Acoustic Measurements 

The primary purpose of acoustic 

monitoring is to empirically verify 

modeled injury and behavioral 

disturbance zones (defined at radial 

distances to NMFS-specified thresholds; 

see Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment). For non-pulsed sound, 

distances will continue to be evaluated 

for attenuation to the point at which 

sound becomes indistinguishable from 

background levels. Empirical acoustic 

monitoring data will be used to 

document transmission loss values 

determined from past measurements 

and to examine site-specific differences 

in SPL and affected ZOIs on an as 

needed basis. 

Should monitoring results indicate it 

is appropriate to do so, marine mammal 

mitigation zones may be revised as 

necessary to encompass actual ZOIs. 

Acoustic monitoring will be conducted 

as specified in the approved Monitoring 

Plan. Please see Table 2–2 of the Plan 

for a list of equipment to be used during 

acoustic monitoring. Monitoring 

locations will be determined based on 

results of previous acoustic monitoring 

effort and the best professional 

judgment of acoustic technicians. 

For activities such as demolition of 

the old fuel pier and temporary mooring 

dolphin, the Navy will continue to 

collect in situ acoustic data to validate 

source levels and ZOIs. Environmental 

data would be collected including but 

not limited to: Wind speed and 

direction, air temperature, humidity, 

surface water temperature, water depth, 

wave height, weather conditions and 

other factors that could contribute to 

influencing the airborne and underwater 

sound levels (e.g., aircraft, boats). Full 

details of acoustic monitoring 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45824 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

requirements may be found in section 

4.2 of the Navy’s Monitoring Plan. 

Visual Marine Mammal Observations 

The Navy will collect sighting data 

and behavioral responses to 

construction for marine mammal 

species observed in the region of 

activity during the period of activity. All 

observers will be trained in marine 

mammal identification and behaviors 

and are required to have no other 

construction-related tasks while 

conducting monitoring. The Navy will 

monitor the shutdown zone and 

disturbance zone before, during, and 

after pile driving as described under 

Mitigation Measures and in the 

Monitoring Plan, with observers located 

at the best practicable vantage points. 

Notional monitoring locations are 

shown in Figures 3–3 and 3–4 of the 

Navy’s Plan. Please see that plan, 

available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/construction.htm, for 

full details of the required marine 

mammal monitoring. Section 3.2 of the 

Plan and Section 13 of the Navy’s 

application offer more detail regarding 

monitoring protocols. Based on our 

requirements, the Navy would 

implement the following procedures for 

pile driving: 

• Marine Mammal Observers (MMO)s 

would be located at the best vantage 

point(s) in order to properly see the 

entire shutdown zone and as much of 

the disturbance zone as possible. 

• During all observation periods, 

observers will use binoculars and the 

naked eye to search continuously for 

marine mammals. 

• If the shutdown zones are obscured 

by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile 

driving at that location will not be 

initiated until that zone is visible. 

Should such conditions arise while 

impact driving is underway, the activity 

would be halted. 

• The shutdown and disturbance 

zones around the pile will be monitored 

for the presence of marine mammals 

before, during, and after any pile driving 

or removal activity. 

One MMO will be placed in the most 

effective position near the active 

construction/demolition platform in 

order to observe the respective 

shutdown zones for vibratory and 

impact pile driving or for applicable 

demolition activities. Monitoring would 

be primarily dedicated to observing the 

shutdown zone; however, MMOs would 

record all marine mammal sightings 

beyond these distances provided it did 

not interfere with their effectiveness at 

carrying out the shutdown procedures. 

Additional land, pier, or vessel-based 

MMOs will be positioned to monitor the 

shutdown zones and the buffer zones, as 

notionally indicated in Figures 3–3 and 

3–4 of the Navy’s application. 

For all pile driving and applicable 

demolition activities, a minimum of one 

observer shall monitor the shutdown 

zones. However, any action requiring 

the impact or vibratory hammer will 

necessitate two MMOs. For impact and 

vibratory pile driving of 16-in concrete 

piles, two observers shall be positioned 

for optimal monitoring of the 

surrounding waters. 

The MMOs will record all visible 

marine mammal sightings. Confirmed 

takes will be registered once the 

sightings data has been overlaid with 

the isopleths identified in Table 4 and 

visualized in Figures 6–2, 6–3, and 6– 

4 of the Navy’s application, or based on 

refined acoustic data, if amendments to 

the ZOIs are needed. Acousticians on 

duty may be noting SPLs in real-time, 

but, to avoid biasing the observations, 

will not communicate that information 

directly to the MMOs. These platforms 

may move closer to, or farther from, the 

source depending on whether received 

SPLs are less than or greater than the 

regulatory threshold values. All MMOs 

will be in radio communication with 

each other so that the MMOs will know 

when to anticipate incoming marine 

mammal species and when they are 

tracking the same animals observed 

elsewhere. 

