Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental To Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Pillar Point Harbor Johnson Pier Expansion and Dock Replacement Project in Princeton, California, 12334-12350 [2023-03975]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12334-12350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03975]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XC681]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental To Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Pillar Point Harbor Johnson 
Pier Expansion and Dock Replacement Project in Princeton, California

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the San Mateo County Harbor 
District for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the 
Pillar Point Harbor Johnson Pier Expansion and Dock Replacement Project 
in Princeton, California. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an 
incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine 
mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting 
comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued 
under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as 
described in Request for Public Comments section at the end of this 
notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final 
decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency 
responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March 
29, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to 
[email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must 
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of 
the public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities without change. All 
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily 
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit 
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara Hotchkin, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions 
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the 
relevant sections below.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA) 
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or 
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for 
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for 
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would 
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has

[[Page 12335]]

preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA 
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
    We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice 
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the 
IHA request.

Summary of Request

    On August 10, 2022, NMFS received a request from the San Mateo 
County Harbor District (SMCHD) for an IHA to take marine mammals 
incidental to the Pillar Point Harbor Johnson Pier Expansion and Dock 
Replacement Project in Princeton, California. Following NMFS' review of 
the application and in response to our comments, SMCHD submitted 
revised versions on October 4, 2022, and December 6, 2022. The 
application was deemed adequate and complete on December 13, 2022. 
SMCHD's request is for take of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and 
California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) by Level A and Level B 
harassment. Neither SMCHD nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality 
to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
    This proposed IHA would cover 1 year of a larger project for which 
SMCHD intends to request take authorization for subsequent facets of 
the project. The larger 2-year project involves the expansion of the 
Johnson Pier commercial docks and fuel pier.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    The SMCHD is proposing the demolition and replacement/expansion of 
the Johnson Pier at Pillar Point Harbor in San Mateo County, California 
(Figure 1). Demolition of the North Timber Pier and the commercial 
floating docks and fuel dock would be followed by expansion of the pier 
and replacement of the commercial and fuel docks. The proposed project 
includes impact and vibratory pile driving and vibratory pile removal. 
Sounds resulting from pile driving and removal may result in the 
incidental take of marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment in 
the form of auditory injury or behavioral harassment. Underwater sound 
would be constrained to the inner harbor area by solid rubble-mound 
breakwaters.
    The purpose of this project is to replace existing deteriorated 
commercial floating docks (Dock D, E, F, G, H, and fuel dock), expand 
Johnson Pier to improve the safety of commercial fish handling 
operations, and complete minor concrete and utility repairs (see 
Figures 2 and 3). Approximately 7,200 square feet (sf) (669 square 
meters (m\2\)) of deck area would be added to improve fish handling, 
forklift maneuvering, and truck turnarounds on the North Pier. 
Approximately 8,500 sf (790 m\2\) would be added to the south end of 
the pier to allow for commercial vehicle operations. The commercial and 
fuel dock replacement segment would add approximately 20,000 sf (1,858 
m\2\) to improve capacity for fish handling and commercial fishery 
operations.

Dates and Duration

    The proposed IHA would be effective from January 1, 2024 to 
December 31, 2025. The in-water construction period for the proposed 
action will occur over up to 130 days of pile driving and extraction 
over 12 months. The total project duration will last approximately 36 
months, and may be performed in phases over a 5-year period. SMCHD 
anticipates the need for subsequent IHAs, including a potential renewal 
of this proposed IHA. SMCHD plans to conduct all work during daylight 
hours.

Specific Geographic Region

    The project is located at the Pillar Point Harbor in the Community 
of Princeton, north of Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. The 
project occurs within the Pillar Point inner harbor, which is contained 
by three solid rubble-mound breakwaters. Project activities will occur 
at floating docks Dock D, E, F, G, H, and fuel dock, north timber pier, 
north floats, east timber pier, and Johnson Pier.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 12336]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27FE23.003

Figure 1--Map of Proposed Project Area in San Mateo County, California

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    The purpose of this project is to replace existing deteriorated 
commercial floating docks (Dock D, E, F, G, H, and fuel dock), expand 
Johnson Pier to improve the safety of commercial fish handling 
operations, and complete minor concrete and utility repairs (see 
Figures 2 and 3 in the IHA application). Approximately 7,200 square 
feet (sf) (669 square meters (m\2\)) of deck area would be added to 
improve fish handling, forklift maneuvering, and truck turnarounds on 
the North Pier. Approximately 8,500 sf (790 m\2\) would be added to the 
south end of the pier to allow for commercial vehicle operations. The 
commercial and fuel dock replacement segment would add approximately 
20,000 sf (1,858 m\2\) to improve capacity for fish handling and 
commercial fishery operations.
    Activity details for the work under this proposed IHA are provided 
in Table 1. In-water construction activities and specific project 
phases that would occur under this IHA are described in more detail 
below:
    Pile Removal--Piles are anticipated to be removed with a vibratory 
hammer, or direct pull depending on site conditions. Since vibratory 
removal is the loudest activity, to be precautionary, we assume all 
piles would be removed with a vibratory hammer. If piles break during 
extraction, they would be cut below the mudline. Pile removal methods 
are described as follows:
     Vibratory Extraction--This method uses a barge-mounted 
crane with a vibratory driver to remove all pile types. The vibratory 
driver is suspended from a crane by a cable and positioned on top of 
the pile to loosen the pile from the sediment. Once the pile is 
released from the sediments, the crane continues to raise the driver 
and pull the pile from the sediment and place it on a barge; and
     Direct Pull--Piles may be removed by wrapping piles with a 
cable or chain and pulling them directly from the sediment with a 
crane. This method may be used depending on site conditions.
    Pile Installation--The proposed pile installation would occur using 
barge-mounted cranes and vary in method based on pile type. Concrete 
piles would be installed using an impact hammer. Fiberglass would be 
installed using an impact hammer or vibratory hammer. Hydraulic 
Jetting, which works by directing pressurized water flow down the pile 
to liquefy the soils at the pile tip and reduce friction, allowing the 
pile to descend under its own weight, may also be used to install 
piles.
    Johnson Pier Partial Demolition--The existing North Timber Pier 
will be completely demolished, and approximately 2,500 sf (232 m\2\) of 
existing fixed timber pier and up to 55, 14-inch (in.) (0.36 m) 
diameter treated timber piles will be removed. On the North floats, 
approximately 1,900 sf (177 m\2\) of existing floating docks and

