Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Long Beach Cruise Terminal Improvement Project in the Port of Long Beach, California, 64833-64847 [2019-25425]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64833-64847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25425]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XR040]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Long Beach Cruise Terminal 
Improvement Project in the Port of Long Beach, California

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
Carnival Corporation & PLC (Carnival) to incidentally take, by Level A 
harassment and Level B harassment, five species of marine mammals 
during the Port of Long Beach Cruise Terminal Improvement Project in 
Port of Long Beach, California.

DATES: This Authorization is effective from November 19, 2019 through 
November 18, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Piniak, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the 
authorization, application, and supporting documents, as well as a list 
of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of 
problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed 
above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public 
for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions 
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the 
relevant sections below.

Summary of Request

    On February 15, 2019, NMFS received a request from Carnival for an 
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the Port of Long Beach Cruise 
Terminal Improvement Project in Port of Long Beach (POLB), California. 
The application was deemed adequate and complete on July 12, 2019. 
Subsequent revisions to the application were submitted by Carnival on 
September 13, 2019. Carnival's request is for take of five species of 
marine mammals by Level B harassment and one of these five species by 
Level A harassment. Neither Carnival nor NMFS expects serious injury or 
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 
appropriate. In-water activities (pile installation and dredging) 
associated with the project are anticipated to require five months.

[[Page 64834]]