If any species for which take is not 

authorized is observed by a MMO 

during applicable construction or 

demolition activities, all construction 

will be stopped immediately. Pile 

driving will commence if the animal has 

not been seen inside the Level B ZOI for 

at least one hour of observation. If the 

animal is resighted again, pile driving 

will be stopped and a boat-based MMO 

(if available) will follow the animal 

until it has left the Level B ZOI. If the 

animal is resighted again, pile driving 

will be stopped and a boat-based MMO 

(if available) will follow the animal 

until it has left the Level B ZOI. 

Individuals implementing the 

monitoring protocol will assess its 

effectiveness using an adaptive 

approach. Monitoring biologists will use 

their best professional judgment 

throughout implementation and seek 

improvements to these methods when 

deemed appropriate. Any modifications 

to protocol will be coordinated between 

NMFS and the Navy. 

Data Collection 

We require that observers use 

approved data forms. Among other 

pieces of information, the Navy will 

record detailed information about any 

implementation of shutdowns, 

including the distance of animals to the 

pile and description of specific actions 

that ensued and resulting behavior of 

the animal, if any. In addition, the Navy 

will attempt to distinguish between the 

number of individual animals taken and 

the number of incidents of take. We 

require that, at a minimum, the 

following information be collected on 

the sighting forms: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity, 

and if possible, the correlation to 

measured SPLs; 

• Distance from pile driving activities 

to marine mammals and distance from 

the marine mammals to the observation 

point; 

• Description of implementation of 

mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown or 

delay); 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

In addition, photographs would be 

taken of any gray whales observed. 

These photographs would be submitted 

to NMFS’ West Coast Regional Office for 

comparison with photo-identification 

catalogs to determine whether the whale 

is a member of the WNP population. 

Reporting 

A draft report would be submitted to 

NMFS within 45 calendar days of the 

completion of marine mammal 

monitoring, or 60 days prior to the 

issuance of any subsequent IHA for this 

project, whichever comes first. The 

report will include marine mammal 

observations pre-activity, duringactivity, and post-activity during pile 

driving days, and will also provide 

descriptions of any behavioral responses 

to construction activities by marine 

mammals and a complete description of 

all mitigation shutdowns and the results 

of those actions. A final report would be 

prepared and submitted within 30 days 

following resolution of comments on the 

draft report. Required contents of the 

monitoring reports are described in 

more detail in the Navy’s Acoustic and 

Marine Species Monitoring Plan. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45825 

Monitoring Results From Previously 

Authorized Activities 

The Navy complied with the 

mitigation and monitoring required 

under the previous authorizations for 

this project. Acoustic and marine 

mammal monitoring was implemented 

as required, with marine mammal 

monitoring occurring before, during, 

and after each pile driving event. During 

the course of Year 4 activities, the Navy 

did not exceed the take levels 

authorized under the IHA (please see 

the Navy’s monitoring report for more 

details and below for further 

discussion). 

The general objectives of the 

monitoring plan were similar to those 

described above for the Year 5 

monitoring plan. For acoustic 

monitoring, the primary goal was to 

continue to collect in situ data towards 

validation of the acoustic ZOIs defined 

based on previous data collection efforts 

and using the transmission loss 

modeling effort conducted prior to the 

start of the project, and to continue 

collection of data on background noise 

conditions in San Diego Bay. 

Acoustic Monitoring Results—For a 

full description of acoustic monitoring 

methodology, please see section 2.3 of 

the Navy’s monitoring report, including 

Figure 2–3 for representative monitoring 

locations. Results from Years 1–4 are 

displayed in Table 10. Please see our 

notices of proposed IHAs for the Years 

2, 3, and 4 IHAs (79 FR 53026, 

September 5, 2014; 80 FR 53115, 

September 2, 2015; and 81 FR 66628, 

September 28, 2016) or the Navy’s Year 

1 and 2 monitoring reports for more 

detailed description of monitoring 

accomplished during the first two years 

of the project. 