[[Page 12337]]

up to seven, 14-in diameter square concrete piles will be removed. On 
the east timber pier, approximately 600 sf (56 m\2\) of existing fixed 
treated timber pier and up to 20, 14-in treated timber piles will be 
removed.
    Johnson Pier Expansion--The northern portion of the pier would be 
expanded by approximately 7,200 sf (669 m\2\) and up to 65, 24-in (0.61 
m) diameter precast concrete piles would be installed to replace the 
North Timber Pier. The southern portion of the pier would be expanded 
by approximately 8,500 sf (790 m\2\) and up to 65, 24-in precast 
concrete piles would be installed.
    Commercial Floating Dock and Fuel Dock Replacement--The existing 
commercial treated-timber floating docks and fuel dock would be 
demolished and removed, replacing and expanding the existing docks for 
an additional 20,000 sf (1,858 m\2\), including removal of up to 190, 
14-in diameter square concrete piles, and installation of up to 215, 
16-in (0.41 m) diameter concrete or fiberglass piles and 15, 24-in 
concrete piles.
    Minor Utility Improvements--This includes replacement of all power, 
potable water, and fire water utilities on the commercial docks, and 
relocation of the existing fuel lines, sewage pumpout and force main 
within the footprint of the commercial docks and Johnson Pier.
    Concurrent Activities--In order to maintain project schedules, it 
is possible that multiple pieces of equipment would operate at the same 
time within the project area. Piles may be extracted and installed on 
the same day, with a maximum of one impact and one vibratory hammer 
operating simultaneously. The method of installation, and whether 
concurrent pile driving scenarios will be implemented, will be 
determined by the construction crew once the project has begun. 
Therefore, the total take estimate reflects the worst-case scenario for 
the proposed project.
    Table 1 provides a summary of the pile driving activities. 
Vibratory pile driving could occur for up to 10 hours per day over 50 
days, removing approximately five piles per day. Impact pile driving 
would occur over 80 days at an average rate of five piles installed per 
day.

                                 Table 1--Pile Information for Project Segments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Total
          Activity                Location      Number of   Type and size        Method      production   Piles
                                                  piles                                         days     per day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demolition..................  North Timber             55  14-in Timber...  Vibratory                50        5
                               Pier.                                         extract OR
                                                                             direct pull.
                              North Floats...           7  14-in square     Vibratory
                                                            concrete.        extract OR
                                                                             direct pull.
                              East Timber              20  14-in Timber...  Vibratory
                               Pier.                                         extract OR
                                                                             direct pull.
                              Commercial Dock         190  14-in square     Vibratory
                               Replacement.                 concrete.        extract OR
                                                                             direct pull.
Installation................  North Expansion          65  24-in Octagonal  Impact.........          80        5
                                                            Concrete.
                              South Expansion          65  24-in Octagonal  Impact.........
                                                            Concrete.
                              Commercial Dock         215  16-in concrete   Impact OR
                               Replacement.                 OR fiberglass.   vibratory *.
                                                       15  24-in Concrete.  Impact.........
----------------------------------------------------------
     Total piles installed and extracted              632
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total days pile driving/extraction/drilling   ..........  ...............  ...............          130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Installation of fiberglass piles would be via vibratory hammer with impact proofing.

    In summary, the project period includes up to 130 days of pile 
installation and extraction activities for which incidental take 
authorization is requested.
    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed 
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS 
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to 
these descriptions, incorporated here by reference, instead of 
reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population 
trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports 
(SARs; 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 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and 
proposed to be authorized for this activity, and summarizes information 
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under 
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological 
removal (PBR), where known. 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 serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed 
to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from 
anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the 
status of the species or stocks 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 stocks managed under the MMPA in this region 
are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Pacific SARs (e.g., Caretta et al., 2022), 
including the Draft 2022 SARs. All values presented in Table 2 are the 
most recent available at the time of publication and are available 
online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments).

[[Page 12338]]



                                              Table 2--Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         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 Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California Sea Lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  United States..........  -/-, N              257,606 (N/A, 233,515,     14,011       >320
                                                                                                             2014).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor Seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  California.............  -/-, N              30,968 (N/A, 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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case].
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

    As indicated above, both species in Table 2 temporally and 
spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is 
reasonably likely to occur. All species that could potentially occur in 
the proposed survey areas are included in Table 1 of the IHA 
application. While gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), harbor porpoise 
(Phocoena phocoena), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), and 
northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) have been reported in 
the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is 
such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed 
further beyond the explanation provided here. Pillar Point Harbor 
consists of inner and outer harbor sections enclosed by rubble mound 
breakwaters. The inner harbor is isolated from Half Moon Bay by both 
sets of breakwaters, and sound from the project is not expected to 
propagate outside of the inner harbor. Gray whale, harbor porpoise, 
bottlenose dolphin, and Northern elephant seals are not expected to 
occur within the inner harbor, and have never been sighted inside the 
inner harbor breakwaters. In the rare instance that one of these 
species does enter the inner harbor during construction activities, a 
shutdown would be implemented to avoid take of unauthorized species.