Description of Activity

    Carnival requested authorization for take of marine mammals 
incidental to in-water activities associated with the Port of Long 
Beach Cruise Terminal Improvement Project in POLB, California. The 
purpose of the project is to make improvements to its existing berthing 
facilities at the Long Beach Cruise Terminal at the Queen Mary located 
at Pier H in the POLB, in order to accommodate a new, larger class of 
cruise ships. The project will also resolve safety issues in the 
existing parking structure and vessel mooring. Implementation of the 
project requires installation of two high-capacity mooring dolphins, 
fenders, and a new passenger bridge system, and dredging at the 
existing berth and the immediate surrounding area. In-water 
construction will include installation of a maximum of 49 permanent, 
36-inch (91.4 centimeters (cm)) steel pipe piles using impact and 
vibratory pile driving. Sounds produced by these activities may result 
in take, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, of marine 
mammals located in the POLB, California.
    In-water activities (pile installation and dredging) associated 
with the planned project are anticipated to begin mid-November, 2019, 
and be completed by mid-April, 2020, however Carnival requested the IHA 
for one year from the date of issuance. Pile driving activities will 
occur for 26 days and dredging activities will occur for 30 days during 
the planned project dates. In-water activities will occur during 
daylight hours only.
    A detailed description of the planned activities is provided in the 
Federal Register notice announcing the proposed IHA (84 FR 54867; 
October 11, 2019). Since that time no changes have been made to 
Carnival's planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not 
provided here. Please refer to the proposed IHA Federal Register notice 
for a detailed description of the activity.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Carnival was 
published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2019 (84 FR 54867). 
That notice described, in detail, Carnival's proposed activity, the 
marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, the 
anticipated effects on marine mammals and their habitat, proposed 
amount and manner of take, and proposed mitigation, monitoring and 
reporting measures. During the 30-day public comment period NMFS 
received a comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission 
(Commission); the Commission's recommendations and our responses are 
provided here, and the comments have been posted online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
    Comment 1: The Commission states that NMFS' standard 7-decibel (dB) 
source level reduction when bubble curtains are to be used during pile 
driving is not appropriate because bubble curtains that are placed 
immediately around the pile do not achieve consistent reductions in 
sound levels because they cannot attenuate ground-borne sound. The 
Commission recommends that NMFS consult with the relevant experts 
regarding the appropriate source level reduction factor to use to 
minimize far-field effects on marine mammals for all relevant 
incidental take authorizations and, until the experts have been 
consulted, refrain from using a source level reduction factor when 
bubble curtains are to be implemented.
    Response: While it is true that noise level reduction measured at 
different received ranges does vary, given that both Level A harassment 
and Level B harassment estimation using geometric modeling is based on 
noise levels measured at near-source distances (~10 meters (m)), NMFS 
believes it reasonable to use a source level reduction factor for sound 
attenuation device (bubble curtain) implementation during impact pile 
driving. As noted in responses to previous comments on the source level 
reduction factor for sound attenuation device, NMFS reviewed Caltrans' 
bubble curtain ``on and off'' studies conducted in San Francisco Bay in 
2003 and 2004. The equipment used for bubble curtains has likely 
improved since 2004 but due to concerns for fish species, Caltrans has 
not able to conduct ``on and off'' tests recently. Based on 74 
measurements (37 with the bubble curtain on and 37 with the bubble 
curtain off) at both near (less than 100 m) and far (greater than 100 
m) distances, the linear averaged received level reduction is 6 dB. If 
limiting the data points (a total of 28 measurements, with 14 during 
bubble curtain on and 14 during bubble curtain off) to only near 
distance measurements, the linear averaged noise level reduction is 7 
dB. Based on this analysis, we conclude that there is not a significant 
difference of source level reduction between near and far-distance 
measurements. Based on these measures and analysis, NMFS has 
conservatively used the reduction of 7 dB of the source level for 
impact zone estimates. In the case of Carnival's impact and vibratory 
pile driving isopleth estimates using an air bubble curtain for source 
level reduction, NMFS also reviewed Austin et al. (2016), which 
provided measurements of impact and vibratory pile driving using a 
variety of hammer types on a variety of piles in different locations 
near Anchorage, Alaska. We specifically examined the measurements in 
Tables 8 and 9 for SPL rms and SELs-s data for impact pile driving and 
Table 11 for SPL rms data for vibratory pile driving. At ~10 m Austin 
et al. (2016) measured reductions in mean SELs-s (impact pile driving) 
and SPL rms (vibratory pile driving) of 10 dB (or higher) when 
comparing two piles with a hydraulic hammer (pile IP10 with bubble 
curtain and IP1 unattenuated). At distances farther away from a pile 
(e.g., 1 km), a variety of factors can influence the measured SPL 
(including transmission loss, benthic type, pile location, etc.). 
Austin et al. (2016) did not present measurements at multiple distances 
for the same pile with and without bubble curtains making it difficult 
to interpret or compare measurements at farther distances. NMFS will 
evaluate the appropriateness of using an alternative source level 
reduction factor for sound attenuation device implementation during 
pile driving for all relevant incidental take authorizations as more 
data become available and contact experts as appropriate. Nevertheless, 
at this point, we think that a 7 dB reduction is reasonable to be used 
as a source level reduction factor in this scenario.
    Comment 2: The Commission notes that to estimate the 5 Level A 
harassment takes for harbor seals, NMFS used the density estimate 
derived from sightings data (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 2016), 
the Level A harassment ensonified area, and the number of days of 
activities. To minimize unnecessary delays if the authorized numbers of 
Level A harassment takes are met, the Commission recommends that NMFS 
increase the Level A harassment takes from 5 to at least 26 based on 
one harbor seal occurring within the 120-m Level A harassment zone on 
each of the days when impact pile driving will occur.
    Response: Following the method for calculating Level B harassment 
takes for all species, to calculate Level A harassment takes for harbor 
seals we used the following equation: Level A harassment zone area * 
density * # of pile driving days. For the entire Level A harassment 
zone, the calculations are as follows:

[[Page 64835]]

     For impact pile driving: 0.114852 (Level A zone area) * 
1.38 (density) * 26 days = 4.12 seals;
     For vibratory pile driving: * 0.003154 (Level A zone area) 
* 1.38 (density) * 26 days = 0.11 seals.