For acoustic monitoring associated 

with impact pile driving, continuous 

hydroacoustic monitoring systems were 

positioned at source (10 m from the 

pile) and opportunistically at predicted 

160-dB Level B ZOIs. The far-field data 

collections were conducted at multiple 

locations during impact driving of 16-in 

concrete-filled poly piles and 24 x 30- 

in concrete fender piles, i.e., 

approximately 20 to 550 m from source. 

Hydrophones were deployed from the 

dock, barge, or moored vessel at half the 

water depth. The SPLs for driving of 30- 

in steel pipe piles were measured 

intermittently and archived (but not 

reported) because associated SPLs for 

the size, type, and location of the piles 

were previously validated. Source SPLs 

were recorded and analyzed for a 

minimum of five piles for each of the 

concrete pile types. Additional 

measurements were archived. 

SPLs of pile driving and demolition 

activities conducted during Year 2 fell 

within expected levels but varied 

spatially relative to the existing fuel pier 

structure and maximum source levels 

for individual piles (Table 10). For both 

vibratory and impact pile driving 

methods, results from the IPP (Year 1) 

and 2014/2015 production pile driving 

(Year 2) showed that transmission loss 

for piles driven in shallow water inside 

of the existing fuel pier was greater than 

piles driven in deep water outside of the 

existing pier. Differences in depth, 

sediment type, and existing in-water 

pier/wharf structures likely accounted 

for variations in transmission loss and 

measured differences in SPLs recorded 

at the shutdown and far-field locations 

for shallow versus deep piles of the 

same type and size. SPLs documented 

during vibratory and impact pile driving 

of shallow and deep steel pipe piles of 

the same size displayed notable 

differences in SPLs at shutdown range 

and to a lesser extent at source. 

Measurements of impact driving of 

concrete piles conducted during Year 3 

produced greater than expected SPLs at 

source. Differences in the subsurface 

conditions may account for the 

discrepancy, as a hardened layer is 

found at approximately 20–40 m below 

the mudline. SPLs documented during 

driving of 16-in piles generally 

displayed relatively low sound source 

levels during initial driving then 

appreciable increases observed once the 

piles interacted with this layer. 

Measurements from driving of the 

square concrete piles showed greatest 

sound source levels during initial 

impact pile driving, which then 

decreased once the piles transitioned 

through the hardened layer. While 

source SPLs were observed to be greater 

than expected for both pile types, 

attenuation was also greater. Despite 

greater than expected source levels, the 

measured isopleth distances were 

similar to modeled predictions. Far-field 

impact pile driving results varied 

substantially between piles and 

locations for the various pile sizes, 

types, and locations. Both pile types 

were driven adjacent to the new fuel 

pier and source SPLs were subject to a 

wide variety of boundary conditions 

from recently driven piles and 

associated pier infrastructure. Further 

detail and discussion is provided in the 

Navy’s report. 

During Year 4, measurements were 

conducted for pile clipping, caisson 

cutting, pile jetting, and airborne 

vibratory and impact driving. The 

average SPLs for pile clipping at source 

ranged from 138.0 to 144.6 dB rms, with 

maximum SPLs at source ranging from 

156.1 to 165.3 dB rms (see Table 6–3 of 

the Navy’s monitoring report). 

Measurements were conducted on eight 

piles and took one to three minutes to 

cut. 

Caisson demolition was conducted on 

18 84-in concrete-filled caissons, with 

an average duration of approximately 6 

hours per caisson. Underwater acoustic 

data was collected for seven caissons 

using the vibratory setting. For some of 

the recordings, there were two caissons 

being cut simultaneously and the 

acousticians captured the SPLs for 

comparison between a single cutter 

versus two cutters. If two cutters were 

running, the distance measured was 

from the closest caisson to the location. 

Average SPLs at source for a single 

cutter were 136.1 and 141.4 dB rms. 

Maximum SPLs at source for a single 

cutter were 140.9 and 146.5 dB rms. 

Average SPLs at source for two cutters 

running simultaneously were 146.5 and 

149.0 dB rms. Maximum SPLs at source 

for two cutters running simultaneously 

were 149.0 and 155.6 dB rms. On 

average, there was a 10 dB difference 

between a single cutter and two at 

source. Far-field recordings for a single 

cutter were collected at far-field 

locations ranging from 20 to 430 m (66 

to 1,411 ft), with documented maximum 

SPL values from 136.6 to 145.5 dB rms. 

Far-field recordings for two cutters were 

also collected at far-field locations 

ranging from 85 to 810 m (279 to 2,657 

ft), with documented maximum SPL 

values from 133.2 to 146.8 dB rms. 