California Sea Lion

    California sea lions occur from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, 
to the southern tip of Baja California. Sea lions breed on the offshore 
islands of southern and central California from May through July (Heath 
and Perrin, 2008). During the non-breeding season, adult and subadult 
males and juveniles migrate northward along the coast to central and 
northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island 
(Jefferson et al., 1993). They return south the following spring (Heath 
and Perrin, 2008; Lowry and Forney, 2005). Females and some juveniles 
tend to remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et al., 1990; Melin et 
al., 2008).
    Pupping occurs primarily on the California Channel Islands from 
late May until the end of June (Peterson and Bartholomew, 1967). 
Weaning and mating occur in late spring and summer during the peak 
upwelling period (Bograd et al., 2009). After the mating season, adult 
males migrate northward to feeding areas as far away as the Gulf of 
Alaska (Lowry et al., 1992), and they remain away until spring (March-
May), when they migrate back to the breeding colonies. Adult females 
generally remain south of Monterey Bay, California throughout the year, 
feeding in coastal waters in the summer and offshore waters in the 
winter, alternating between foraging and nursing their pups on shore 
until the next pupping/breeding season (Melin and DeLong, 2000; Melin 
et al., 2008).
    California sea lions regularly occur on rocks, buoys, and other 
structures. California sea lions were observed within the Project area 
during the field survey (Rincon, 2021). Breeding and pupping are not 
known to occur in the Project area. Based on anecdotal statements from 
Pillar Point Harbor operations staff, California sea lions could occur 
within the inner harbor area on a daily basis. Past observations 
indicate that sea lions rarely haul out within the Project area 
(Meyers, 2022).

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals are widely distributed in the North Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans. In the North Pacific Ocean two sub-species occur: Phoca 
vitulina stejnegeri in the western North Pacific near Japan and Phoca 
vitulina richardii in the eastern North Pacific, including areas around 
the project site (Caretta et al., 2022). Three stocks are currently 
recognized along the west coast of the continental U.S.: (1) 
California, (2) Oregon and Washington outer coast waters, and (3) 
inland waters of Washington (Caretta et al., 2022). The California 
stock of Pacific harbor seals is found in the project action area and 
inhabits coastal and estuarine areas including sand bars, rocky shores, 
and beaches along the entire coast of California, including the 
offshore islands, forming small, relatively stable populations. Pacific 
harbor seals do not make extensive pelagic migrations like other 
pinnipeds, but do travel distances of 300-500 km to forage or find 
appropriate breeding habitat (Herder, 1986; Harvey and Goley, 2011). 
Harbor seals are rarely found more than 10.8 nautical miles from shore 
(Baird, 2001) and are generally are non-migratory (Burns, 2002; 
Jefferson et al., 2008) and solitary at sea. Harbor seals spend more 
than 80 percent of their time in the upper 164 ft (50 m) of the water 
column (Womble et al., 2014) and forage most commonly on fish, 
shellfish, and crustaceans.
    The California stock of harbor seals breeds along the California 
coast from March to May and pupping occurs between April and May (Alden 
et al., 2002; Reeves et al., 2002). Molting occurs from late May 
through July or August and lasts approximately 6 weeks. In fall and 
winter, harbor seals spend less time on land, but they usually remain 
relatively close to shore while at sea. The peak haulout period for 
harbor seals in California is May through July (Caretta et al., 2022).
    Threats to the California stock include interactions with 
fisheries,

[[Page 12339]]

entanglement in marine debris, ship strikes, research-related deaths, 
entrainment in power plants, and human interactions/harassment 
(shootings, stabbing/gaff wounds, human-induced abandonment of pups) 
(Caretta et al., 2022).
    Harbor seals were observed within the Project area during the field 
survey and have been frequently documented within Pillar Point Harbor 
(Rincon, 2021). Breeding and pupping are not known to occur in the 
Project area. Based on anecdotal statements from Pillar Point Harbor 
operations staff, harbor seals could occur within the inner harbor area 
on a daily basis. Past observations indicate that harbor seals rarely 
haul out within the Project area (Meyers, 2022).

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal 
hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing 
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked 
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response 
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of 
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e., 
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with 
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the 
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower 
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing 
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 3.

                  Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
                              [NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Hearing group                 Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen   7 Hz to 35 kHz.
 whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans           150 Hz to 160 kHz.
 (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
 whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true    275 Hz to 160 kHz.
 porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
 Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
 cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater)     50 Hz to 86 kHz.
 (true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater)    60 Hz to 39 kHz.
 (sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
  composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
  species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
  hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
  composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
  cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 
2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components 
of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. 
The Estimated Take section later in this document includes a 
quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to 
be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and 
Determination section considers the content of this section, the 
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw 
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those 
impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.