For the entire Level A harassment zone, the total is 4.23 seals, 
rounded to the estimated 5 takes by Level A harassment for harbor 
seals.
    This level of take is estimated to occur if no mitigation measures 
are implemented. Required mitigation measures include shutdown zones 
that will likely reduce/eliminate Level A harassment take in the entire 
vibratory pile driving Level A harassment zone, and a portion of the 
impact pile driving Level A harassment zone (required shutdown zone of 
50 m). As the closest known regularly used haul out site for pinnipeds 
is approximately 3 km from the project site, we have no information to 
indicate that there will be more animals than predicted by the density 
estimates near the project site. We consulted with the applicants and 
NMFS' West Coast Regional Office in Long Beach, CA. The applicants 
conducted limited on-site surveys during winter 2018-19 and observed no 
harbor seals near the project site. NMFS staff with local expertise 
(and stranding coordinators) were not aware of harbor seals frequenting 
the POLB, and believed that the MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 
(2016) survey densities were adequate, and that an increase in the 
estimated Level A harassment takes was not needed (Laura McCue, 
personal communication). The MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (2016) 
survey report also notes that harbor seals were ``most commonly 
observed resting or foraging along riprap shorelines, particularly the 
breakwaters of the Outer Harbor, and 83 percent of total observations 
of this species were made in the Outer Harbor (Figure 10-1).'' Based on 
the information we have on density and haul out sites, and that we have 
conservatively estimated the level of take assuming no mitigation, we 
believe that 5 takes by Level A harassment for harbor seals is 
appropriate.
    Comment 3: The Commission states that it is unclear whether 
Carnival would keep a running tally of the extrapolated takes to ensure 
the authorized takes are not exceeded. The Commission notes that they 
do not believe that keeping track of only the observed takes is 
sufficient when the Level B harassment zones extend to more than 8 km 
and recommends adjusting the takes based on the extent of the Level B 
harassment zone based on the sighting distance and number of PSOs 
monitoring at a given time. The Commission recommends that NMFS ensure 
that Carnival keeps a running tally of the total takes for each species 
to comply with section 3(i) of the draft authorization (``If a species 
for which authorization has not been granted, or a species for which 
authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is 
observed entering or within the monitoring zone (Table 2), pile driving 
activities must shut down immediately using delay and shutdown 
procedures. Activities must not resume until the animal has been 
confirmed to have left the area or the 15 minute observation time 
period has elapsed.'').
    Response: We agree that Carnival must ensure they do not exceed 
authorized takes. We have included in the authorization that Carnival 
must include extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level B harassment 
based on the number of observed exposures within the Level B harassment 
zone and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that was not 
visible in the draft and final reports.
    Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from using 
the proposed renewal process for Carnival's authorization. If NMFS 
elects to use the renewal process frequently or for authorizations that 
require a more complex review or for which much new information has 
been generated, the Commission recommended that NMFS provide the 
Commission and other reviewers the full 30-day comment period as set 
forth in section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA.
    Response: We appreciate the Commission's input and direct the 
reader to our recent response to a similar comment, which can be found 
at 84 FR 52464 (October 2, 2019; 84 FR 52466).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by 
Carnival'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 (84 FR 
54867; October 11, 2019). 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 the proposed IHA 
Federal Register notice for these descriptions; we provide a summary of 
marine mammals that may potentially be present in the project area here 
(Table 1). Additional information regarding population trends and 
threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
the POLB and summarizes information related to the population or stock, 
including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential 
biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow 
Committee on Taxonomy (2018). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum 
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' 
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS' U.S. Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2019). All values 
presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of 
publication and are available in the 2018 Final SARs (Carretta et al., 
2019) (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments).

[[Page 64836]]