SPLs of pile installation activities for 

the 24 x 30 concrete piles had not been 

previously documented. The only 

jetting data collected during the Project 

was at NMAWC during the removal of 

12-inch and 16-inch concrete piles. A 

total of sixteen 24 x 30 concrete nonstructural fender piles were driven 

using two techniques: (1) Method 1 (M1) 

utilized a custom-made spud jet with 

four nozzles welded to the tip that used 

a high-pressure water system (900 

gallons per minute with a maximum 

pounds per square inch (psi) of 300), to 

make the initial break through the bay 

point formation sediment layer; and (2) 

Method 2 (M2) used the 24 x 30 pile, 

outfitted with two pipes inside the full 

length of the pile, which then used a 

high-pressure water system (maximum 

psi of 300) to remove sediment and 

place the pile. Pile jetting averaged 24.5 

minutes per pile and acoustic 

recordings were collected for the entire 

duration. Collection of underwater 

acoustic data were completed on six 

piles using the vibratory setting. For M1, 

the average sound pressure levels (SPL) 

at source ranged from 152.6 dB rms to 

155.1 dB rms, and maximum SPLs at 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45826 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

source ranged from 156.5 dB rms to 

159.9 dB rms. For M2, the average SPL 

at source ranged from 133.0 dB to 149.8 

dB and maximum SPLs at source ranged 

from 137.1 dB to 153.2 dB rms. A vessel 

based drift method was used to obtain 

far-field recordings during M1 and M2 

jetting techniques; the vessel was 

initially positioned at the closest 

feasible distance to source, and then 

allowed to drift on the natural tidal 

current until near ambient sound 

pressure levels were obtained. The SPLs 

at far-field for the first drift during 

jetting M1 reached near ambient at 165 

m (541 ft) from pile with an SPL of 

128.0 dB. The SPLs at far-field for the 

first drift during pile jetting M2 reached 

near ambient at 80 m (262 ft) from pile 

with an SPL of 127.6 dB. Recordings 

during the vessel drifts showed that 

jetting reached near ambient levels for 

both methods between 80 m (262 ft) and 

165 m (541 ft; M1 and M2, respectively). 

Airborne sound levels were recorded 

during vibratory pile driving on 

fourteen 30-inch steel piles. The 

maximum recorded airborne dB rms 

values at source was 106.3 dB re 20 mPa, 

and average values ranged from 96.0 to 

102.7 dB re 20 mPa. Airborne sound 

levels were recorded during impact pile 

driving on sixteen 30-inch steel piles. 

The maximum recorded airborne dB 

values at source was 118.5 dB re 20 mPa, 

and average values ranged from 105.8 to 

112.5 dB re 20 mPa. Further detail and 

discussion is provided in the Navy’s 

report. 

TABLE 10—ACOUSTIC MONITORING RESULTS FOR YEAR 4 

Location Activity Pile type 

Number of 

piles 

measured 

Average 

underwater 

SPL at 10 m 

(dB rms) 

Average 

airborne SPL 

(LZFmax) 1

Fuel Pier (Year 4) .................. Pile Clipping .......................... 24-in square concrete pile .... 4 141 ........................

Caisson Demolition (1 cutter) 84-in caisson ........................ 10 136 ........................

Caisson Demolition (2 cutters).84-in caisson ........................ 8 138 ........................

Vibratory ............................... 30-in steel (at source) .......... 7 ........................ 100 

Vibratory ............................... 30-in steel (far field) ............. 7 ........................ 86 

Impact ................................... 30-in steel (at source) .......... 9 ........................ 110 

Impact ................................... 30-in steel (far field) ............. 7 ........................ 88 

NMAWC (Year 4) .................. Pile Jetting ............................ 24 x 30 .................................. 10 147 ........................

1 Measured from Source (15.2 m) and Far-field Distances for 30-inch Steel Piles. 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Results— 

Marine mammal monitoring was 

conducted as required under the IHA 

and as described in the Year 4 

monitoring plan and in our Federal 

Register notice of proposed 

authorization associated with the Year 4 

IHA. For a full description of 

monitoring methodology, please see 

section 2 of the Navy’s monitoring 

report, including Figure 2–1, 2–2, and 

2–7 for representative monitoring 

locations and Figures 2–2 through 2–5 

for monitoring zones. Monitoring 

protocols were managed adaptively 

during the course of the fourth-year 

IHA. Multiple shutdowns were 

implemented due to marine mammals 

being observed within buffered 

shutdown zones, but no animals were 

observed within actual predicted Level 

A harassment zones while pile driving 

was occurring (one harbor seal was seen 

within the Level A ZOI after a shutdown 

of construction had been implemented). 