Description of Sound Sources

    The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and 
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing 
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many 
sources both near and far. The sound level of an area is defined by the 
total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. 
These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind, precipitation, 
earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds produced 
by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound 
(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at 
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or 
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as 
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and 
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate 
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the 
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea 
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a 
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected 
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. 
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB 
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, 
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the 
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local 
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine 
mammals.
    In-water construction activities associated with the project would 
include vibratory pile removal, and impact and vibratory pile driving. 
The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general 
sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (e.g., 
explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are typically 
transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and

[[Page 12340]]

consist of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid 
decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018a). Non-impulsive 
sounds (e.g., aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or 
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be 
broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or 
intermittent), and typically do not have the high peak sound pressure 
with raid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 
1998; NMFS, 2018a). The distinction between these two sound types is 
important because they have differing potential to cause physical 
effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 
Southall et al., 2007).
    Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a 
pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact 
hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a 
potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). 
Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the 
weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. The vibrations 
produced also cause liquefaction of the substrate surrounding the pile, 
enabling the pile to be extracted or driven into the ground more 
easily. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact 
hammers. Peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, 
but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact 
pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time 
is slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound 
energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and 
Edwards 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).
    The likely or possible impacts of the SMCHD's proposed activity on 
marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. 
Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical 
presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine 
mammals are expected to be primarily acoustic in nature. Acoustic 
stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile 
driving and removal.

Acoustic Impacts

    The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic 
environment from pile driving is the primary means by which marine 
mammals may be harassed from the proposed activity. In general, animals 
exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and 
psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe 
(Southall et al., 2007). In general, exposure to pile driving noise has 
the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts and behavioral 
reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and 
vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise 
can also lead to non-observable physiological responses, such as an 
increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's 
habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out 
daily functions such as communication and predator and prey detection. 
The effects of pile driving noise on marine mammals are dependent on 
several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type (e.g., 
impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class (e.g., 
adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance 
between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of 
exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; 
Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects 
(threshold shifts) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts 
on habitat.
    NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, 
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of 
threshold shift is customarily expressed in decibels (dB). A TS can be 
permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous 
factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, 
but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or 
non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long 
enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude 
of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the 
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing 
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the 
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how an animal uses sound within the 
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the 
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and 
spectral).
    Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Available data 
from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB 
threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959; 
Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; 
Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, 
as with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in 
a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data 
measuring PTS in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for 
various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise 
exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized 
(NMFS, 2018).
    Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--TTS is a temporary, reversible 
increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or 
portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established 
reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS 
measurements (see Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered 
the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or 
session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability 
(Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As described in 
Finneran (2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS 
increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an 
accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of 
TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At 
exposures with higher SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and 
approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.
    Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration 
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in 
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging 
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory 
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily 
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal 
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and 
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during a time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well 
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that 
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though 
likely not without cost.

[[Page 12341]]

    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) 
and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound 
sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory 
settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted 
(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to impulsive 
noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth 
et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a 
lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species 
(Finneran, 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data 
come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data 
are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For 
summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of 
TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and 
Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing 
piles for this project requires either impact pile driving or vibratory 
pile driving. For this project, these activities could occur at the 
same time, and there would be pauses in activities producing the sound 
during each day. Given these pauses, and that many marine mammals are 
likely moving through the ensonified area and not remaining for 
extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.
    Behavioral Harassment--Exposure to noise from pile driving and 
removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. 
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; 
therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound 
in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the 
signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by 
changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the 
change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the 
stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine 
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged 
period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant 
(e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005).
    Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and 
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; 
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain 
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle 
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw 
clapping); or avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. 
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water 
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound 
are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on 
numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of 
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory 
sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors 
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 
2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can 
vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, 
depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and 
numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending 
on characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it 
is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). 
In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more 
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, 
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial 
sound than most cetaceans. Please see appendixes B-C of Southall et 
al., (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral 
responses to sound.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between 
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 
stage of the animal.
    Stress Responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be 
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination 
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, 
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most 
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral 
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses 
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short 
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an 
animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been 
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune 
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated 
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of 
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores 
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such 
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious 
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient 
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, 
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of 
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves 
sufficient to restore normal function.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well studied through 
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals 
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; 
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to 
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects 
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; 
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations 
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al., (2012) found 
that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These 
and

[[Page 12342]]

other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals 
will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to 
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be 
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS 
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003), however 
distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of 
marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.
    Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering 
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between 
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator 
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when 
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound 
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may 
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar, 
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask 
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both 
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise 
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and 
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, 
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, 
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation 
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities 
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to 
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound 
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an 
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would 
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked.
    Airborne Acoustic Effects--Although pinnipeds are known to haul out 
regularly on manmade objects, such as some floating docks and 
breakwaters like those surrounding the inner harbor, we believe that 
incidents of take resulting solely from airborne sound are unlikely 
because there are no known haulouts in or around Pillar Point Harbor. 
Local observations report that sightings of pinnipeds hauling out on 
the breakwaters or docks of the inner harbor are very rare (Meyer, 
2022). There is a possibility that an animal could surface in-water, 
but with head out, within the area in which airborne sound exceeds 
relevant thresholds 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. Therefore, authorization of incidental take resulting from 
airborne sound for pinnipeds is not warranted, and airborne sound is 
not discussed further here.

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects

    The SMCHD's construction activities could have localized, temporary 
impacts on marine mammal habitat by increasing in-water sound pressure 
levels and slightly decreasing water quality. However, since the focus 
of the proposed action is pile driving, a minimal amount of net habitat 
loss is expected, as the new Johnson Pier would be constructed on the 
existing pier footprint, with some expansion areas. Construction 
activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary 
impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater 
sounds. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking 
discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the 
vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During pile 
driving activities, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify 
the project area where both fishes and marine mammals may occur and 
could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid 
the area during construction; however, displacement due to noise is 
expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term 
effects to the individuals or populations.
    Temporary and localized reduction in water quality would occur 
because of in-water construction activities as well. Most of this 
effect will occur during the installation and removal of piles when 
bottom sediments are disturbed. The installation of piles will disturb 
bottom sediments and may cause a temporary increase in suspended 
sediment in the project area. In general, turbidity associated with 
pile installation is localized to about 25-ft (7.6 meter) radius around 
the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). Pinnipeds are not expected to be close 
enough to the pile driving areas to experience effects of turbidity, 
and could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, we expect the 
impact from increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine 
mammals and do not discuss it further.

In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat

    The proposed activities would not result in permanent impacts to 
habitats used directly by marine mammals except for the actual 
footprint of the new Johnson Pier. The total seafloor area affected by 
pile installation and removal is a very small area compared to the vast 
foraging area available to marine mammals in the larger Pillar Point 
Harbor, including the Outer Harbor, and the adjacent Half Moon Bay. 
Pile extraction and installation may have impacts on benthic 
invertebrate species primarily associated with disturbance of sediments 
that may cover or displace some invertebrates. The impacts would be 
temporary and highly localized, and no habitat would be permanently 
displaced by construction. Therefore, it is expected that impacts on 
foraging opportunities for marine mammals due to the demolition and 
expansion of Johnson Pier would be minimal.
    It is possible that avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) in the 
immediate area may occur due to temporary loss of this foraging 
habitat. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving 
stops is unknown, but we anticipate a rapid return to normal 
recruitment, distribution and behavior. Any behavioral avoidance by 
fish of the disturbed area would still leave large areas of fish and 
marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in the project 
area and Half Moon Bay.

Effects on Potential Prey

    Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, 
behavior, or distribution of prey species (e.g., fish). Marine mammal 
prey varies by species, season, and location. Here, we describe studies 
regarding the effects of noise on known marine mammal prey.
    Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their 
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator 
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 
Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures, 
which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and 
particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of 
surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on 
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the 
sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing 
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology.

[[Page 12343]]

Key impacts to fishes may include behavioral responses, hearing damage, 
barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), and mortality.
    Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or 
intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses, such as 
flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp 
sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local 
distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the 
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g., 
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. 
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish 
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies 
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are 
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction 
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 
2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might 
affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially 
impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs (e.g., 
Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 
1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some 
studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena 
et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott 
et al., 2012).
    SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish 
and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the 
ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is 
restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et 
al., (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 
hours for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual 
fish is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long. 
Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can 
cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma 
injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile 
driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
    The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the 
project areas would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The 
duration of fish avoidance of an area after pile driving stops is 
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and 
behavior is anticipated.
    The area impacted by the project is relatively small compared to 
the available habitat in the remainder of the Pillar Point Harbor and 
Half Moon Bay, and there are no areas of particular importance that 
would be impacted by this project. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of 
the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish 
and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. As described 
in the preceding, the potential for the SMCHD's construction to affect 
the availability of prey to marine mammals or to meaningfully impact 
the quality of physical or acoustic habitat is considered to be 
insignificant.

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers,'' and the negligible impact 
determinations.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as noise 
generated during construction activities (i.e., impact and vibratory 
pile driving) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral 
patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential 
for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result. The proposed 
mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the 
severity of the taking to the extent practicable.
    As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is 
anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we 
describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
    For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by 
considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best 
available science indicates marine mammals would be behaviorally 
harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the 
area or volume of water that would be ensonified above these levels in 
a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these 
ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note 
that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to 
provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional 
information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also 
sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring results or average group 
size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail 
and present the proposed take estimates.

Acoustic Thresholds

    NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the 
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals 
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to 
Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A 
harassment).
    Level B Harassment--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 or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty 
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, 
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to 
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison et al., 2012). 
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to 
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and 
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized 
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of 
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-
mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced 
to 1 micropascal (re 1 [mu]Pa)) for continuous non-impulsive (e.g., 
vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) or intermittent 
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B 
harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment 
thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most 
cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source less 
than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a 
sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced 
hearing sensitivity and the potential

[[Page 12344]]

reduced opportunities to detect important signals (conspecific 
communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior 
patterns that would not otherwise occur.
    SMCHD's proposed activity includes the use of continuous non-
impulsive (vibratory pile installation and extraction) and impulsive 
(impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 
120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa are applicable.
    Level A Harassment--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). SMCHD's 
proposed activity includes the use of non-impulsive (vibratory pile 
installation and extraction) and impulsive (impact pile driving) 
sources.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 4. The references, analysis, 
and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described 
in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

                     Table 4--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    PTS onset acoustic thresholds *  (received level)
             Hearing group              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Impulsive                         Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;   Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                          LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;   Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                          LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB;   Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                          LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW); (Underwater)....  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;   Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                          LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW); (Underwater)...  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;   Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                          LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
  calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
  thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
  has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
  National Standards Institute standards (ANSI, 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
  incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
  ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
  generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
  the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
  and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
  be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
  it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    The sound field in the project area is the existing background 
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. 
Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in 
disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. The maximum 
(underwater) area ensonified is determined by the topography of the 
Pillar Point inner harbor, including hard structure breakwaters that 
bound the inner harbor and preclude sound from transmitting into the 
outer harbor. 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 (R1/R2)

Where

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

    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 15 is often used under conditions, such as 
the project site, 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 
the distances to the Level A harassment and the Level B harassment 
sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in this project, 
NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop 
proxy source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods 
(Table 5). Generally, we choose source levels from similar pile types 
from locations (e.g., geology, bathymetry) similar to the project. At 
this time, NMFS is not aware of reliable source levels available for 
fiberglass piles using vibratory pile installation; therefore, source 
levels for timber pile driving were used as a proxy. While vibratory 
extraction of

[[Page 12345]]

concrete piles has been measured only for 20-in piles, NMFS has 
conservatively applied this source level to vibratory extraction of 14-
in concrete piles.
    For this project, one impact and one vibratory hammer may operate 
simultaneously. Because an impact hammer is not a continuous source, 
there is no adjustment needed in the source levels needed to calculate 
the Level A harassment or Level B harassment zones. In the event of 
concurrent activities, the Level A harassment zones would be equivalent 
to those produced by the impact hammer alone, and the Level B 
harassment zone would be the largest zone. Due to the confined nature 
of the Project Area, these zones are sometimes identical. Therefore, no 
separate analysis of concurrent activities was conducted for this 
project.

                                              Table 5--Project Sound Source Levels Normalized to 10 Meters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Pile size                              Peak SPL (re 1   RMS SPL (re 1     SEL (re 1
              Pile type                    (inch)               Method            [mu]Pa (rms))   [mu]Pa (rms))   [mu]Pa (rms))           Source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concrete.............................              16  Impact..................             193             168             160  Caltrans 2020.
Concrete.............................              24  Impact..................             188             176             166  Caltrans 2020.
Fiberglass...........................              16  Vibratory...............              NA             162              NA  Caltrans 2020.
Concrete or Timber...................              14  Vibratory extraction....              NA             162              NA  NAVFAC SW 2022.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more 
technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a 
duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User 
Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used 
to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in 
conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict 
potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions 
included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate 
that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be 
overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of 
potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool 
offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more 
sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For 
stationary sources like pile driving, the optional User Spreadsheet 
tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at 
that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to 
incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet are reported in Table 1 
and source levels used in the User Spreadsheet are reported in Table 5, 
and the resulting isopleths are reported in Table 6, below.

         Table 6--Calculated Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment Isopleths for Impact Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Level A harassment--radius to      Level B
                                                                           isopleth (m)            harassment--
                Method                           Source          --------------------------------    radius to
                                                                      Phocids        Otariids      isopleth (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact................................  16-in Concrete..........              96               7              35
                                        24-in Concrete..........             290              22             117
Vibratory.............................  16-in Fiberglass........              23               2         * 6,265
                                        14-in Concrete or Timber              23               2         * 6,265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculated distance to the Level B harassment threshold of 120 dB is 6,265 m. However, sound propagation
  will be limited by the solid breakwaters surrounding the inner harbor and therefore the harassment zone will
  be limited to the area within the inner harbor breakwaters.

    The maximum Level A harassment zones would occur during impact 
driving of 24-in concrete piles, extending out to 290 m from the source 
pile for harbor seals, and out to 22 m from the source pile for sea 
lions. The 290 m zone fills the inner harbor area surrounded by the 
breakwaters, as shown in Figure 7 of the IHA application. The largest 
Level B harassment zone would occur during vibratory pile driving and 
extraction, and would encompass the entire inner harbor basin.

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation

    In this section, we provide information about the occurrence of 
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information that 
will inform the take calculations, and describe how the information 
provided is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take 
that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.

California Sea Lion

    California sea lions regularly occur on rocks, buoys, and other 
structures. California sea lions were observed within the Project area 
during the field survey (Rincon, 2021). Breeding and pupping are not 
known to occur in the Project area. Based on anecdotal statements from 
Pillar Point Harbor operations staff, California sea lions could occur 
within the inner harbor area on a daily basis. Past observations 
indicate that sea lions rarely haul out within the Project area 
(Meyers, 2022). Because no density estimates are available for the 
species in this area, the SMCHD estimated that two California sea lions 
could be present within the Pillar Point Inner Harbor each day. Based 
on this information, NMFS has similarly estimated that two California 
sea lions may be taken by Level B harassment each day of pile driving. 
This equates to 260 Level B harassment takes over 130 project days 
(Table 1). Therefore, the SMCHD is requesting, and NMFS is proposing to 
authorize 260 takes by Level B harassment of California sea lion (Table 
7).
    The largest Level A harassment zone for otariids extends 
approximately 23 m from the source during impact driving of a 24-in 
concrete pile (Table 6). SMCHD has conservatively assumed that 1 sea 
lion may occur within the 23

[[Page 12346]]

m zone for a duration long enough to be taken by Level A harassment 
every 2 days of impact pile driving, equating to 40 takes over 80 
project days (Table 1). Therefore, the SMCHD is requesting, and NMFS is 
proposing to authorize 40 takes by Level A harassment of California sea 
lion (Table 7).
Harbor Seal
    Harbor seals were observed within the Project area during the field 
survey and have been frequently documented within Pillar Point Harbor 
(Rincon, 2021). Breeding and pupping are not known to occur in the 
Project area. Based on anecdotal statements from Pillar Point Harbor 
operations staff, harbor seals could occur within the inner harbor area 
on a daily basis. Past observations indicate that harbor seals rarely 
haul out within the Project area (Meyers, 2022). Because no density 
estimates are available for the species in this area, the SMCHD 
estimated that two harbor seals could be present within the Pillar 
Point Inner Harbor each day. Based on this information, NMFS has 
similarly estimated that two harbor seals may be taken by Level B 
harassment each day of vibratory pile driving, and up to 10 percent of 
those individuals may be taken by Level A harassment each day. On days 
with impact driving, up to two harbor seals may be taken by Level A 
harassment, with no Level B exposures due to the Level A harassment 
zone extending to the boundaries of the inner harbor. This equates to 
90 Level B harassment takes and 170 Level A harassment takes over 130 
project days (Table 1). Therefore, the SMCHD is requesting, and NMFS is 
proposing, to authorize 90 takes by Level B harassment, and 170 takes 
by Level A harassment of harbor seals (Table 7).

   Table 7--Proposed Authorized Amount of Taking, by Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment, by Species and
                                  Stock and as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Level A         Level B                       Percent of
          Common name                 Stock         harassment      harassment         Total           stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion...........  United States...              40             260             300            0.12
Harbor seal...................  California......             170              90             260            0.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS 
considers 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 and impact on 
operations.
    In addition to the measures described later in this section, SMCHD 
will employ the following mitigation measures:
     The Holder must ensure that construction supervisors and 
crews, the monitoring team, and relevant SMCHD staff are trained prior 
to the start of activities subject to this IHA, so that 
responsibilities, communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and 
operational procedures are clearly understood. New personnel joining 
during the project must be trained prior to commencing work.
     For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take 
has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal will shut 
down immediately if such species are observed within or entering the 
Level B harassment zone; and
     If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized 
species, pile installation/removal will shut down immediately if these 
species approach the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
    The following mitigation measures apply to SMCHD's in-water 
construction activities:
     Establishment of Shutdown Zones--SMCHD will establish of 
15.25 meter (50-foot) shutdown zone for all pinnipeds during in-water 
construction activities to avoid interaction between pile driving 
equipment and pinnipeds. For all marine mammal species other than 
harbor seals and California sea lions, the shutdown zone will encompass 
the entire inner harbor. Pile driving must be halted or delayed if a 
marine mammal is observed entering or within the shutdown zone. The 
activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has 
voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone 
or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
    [cir] Monitoring for Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment--
SMCHD will monitor the Level A harassment and Level B harassment zones. 
Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by establishing 
monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 
Monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and communicate the 
presence of marine mammals in the project area outside the shutdown 
zone and thus prepare for a potential halt of activity should the 
animal enter the shutdown zone. Placement of Protected Species 
Observers (PSOs) will allow PSOs to observe marine mammals within the 
Level B harassment zones. During pile driving activities, PSOs will 
monitor the entire inner harbor area and the outer harbor to the extent 
practicable. A qualified observer will monitor the zone of influence, 
and document all marine mammals that enter the monitoring zone.
     Pre/post-activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily 
in-water

[[Page 12347]]

construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/removal of 
30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown and 
monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be 
considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within 
the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed 
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal 
has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes. When a 
marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is 
present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level 
B harassment take will be recorded. If work ceases for more than 30 
minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones will 
commence. Monitoring must also occur through 30 minutes post-completion 
of pile driving activity.
     Protected Species Observers--The placement of PSOs during 
all pile driving and removal activities (described in detail in the 
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section) will ensure that the entire 
inner harbor is visible during pile installation. Should environmental 
conditions deteriorate such that marine mammals within the entire 
monitoring zone would not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile 
driving and removal must be delayed until the PSO is confident marine 
mammals within the monitoring zone could be detected.
     Soft Start--Soft-start procedures are believed to provide 
additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or 
giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the impact 
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact driving, an initial set 
of three strikes will be made by the hammer at reduced energy, followed 
by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets 
before initiating continuous driving. Soft start will be implemented at 
the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following 
cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while 
conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the activity; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and,
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring

    Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the 
Monitoring Plan and Section 5 of the IHA. Marine mammal monitoring 
during pile driving and removal must be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs 
in a manner consistent with the following:
     Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who 
have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used;
     At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the 
duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued 
incidental take authorization.
     Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological 
science or related field) or training for experience; and
     The SMCHD must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae for approval by 
NMFS prior to the onset of pile driving.
    PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
     Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols;
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation 
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); 
and marine mammal behavior; and
     Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary. SMCHD will employ up to two PSOs. 
PSO locations will provide an unobstructed view of all water within the 
shutdown zone(s), and as much of the Level A harassment and Level B 
harassment zones as possible. PSO locations may include Johnson Pier, 
adjacent floating docks, and/or the shoreline area. If necessary, 
observations may occur from two locations simultaneously.
     Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, 
and 30 minutes after pile driving/removal 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 or removed. 
Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single 
pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of 
the pile driving

[[Page 12348]]

or drilling equipment is no more than 30 minutes.

Reporting

    A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS 
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal 
activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any 
future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. 
The report will include an overall description of work completed, a 
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data 
sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
     Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal 
monitoring.
     Construction activities occurring during each daily 
observation period, including how many and what type of piles were 
driven or removed and by what method (i.e., impact or vibratory and if 
other removal methods were used) and the total duration of driving time 
for each pile (vibratory driving/removal) and number of strikes for 
each pile (impact driving).
     PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.
     Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at 
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change 
significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant 
weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall 
visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
     Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following 
information:
     Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and 
activity at time of sighting;
     Time of sighting;
     Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, 
lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in 
identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of 
species;
     Distance and location of each observed marine mammal 
relative to the pile being driven for each sighting;
     Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);
     Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, 
neonates, group composition, etc.);
     Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time 
spent within the harassment zone;
     Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations 
(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling), including an 
assessment of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the 
activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral state such as 
ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or breaching);
     Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment 
zones, by species; and
     Detailed information about implementation of any 
mitigation (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specific 
actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the 
animal(s), if any.
    If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft 
final report will constitute the final report. If comments are 
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted 
within 30 days after receipt of comments.

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

    In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities 
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the SMCHD shall report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the 
regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or 
injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, the SMCHD must 
immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review 
the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, 
additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms 
of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until 
notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first 
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
     Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
     Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if 
the animal is dead);
     Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
     If available, photographs or video footage of the 
animal(s); and
     General circumstances under which the animal was 
discovered.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., 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 impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration), 
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive 
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), as well as 
effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We 
also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by 
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent 
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338, 
September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing 
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their 
impacts on the baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of 
the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing 
sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to both 
California sea lions and harbor seals, given that the anticipated 
effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are 
expected to be similar. There is little information about the nature or 
severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of 
these species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for 
this activity.
    Pile driving activities have the potential to disturb or displace 
marine mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in 
take, in the form of Level A harassment and Level B harassment from 
underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential 
takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone 
when these activities are underway.
    The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential 
behavioral disturbance, and TTS. Level A harassment takes would be due 
to PTS. No mortality or serious injury is anticipated given the nature 
of the activity, even in the absence of the required mitigation. The 
potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method 
and the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (see 
Proposed Mitigation section).
    Take would occur within a limited, confined area (Pillar Point 
Inner Harbor) of the stock's range. Level A harassment

[[Page 12349]]

and Level B harassment would be reduced to the level of least 
practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described 
herein. Further, the amount of take proposed to be authorized is 
extremely small when compared to stock abundance, and the project is 
not anticipated to impact any known important habitat areas for any 
marine mammal species.
    Take by Level A harassment is authorized to account for the 
potential that an animal could enter and remain within the area between 
a Level A harassment zone and the shutdown zone for a duration long 
enough to be taken by Level A harassment. Any take by Level A 
harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of PTS 
because animals would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer 
duration than are expected to occur here in order to incur any more 
than a small degree of PTS. Additionally, and as noted previously, some 
subset of the individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also 
simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of 
time. Because of the small degree anticipated, though, any PTS or TTS 
potentially incurred here would not be expected to adversely impact 
individual fitness, let alone annual rates of recruitment or survival.
    Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the 
project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine 
mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues 
they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the 
Kodiak Ferry Dock (ABR, 2016)) or could become alert, avoid the area, 
leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable 
such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given the limited number of 
piles to be installed or extracted per day and that pile driving and 
removal would occur across a maximum of 130 days within the 12-month 
authorization period, any harassment would be temporary.
    Any impacts on marine mammal prey that would occur during SMCHD's 
proposed activity would have, at most, short-term effects on foraging 
of individual marine mammals, and likely no effect on the populations 
of marine mammals as a whole. Indirect effects on marine mammal prey 
during the construction are expected to be minor, and these effects are 
unlikely to cause substantial effects on marine mammals at the 
individual level, with no expected effect on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.
    In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, 
localized area of habitat would have any effect on the stocks' annual 
rates of recruitment or survival. In combination, we believe that these 
factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar 
activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified 
activities will have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The 
specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or 
survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from 
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or proposed 
for authorization.
     The intensity of anticipated takes by Level B harassment 
is relatively low for all stocks and would not be of a duration or 
intensity expected to result in impacts on reproduction or survival;
     No important habitat areas have been identified within the 
project area.
     For all species, Pillar Point Harbor is a very small and 
peripheral part of their range and anticipated habitat impacts are 
minor.
     The SMCHD would implement mitigation measures, such as 
soft-starts for impact pile driving and shut downs to minimize the 
numbers of marine mammals exposed to injurious levels of sound, and to 
ensure that take by Level A harassment, is at most, a small degree of 
PTS.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine 
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on 
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted previously, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA 
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated 
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to 
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or 
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to 
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of 
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock 
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, 
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as 
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
    The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize for both California 
sea lions and harbor seals is below one-third of the estimated stock 
abundance (0.12 percent and 0.84 percent, respectively; Table 7). This 
is likely a conservative estimate because it assumes all takes are of 
different individual animals, which is likely not the case. Some 
individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count 
them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small 
numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population 
size of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would 
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such 
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for 
endangered or threatened species.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for 
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS 
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is 
not required for this action.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to SMCHD for conducting the

[[Page 12350]]

Pillar Point Harbor Johnson Pier Expansion and Dock Replacement Project 
in Princeton, California, between January 1, 2024 and December 31, 
2024, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA 
can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed Pillar 
Point Harbor Johnson Pier Expansion and Dock Replacement Project. We 
also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as 
described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any 
supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the 
request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year 
renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 
days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or 
nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed 
Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as 
described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this 
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal 
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in 
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the 
following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the 
renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from 
expiration of the initial IHA).
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the 
requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under 
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so 
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the 
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take 
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
    Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected 
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines 
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the 
mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and 
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

    Dated: February 22, 2023.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-03975 Filed 2-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P