                     Table 1--Marine Mammals Potentially Present Within Port of Long Beach, California During the Specified Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -, -, N             26,960 (0.05, 25,849,         801        139
                                                                                                             2016).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
    Blue whale......................  Balaenoptera musculus..  Eastern North Pacific..  E, D, Y             1,647 (0.07, 1,551,           2.3       >=19
                                                                                                             2011).
Fin whale...........................  Balaenoptera physalus..  California/Oregon/       E, D, Y             9,029 (0.12, 8,127,            81     >=43.5
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
Humpback whale......................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  California/Oregon/       -, -, Y             2,900 (0.05, 2,784,          16.7     >=40.2
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Short-beaked common dolphin.....  Delphinus delphis......  California/Oregon/       -, -, N             969,861 (0.17,              8,393       >=40
                                                                Washington.                                  839,325, 2014).
    Long-beaked common dolphin......  Delphinus capensis \4\.  California.............  -, -, N             101,305 (0.49, 68,432,        657     >=35.4
                                                                                                             2014).
    Common bottlenose dolphin.......  Tursiops truncates.....  Coastal California.....  -, -, N             453 (0.06, 346, 2011).        2.7      >=2.0
    Risso's dolphin.................  Grampus griseus........  California/Oregon/       -, -, N             6,336 (0.32, 4,817,            46      >=3.7
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
    Pacific white-sided dolphin.....  Lagenorhynchus           California/Oregon/       -, -, N             26,814 (0.28, 21,195,         191        7.5
                                       obliquidens.             Washington.                                  2014).
    Northern right whale dolphin....  Lissodelphis borealis..  California/Oregon/       -, -, N             26,556 (0.44, 18,608,         179        3.8
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California sea lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -, -, N             257,606 (N/A, 233,515,     14,011       >320
                                                                                                             2014).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  California.............  -, -, N             30,968 (0.157, 27,348,      1,641         43
                                                                                                             2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. California sea lion
  population size was estimated from a 1975-2014 time series of pup counts (Lowry et al. 2017), combined with mark-recapture estimates of survival rates
  (DeLong et al. 2017, Laake et al. 2018).
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
  fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated
  with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ The NMFS SARs identify Delphinus capensis as the scientific name for the long-beaked common dolphin, however the Committee on Taxonomy (2018)
  provisionally considers the Eastern North Pacific form of the long-beaked common dolphin as a subspecies, Delphinus delphis bairdii, following the
  usage of Hershkovitz (1966).
Note:--Italicized species are not expected to be taken or authorized.

Habitat

    No ESA-designated critical habitat overlaps with the project area. 
A migration Biologically Important Area (BIA) for gray whales overlaps 
with the project area, however as described in the Federal Register 
notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 54867; October 11, 2019) gray whales 
are rarely observed in the POLB and sound from the planned project's 
in-water activities is not anticipated to propagate large distances 
outside the POLB.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    Underwater noise from impact and vibratory pile driving and down-
the-hole drilling activities associated with the planned Port of Long 
Beach Cruise Terminal Improvement Project have the potential to result 
in harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The 
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 54867; October 11, 
2019) included a discussion of the potential effects of such 
disturbances on marine mammals and their habitat, therefore that 
information is not repeated in detail here; please refer to the Federal 
Register notice (84 FR 54867; October 11, 2019) for that information.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized through this IHA, which informs both NMFS' consideration of 
``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes will primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of 
the acoustic sources (i.e., pile driving) has the potential to result 
in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual

[[Page 64837]]

marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level 
A harassment) to result, for phocids (harbor seals) because predicted 
auditory injury zones are larger than for mid-frequency species and 
otariids. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency 
cetaceans and otariids. The planned mitigation and monitoring measures 
(see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting sections below) are 
expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent 
practicable. With implementation of the planned mitigation and 
monitoring measures (see Mitigation section), no Level B harassment or 
Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized for low-frequency 
cetaceans (humpback whales and gray whales). As described previously, 
no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this 
activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the 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; 
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g., 
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Carnival's planned activity includes 
the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact 
pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) thresholds are applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual 
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five 
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a 
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources 
(impulsive or non-impulsive). Carnival's planned activity includes the 
use includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and 
impulsive (impact pile driving) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 2 below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

                     Table 2--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         PTS onset thresholds * (received level)
             Hearing group              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Impulsive                         Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans...........  L0-pk,flat: 219 dB;         LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                          LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  L0-pk,flat: 230 dB;         LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                          LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  L0-pk,flat: 202 dB;         LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                          LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).....  L0-pk.flat: 218 dB;         LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                          LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)....  L0-pk,flat: 232 dB;         LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                          LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS
  onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds
  associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended for consideration.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (L0-pk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and weighted cumulative sound
  exposure level (LE,) has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to be
  more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ``flat''
  is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound
  exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
  cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted
  cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure
  levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the
  conditions under which these thresholds will be exceeded.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    The sound field in the project area is the existing background 
noise plus additional construction noise from the planned project. Pile 
driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in 
disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. The maximum 
(underwater) area ensonified

[[Page 64838]]

is determined by the topography of the POLB including hard structure 
breakwaters which bound the southern portion of the POLB and preclude 
sound from transmitting beyond the outer harbor of the POLB (see Figure 
5 of the application). Additionally, vessel traffic and other 
commercial and industrial activities in the project area may contribute 
to elevated background noise levels which may mask sounds produced by 
the project.
    Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an 
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary 
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and 
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition 
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * Log10 (R 1/R 2),

Where:

TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven 
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial 
measurement

    This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which 
is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound 
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of 
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of 
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and 
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed 
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, 
resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of 
distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs 
in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water 
surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level 
for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A 
practical spreading value of fifteen is often used under conditions, 
such as the project site at Pier H in the POLB where water increases 
with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in 
an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical 
and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is 
assumed here.
    The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by 
factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical 
environment in which the activity takes place. In order to calculate 
distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds 
for the 36 inch steel piles planned in this project, NMFS used acoustic 
monitoring data from other locations. In their application, Carnival 
presented several reference sound levels based on underwater sound 
measurements documented for other pile driving projects of the west 
coast of the U.S. (see Tables 1.3 and 1.5 of the application). 
Empirical data from a recent sound source verification (SSV) study 
conducted as part of the Anacortes Ferry Terminal Project, in the state 
of Washington were used to estimate the sound source levels (SSLs) for 
impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. The Anacortes Ferry 
Terminal Project were generally assumed to best approximate the 
construction activities and environmental conditions found in the 
Carnival's planned project in that the Anacortes Ferry Terminal Project 
also involved driving 36 inch piles into a similar substrate type (sand 
and silt) with a diesel hammer of similar power (ft-lbs) (WSDOT 2018). 
Carnival also presented several references for the number of piles 
installed per day and the number of strikes (impact pile driving) or 
minutes (vibratory pile driving) required to install each pile from 
similar projects on the U.S. west coast. As the Anacortes Ferry 
Terminal Project was assumed to be most similar to Carnival's planned 
project (and generally had the highest values), number of strikes 
(impact pile driving) or minutes (vibratory pile driving) required to 
install each pile from this Anacortes Ferry Terminal Project were used 
to calculate Level A harassment and Level B harassment isopleths (WSDOT 
2018). Based on data from these projects, the applicant anticipates 
that a maximum of 5 piles could be installed via impact pile driving 
per day and 5 piles could be installed via vibratory pile driving per 
day.
    Carnival used NMFS' Optional User Spreadsheet, available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance, to input project-specific 
parameters and calculate the isopleths for the Level A harassment and 
Level B harassment zones for impact and vibratory pile driving. When 
the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the 
fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging 
to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we 
developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a 
simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal 
density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of 
some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, 
we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be 
overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of 
overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the 
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways 
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address 
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources pile driving, the 
NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the distance at which, if a marine 
mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it 
would incur PTS.
    Table 3 provides the sound source values and input used in the User 
Spreadsheet to calculate harassment isopleths for each source type. For 
the impact pile driving source level, Carnival used levels measured at 
the Anacortes Ferry Terminal Project (peak SPL [SPLpk]: 207 dB re: 1 
[mu]Pa at 10 m; SPL rms: 189 dB re: 1 uPa at 10 m; and single strike 
sound exposure level [SELs-s]: 175 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m at the 90th 
percentile) as reported in WSDOT (2019, Table 7-14). For the vibratory 
pile driving source level, Carnival also used levels measured at the 
Anacortes Ferry Terminal Project (SPL: 170 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa (rms) at 11 
m) as reported in WSDOT (2019, Table 7-15). Carnival will implement 
bubble curtains (e.g. pneumatic barrier typically comprised of hosing 
or PVC piping that disrupts underwater noise propagation; see 
Mitigation section below) and has reduced the source levels of both 
impact and vibratory pile driving by 7 dB (a conservative estimate 
based on several studies including Austin et al., 2016). For impact 
pile driving, Level A harassment isopleths were calculated using the 
cumulative SEL metric (SELs-s) as it produces larger isopleths than 
SPLpk. Isopleths for Level B harassment associated with impact pile 
driving (160 dB) and vibratory pile driving (120 dB) were calculated 
using SPL (rms) values and can be found in Table 4.

[[Page 64839]]



     Table 3--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating
                          Harassment Isopleths
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Impact pile       Vibratory pile
   User spreadsheet parameter           driving             driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used............  E.(1) Impact pile   A. (1) Drilling/
                                   driving.            Vibratory pile
                                                       driving.
Source Level (SELs-s or SPL rms)  168 SELs-s a b....  163 dB SPL rms.a b
Source Level (SPLpk)............  207...............  N/A.
Weighting Factor Adjustment       2.................  2.5.
 (kHz).
Number of piles.................  5.................  5.
Number of strikes per pile......  675...............  N/A.
Number of strikes per day.......  2,700.............  N/A.
Estimate driving duration (min)   N/A...............  31.5.
 per pile.
Activity Duration (h) within 24-  N/A...............  2.625.
 h period.
Propagation (xLogR).............  15 Log R..........  15 Log R.
Distance of source level          10................  11.
 measurement (meters).
Other factors...................  Using bubble        Using bubble
                                   curtain.            curtain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ WSDOT (2019).
\b\ Austin et al. 2016.


                        Table 4--Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment Isopleths During Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Level A harassment zone  (meters)                            Level B         Level B
                                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------   harassment      harassment
                                                                                                                           zone (meters)       zone
                                                                                                                         ----------------   ensonified
                 Source                    Low-frequency   Mid-frequency       High-          Phocid          Otariid                      area  (km\2\)
                                             cetacean        cetacean        frequency       pinniped        pinniped       Cetaceans &  ---------------
                                                                             cetacean                                        Pinnipeds      Cetaceans &
                                                                                                                                             Pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving.....................           224.7             8.0           267.6           120.2             8.8           292.7            0.39
Vibratory Pile Driving..................            19.4             1.7            28.7            11.8             0.8         8,092.1           27.42
                                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source..................................                         PTS Onset Isopleth--Peak (meters)
                                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving.....................             1.6             N/A            21.5             1.8             N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Marine mammal densities were obtained from MBC Applied 
Environmental Sciences (2016) and Jefferson et al. (2013). MBC Applied 
Environmental Sciences (2016) conducted marine mammal and bird visual 
surveys in the POLB over a 12-month period from September, 2013 to 
August, 2014. The survey area included a substantial portion of the 
project action area. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (2016) 
conducted point count surveys on one day each month within a number of 
distinct study units including one encompassing approximately half of 
the existing Carnival dock. These data are relatively recent, and 
occurred in the POLB in the habitats and locations potentially impacted 
by the specified activity, and as such as they are the best available 
survey data for the project action area for the species they observed. 
MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (2016) reported raw sightings 
numbers per month per species. To estimate density from the MBC Applied 
Environmental Sciences (2016) data, the two-dimensional area of their 
combined survey area (based on their sampling quadrants) was calculated 
using GIS and graphics in their report showing the limits of each 
sampling quadrant. The maximum monthly observed number of observations 
for each species observed and the total study area (30.35 km\2\) was 
used to calculate density (Table 6). During POLB surveys, MBC Applied 
Environmental Sciences (2016) observed common dolphins (not identified 
to species, however to be conservative, this number was used for both 
species), common bottlenose dolphins, California sea lions, and harbor 
seals. They did not observe gray or humpback whales and therefore, did 
not provide density estimates for these species.
    The U.S. Department of the Navy (Phase III, 2017) created a Marine 
Species Density Database (NMSDD) for the Hawaii-Southern California 
Training and Testing Study Area. To characterize marine species density 
for large oceanic regions, the Navy reviews, critically assesses, and 
prioritizes existing density estimates from multiple sources and 
developed a systematic method for selecting the most appropriate 
density estimate for each combination of species, area, and season. The 
resulting compilation and structure of the selected marine species 
density data resulted in the Navy Marine Species Density Database 
(NMSDD) (DoN, 2017). The NMSDD uses data from Jefferson et al. (2014) 
to estimate densities for gray and humpback whales in Southern 
California. Jefferson et al. (2014) reported the results of aerial 
visual marine mammal surveys from 2008-2013 in the Southern California 
Bight, including areas around the Channel Islands. Although the survey 
area did not include the POLB, it did include nearshore waters not far 
to the south of the Port. Density estimates were based on airborne 
transects and utilized distance sampling methods and these estimates 
are the best information available on densities for gray and humpback 
whales in southern California (DoN, 2017) (Table 5). Note, that in the 
Federal Register notice announcing the proposed IHA (84 FR 54867; 
October 11, 2019) we used density estimates for gray and humpback 
whales from Jefferson et al. (2013). The data presented in Jefferson

[[Page 64840]]

et al. (2014) and Jefferson et al. (2013) are from the same surveys, 
and Jefferson et al. (2014) presents slight revisions from Jefferson et 
al. (2013). DoN NMSDD (2017) incorporates these revisions and is 
considered best available information for these species in this region, 
and we have revised the density estimates presented in Table 5 for gray 
and humpback whales accordingly.

                                   Table 5--Marine Mammal Density Information
                    [Species densities used for take calculations are denoted by asterisks*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     POLB max       Max density
                                                                  monthly number   (km\2\) (MBC
                                                                  2013-2014 (MBC      Applied       Max density
              Common name                         Stock               Applied      Environmental   (km\2\) (DoN,
                                                                   Environmental  Sciences 2016)       2017)
                                                                  Sciences 2016)        \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale............................  Eastern North Pacific...               0               0       * 0.01791
Humpback whale........................  CA/OR/WA................               0               0       * 0.00908
Short-beaked common dolphin...........  CA/OR/WA................          \2\ 40          * 1.32          0.3340
Long-beaked common dolphin............  California..............          \2\ 40          * 1.32          2.5290
Common bottlenose dolphin.............  Coastal California......               5          * 0.17          0.0765
California sea lion...................  U.S.....................              95          * 3.13          0.0627
Harbor seal...........................  California..............              42          * 1.38            0183
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Surface area of MBC Applied Environmental Sciences survey region estimated as 30.35 km\2\ via GIS. Density
  as # marine mammals/km\2\.
\2\ Only identified as ``Common Dolphin'' and not identified to the species level--to be conservative we used
  this number for both species.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Level B Harassment Calculations
    The following equation was used to calculate potential take due to 
Level B harassment per species: Level B harassment zone area * density 
* # of pile driving days. As described above, there will be a maximum 
of 26 days of pile driving and it is anticipated that a maximum of 5 
piles could be installed via impact pile driving per day and 5 piles 
could be installed via vibratory pile driving per day. We also used the 
maximum density estimates reported by MBC Applied Environmental 
Sciences (2016) and DoN (2017) for these species in this region (Table 
5). Therefore, the resulting take estimates assume all pile driving 
conducted when species are in their highest densities in the POLB 
producing conservative estimates (see Table 6). We present the number 
of estimated takes due to Level B harassment by impact and vibratory 
pile driving separately in Table 7, however as these activities are 
anticipated to occur on the same day (but not at the same time), 
individuals impacted by impact pile driving are also impacted by 
vibratory pile driving. As each individual can only be taken once in 24 
hours, we conservatively authorize the larger estimate of takes due to 
vibratory pile driving. Note that while a small number of takes by 
Level B harassment are estimated using these calculations for gray 
whales and humpback whales, no takes are authorized as the applicants 
will implement mitigation measures (shutdowns; see Mitigation section 
below) that will preclude take of these species.
Level A Harassment Calculations
    Carnival intends to avoid Level A harassment take by shutting down 
pile driving activities at approach of any marine mammal to the 
representative Level A harassment (PTS onset) ensonification zone up to 
a practical shutdown monitoring distance. As small and cryptic harbor 
seals may enter the Level A harassment zone (120.2 m for impact pile 
driving) before shutdown mitigation procedures can be implemented, and 
some animals may occur between the maximum Level A harassment 
ensonification zone (120.2 m for impact pile driving) and the maximum 
shutdown zone (50 m, see Mitigation section), we based our estimates 
for potential take due to Level A harassment for harbor seals on the 
calculations below (Level A harassment zone/pile installation method * 
density * # of pile driving days).
     For impact pile driving: 0.114852 (Level A zone area) * 
1.38 (density) * 26 days = 4.12 seals.
     For vibratory pile driving: * 0.003154 (Level A zone area) 
* 1.38 (density) * 26 days = 0.11 seals.
    For the entire Level A harassment zone, the total is 4.23 seals. 
Based on these calculations we conservatively estimate that 5 of the 
Level B harassment takes calculated above for harbor seals have the 
potential to be takes by Level A harassment (Table 6).

                         Table 6--Authorized Take by Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock, Resulting From Planned Carnival Project Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Level B                                                                      Authorized
                                                                   Density                              harassment   Estimated     Days of    Total Level    Level A       Total       take as
              Common name                         Stock            (km\2\)           Activity              zone      take daily    activity      B take        take      authorized   percentage
                                                                                                         (km\2\)                                                            take       of stock
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale............................  Eastern North Pacific...    0.01791  Impact pile driving.....         0.39        <0.01           26          0.2            0            0         0.00
                                                                             Vibratory pile driving..        27.42         0.49           26        12.77
Humpback whale........................  CA/OR/WA................    0.00908  Impact pile driving.....         0.39        <0.01           26         0.01            0            0         0.00

[[Page 64841]]

 
                                                                             Vibratory pile driving..        27.42         0.25           26         6.47
Short-beaked common dolphin...........  CA/OR/WA................       1.32  Impact pile driving.....         0.39         0.51           26        13.38            0          942         0.10
                                        ........................                                         Vibratory        27.42        36.19           26       941.05
                                                                                                              pile
                                                                                                           driving
Long-beaked common dolphin............  California..............       1.32  Impact pile driving.....         0.39         0.51           26        13.38            0          942         0.92
                                                                             Vibratory pile driving..        27.42        36.19           26       941.05
Common bottlenose dolphin.............  Coastal California......       0.17  Impact pile driving.....         0.39         0.07           26         1.72            0          122        26.93
                                                                             Vibratory pile driving..  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                                                                             27.42         4.66           26       121.20  ...........  ...........  ...........
California sea lion...................  U.S.....................       3.13  Impact pile driving.....         0.39         1.22           26        31.74            0        2,232         0.87
                                                                             Vibratory pile driving..        27.42        85.82           26      2231.44
Harbor seal...........................  California..............       1.38  Impact pile driving.....         0.39         0.54           26        13.99            5          984         3.18
                                                                             Vibratory pile driving..        27.42        37.84           26       983.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a number of reasons why the estimates of potential 
incidents of take are likely to be conservative. We used conservative 
estimates of density to calculate takes for each species. Additionally, 
in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving, and in 
areas where resident animals may be present, this number represents the 
number of instances of take that may occur to a small number of 
individuals, with a notably smaller number of animals being exposed 
more than once. While pile driving can occur any day throughout the in-
water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, 
only a fraction of that time is actually spent pile driving. The 
potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number 
of takes is also not quantified in the take estimation process. For 
these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative, especially if 
each take is considered a separate individual animal.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to 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, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    In addition to the measures described later in this section, 
Carnival will employ the following standard mitigation measures:
     Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and 
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all 
pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, to explain 
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring 
protocol, and operational procedures;
     For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving 
(e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, 
operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum 
level r