Monitoring results are presented in 

Table 11. The Navy recorded all 

observations of marine mammals, 

including pre- and post-construction 

monitoring efforts. Animals observed 

during these periods or that were 

determined to be outside relevant ZOIs 

were not considered to represent 

incidents of take. Please see Figures 3– 

11, 3–12, 3–22, 3–23, 3–30, and 3–31 of 

the Navy’s Monitoring Report for 

locations of observations and incidents 

of take relative to the project sites. Take 

authorization for the second-year 

authorization was informed by an 

assumption that 115 days of in-water 

construction would occur, whereas only 

fifty total days actually occurred. 

However, the actual observed rates per 

day were in all cases lower than what 

was assumed. Therefore, we expect that 

the Navy would not have exceeded the 

take allowances even if the full 115 days 

had been reached. 

There were considerably fewer 

individuals and sightings during the 

Year 3 IHA when compared to the same 

months during the Year 2 IHA, and only 

three species were observed. This may 

be due to environmental fluctuations as 

part of the on-going El Nin ̃ o event. 

Water temperatures during Year 3 were 

warmer than during the same months 

during Year 2. Although the 

temperatures were still higher than the 

average water temperatures for the 

region prior to the current El Nin ̃ o 

event, it shows that the event may have 

been dissipating. In addition, California 

sea lion strandings decreased. No 

evidently significant behavioral changes 

were reported. 

Similar to Year 3, there were 

considerably fewer individuals and 

sightings during the Year 4 IHA when 

compared to the same months during 

the Year 2 IHA, and only four species 

were observed. This may be due to 

environmental fluctuations as part of 

the on-going El Nin ̃ o event. Water 

temperatures during Year 4 were 

slightly warmer than during the same 

months during Year 2. Although the 

temperatures were still higher than the 

average water temperatures for the 

region prior to the current El Nin ̃ o 

event, it shows that the event may have 

been dissipating. In addition, California 

sea lion strandings decreased, but may 

be returning to numbers more 

commonly observed. No evidently 

significant behavioral changes were 

reported. 

TABLE 11—MARINE MAMMAL MONITORING RESULTS FOR YEAR 4 

Species Total 

sightings 

Total 

individuals 

Observed 

incidents of 

Level B take 

Extrapolated 

incidents of 

Level B take 1

Total 

estimated 

Level B take 

California sea lion ................................................................ 717 2,037 156 1,835 1,991 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45827 

TABLE 11—MARINE MAMMAL MONITORING RESULTS FOR YEAR 4—Continued 

Species Total 

sightings 

Total 

individuals 

Observed 

incidents of 

Level B take 

Extrapolated 

incidents of 

Level B take 1

Total 

estimated 

Level B take 

Harbor seal .......................................................................... 87 102 21 57 78 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... 18 45 4 144 148 

Gray whale ........................................................................... 1 1 0 13 13 

1Assumed density and unmonitored area of assumed Level B ZOI used with actual pile driving time to generate assumed take for unmonitored 

areas. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

A negligible impact finding is based on 

the lack of likely adverse effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(i.e., population-level 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). 

Construction and demolition 

activities associated with the pier 

replacement project, as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level B 

harassment (behavioral disturbance) 

only, from underwater sounds generated 

from pile driving. Potential takes could 

occur if individuals of these species are 

present in the ensonified zone when 

pile driving or removal is happening. 

No injury, serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated given the nature of the 

activity and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

these outcomes is minimized through 

the construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures. Impact pile driving 

produces short, sharp pulses with 

higher peak levels and much sharper 

rise time to reach those peaks. When 

impact driving is necessary, required 

measures (implementation of buffered 

shutdown zones) significantly reduce 

any possibility of injury. Given 

sufficient ‘‘notice’’ through use of soft 

start (for impact driving), marine 

mammals are expected to move away 

from a sound source that is annoying 

prior to its becoming potentially 

injurious. The likelihood that marine 

mammal detection ability by trained 

observers is high under the 

environmental conditions described for 

San Diego Bay (approaching 100 percent 

detection rate, as described by trained 

biologists conducting site-specific 

surveys) further enables the 

implementation of shutdowns to avoid 

injury, serious injury, or mortality. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from past years of this 

project and other similar activities, will 

likely be limited to reactions such as 

increased swimming speeds, increased 

surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if 

such activity were occurring) (e.g., 

Thorson and Reyff 2006; HDR 2012; 

Lerma 2014). Most likely, individuals 

will simply move away from the sound 

source and be temporarily displaced 

from the areas of pile driving, although 

even this reaction has been observed 

primarily only in association with 

impact pile driving. In response to 

vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which 

may become somewhat habituated to 

human activity in industrial or urban 

waterways) have been observed to orient 

towards and sometimes move towards 

the sound. The pile driving activities 

analyzed here are similar to, or less 

impactful than, numerous other 

construction activities conducted in San 

Francisco Bay and in the Puget Sound 

region, which have taken place with no 

reported injuries or mortality to marine 

mammals, and no known long-term 

adverse consequences from behavioral 

harassment. Repeated exposures of 

individuals to levels of sound that may 

cause Level B harassment are unlikely 

to result in hearing impairment or to 

significantly disrupt foraging behavior. 

Thus, even repeated Level B harassment 

of some small subset of the overall stock 

is unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in fitness for the 

affected individuals, and thus would 

not result in any adverse impact to the 

stock as a whole. Level B harassment 

will be reduced to the level of least 

practicable impact through use of 

mitigation measures described herein 

and, if sound produced by project 

activities is sufficiently disturbing, 

animals are likely to simply avoid the 

project area while the activity is 

occurring. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• No injury is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior; 

• The absence of any significant 

habitat within the project area, 

including rookeries, significant haulouts, or known areas or features of 

special significance for foraging or 

reproduction; and 

• The presumed efficacy of the 

mitigation measures in reducing the 

effects of the specified activity to the 

level of least practicable impact. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the planned activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45828 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

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. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The number of incidents of take 

planned for authorization for these 

stocks, with the exception of the coastal 

bottlenose dolphin (see below), would 

be considered small relative to the 

relevant stocks or populations (see 

Table 8) even if each estimated taking 

occurred to a new individual. This is an 

extremely unlikely scenario as, for 

pinnipeds occurring at the NBPL 

waterfront, there will almost certainly 

be some overlap in individuals present 

day-to-day and in general, there is likely 

to be some overlap in individuals 

present day-to-day for animals in 

estuarine/inland waters. 

The numbers of authorized take for 

bottlenose dolphins are higher relative 

to the total stock abundance estimate 

and would not represent small numbers 

if a significant portion of the take was 

for a new individual. However, these 

numbers represent the estimated 

incidents of take, not the number of 

individuals taken. That is, it is likely 

that a relatively small subset of 

California coastal bottlenose dolphins 

would be incidentally harassed by 

project activities. California coastal 

bottlenose dolphins range from San 

Francisco Bay to San Diego (and south 

into Mexico) and the specified activity 

would be stationary within an enclosed 

water body that is not recognized as an 

area of any special significance for 

coastal bottlenose dolphins (and is 

therefore not an area of dolphin 

aggregation, as evident in Navy 

observational records). We therefore 

believe that the estimated numbers of 

takes, were they to occur, likely 

represent repeated exposures of a much 

smaller number of bottlenose dolphins 

and that, based on the limited region of 

exposure in comparison with the known 

distribution of the coastal bottlenose 

dolphin, these estimated incidents of 

take represent small numbers of 

bottlenose dolphins. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population size 

of the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division, whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

The Navy initiated informal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

with NMFS Southwest Regional Office 

(now West Coast Regional Office) on 

March 5, 2013. NMFS concluded on 

May 16, 2013, that the planned action 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, WNP gray whales. The Navy has 

not requested authorization of the 

incidental take of WNP gray whales and 

we are not authorizing it, and there are 

no other ESA-listed marine mammals 

found in the action area. Therefore, no 

consultation under the ESA is required. 

Dated: September 27, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21044 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF697 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Navy Submarine 

Base New London Pier Construction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for 

letter of authorization; request for 

comments and information. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 

authorization to take, by harassment, of 

marine mammals incidental to 

conducting pier construction at the 

Navy Submarine Base New London in 

Groton, Connecticut, beginning October 

2018 and ending March 2022. Pursuant 

to the implementing regulations of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is announcing our 

receipt of the Navy’s request for 

regulations governing the incidental 

taking of marine mammals and inviting 

information, suggestions, and comments 

on the Navy’s application and request. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than November 1, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to Jolie 

Harrison, Chief, Permits, Conservation 

and Education Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910– 

3225. The mailbox address for providing 

email comments is ITP.guan@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for email comments sent to addresses 

other than the one provided here. 

Comments sent via email, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 10- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/construction.htm without 

change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) 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: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES