Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the South Basin Improvements Project at the San Francisco Ferry Terminal, 28826-28839 [2018-13281]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28826-28839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG132


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the South Basin Improvements 
Project at the San Francisco Ferry Terminal

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

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority 
(WETA) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine 
mammals during construction activities associated with the Downtown San 
Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project, South Basin Improvements 
Project in San Francisco, California.

DATES: This Authorization is effective from June 1, 2018 through May 
31, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Fowler, 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

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth.
    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an 
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably 
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.
    The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, 
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine 
mammal.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering (Level B harassment).

National Environmental Policy Act

    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 action (i.e., the issuance of an incidental 
harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the 
human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations 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 determined that the issuance of the 
IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

Summary of Request

    On January 22, 2018, NMFS received a request from WETA for an IHA 
to take marine mammals incidental to expansion and improvements at the 
downtown San Francisco ferry terminal. The application was determined 
to be adequate and complete on April 10, 2018. WETA's request was for 
take of seven species of marine mammals by Level A and Level B 
harassment. This authorization is valid from June 1, 2018 to May 31, 
2019. Neither WETA nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to 
result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
    NMFS previously issued an IHA to WETA for similar work (82 FR 
29521; June 29, 2017). WETA complied with all the requirements (e.g., 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHA and 
information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the 
``Estimated Take'' section.

Description of Activity

    WETA is planning to expand berthing capacity at the Downtown San 
Francisco Ferry Terminal, located at the San Francisco Ferry Building, 
to support existing and future planned water transit services operated 
on San Francisco Bay by WETA and WETA's emergency operations. The 
Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project includes the 
construction of three new water transit gates and overwater berthing 
facilities, in addition to supportive landside improvements, such as 
additional passenger waiting and queueing areas, circulation 
improvements, and other water transit-related amenities. The new gates 
and other improvements would be designed to accommodate future planned 
water transit services between Downtown San Francisco and Antioch, 
Berkeley, Martinez, Hercules, Redwood City, Richmond, and Treasure 
Island, as well as emergency operation needs. The new gates will be 
constructed using 81 steel piles, ranging in diameter from 24 to 36 
inches (in). All piles will be driven during the authorized in-water 
work window of June 1 to November 30, 2018.

[[Page 28827]]

    A detailed description of the planned terminal expansion project is 
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 
18507; April 27, 2018). Since that time, no changes have been made to 
the planned construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description 
is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for 
the description of the specific activity.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to WETA was published 
in the Federal Register on April 27, 2018 (83 FR 18507). That notice 
described, in detail, WETA's activity, the marine mammal species that 
may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine 
mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received 
comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
    Comment 1: The Commission noted minor errors and missing 
information in the text of the notice and the proposed authorization. 
The Commission recommends that NMFS review its notices more thoroughly 
before submitting for publication.
    Response 1: NMFS thanks the Commission for pointing out the errors 
in the Federal Register notice for the proposed authorization. NMFS has 
addressed those errors in the notice of issuance of the authorization. 
NMFS makes every effort to read notices thoroughly prior to publication 
and will continue this effort to publish the best possible product for 
public comment.
    Comment 2: The Commission stated its concerns over the 
appropriateness of the manner in which Level A harassment zones are 
estimated. The Commission pointed out that for impact driving of 36-
inch piles, the Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans 
was estimated to be 602 meters, which is greater than the 341 meter 
Level B harassment zone. The Commission recommended that NMFS consult 
with both internal and external scientists and acousticians to 
determine the relevant accumulation time that could result in Level A 
harassment based on associated permanent threshold shift from 
cumulative sound exposure levels.
    Response 2: NMFS understands the Commission's concerns and 
continues to work to improve Level A harassment zone estimation based 
on realistic noise propagation models and energy accumulation scheme. 
Currently, Level A harassment zones are based on exposure of cumulative 
sound exposure levels over a period of one working day's pile driving 
duration or instantaneous peak sound pressure level, while Level B 
harassment zones are based on instantaneous root-mean-squared sound 
pressure level that contains 90 percent of acoustic energy. The 
difference in the metrics between sound exposure levels and sound 
pressure level in assessing Level A and Level B harassments reflects 
the fact that prolonged exposure of intense noise could lead to 
permanent threshold shift if the animal chooses to stay within the 
injury zone. Occasionally, the conservative assumptions built into the 
User Spreadsheet result in Level A zones that are larger than Level B 
zones. The process of impact assessments will continue to evolve as 
more scientific data become available.
    Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from using 
a source level reduction factor for sound attenuation device 
implementation during impact pile driving for all relevant incidental 
take authorizations due to the different noise level reduction at 
different received ranges.
    Response 3: While it is true that noise level reduction measured at 
different received ranges does vary, given that both Level A and Level 
B estimation using geometric modeling is based on noise levels measured 
at near-source distances (~ 10m), NMFS believes it reasonable to use a 
source level reduction factor for sound attenuation device 
implementation during impact pile driving. In the case of the SF-OBB 
impact driving isopleth estimates using an air bubble curtain for 
source level reduction, NMFS reviewed Caltrans' bubble curtain ``on and 
off'' studies conducted in San Francisco Bay in 2003 and 2004. The 
equipment used for bubble curtains has likely improved since 2004 but 
due to concerns for fish species, Caltrans has not able to conduct ``on 
and off'' tests recently. Based on 74 measurements (37 with the bubble 
curtain on and 37 with the bubble curtain off) at both near (<100 m) 
and far (>100 m) distances, the linear averaged received level 
reduction is 6 dB. If limiting the data points (a total of 28 
measurements, with 14 during bubble curtain on and 14 during bubble 
curtain off) to only near distance measurements, the linear averaged 
noise level reduction is 7 dB. Since impact zone analysis using 
geometric spreading model is typically based on measurements at near-
source distance, we consider it appropriate to use a reduction of 7 dB 
as a noise level reduction factor for impact pile driving using an air 
bubble curtain system.
    NMFS will evaluate the appropriateness of using a certain source 
level reduction factor for sound attenuation device implementation 
during impact pile driving for all relevant incidental take 
authorizations when more data become available.
    Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS promptly revise its 
draft rounding criteria and share it with the Commission.
    Response 4: NMFS appreciates the Commission's ongoing concern in 
this matter. Calculating predicted take is not an exact science and 
there are arguments for taking different mathematical approaches in 
different situations, and for making qualitative adjustments in other 
situations. We believe, however, that the methodology used for take 
calculation in this IHA remains appropriate and is not at odds with the 
24-hour reset policy the Commission references. We look forward to 
continued discussion with the Commission on this matter and will share 
the rounding guidance as soon as it is completed.
    Comment 5: The Commission expressed concern about the lack of 
adequate time to provide public comments as well as the abbreviated 
timeframes during which NMFS is able to address public comments. The 
Commission recommended that NMFS ensure that it publishes and finalizes 
proposed IHAs sufficiently before the planned start date of the 
proposed activities to ensure full consideration is given to all 
comments received.
    Response 5: NMFS will work to provide adequate time for public 
comment and response. NMFS also seeks to process IHA applications in a 
more expeditious manner.
    Comment 6: The Commission requested clarification regarding certain 
issues associated with NMFS's notice that one-year renewals could be 
issued in certain limited circumstances and expressed concern that the 
process would bypass the public notice and comment requirements. The 
Commission also suggested that NMFS should discuss the possibility of 
renewals through a more general route, such as a rulemaking, instead of 
notice in a specific authorization. The Commission further recommended 
that if NMFS did not pursue a more general route, that the agency 
provide the Commission and the public with a legal analysis supporting 
our conclusion that this process is consistent with the requirements of 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
    Response 6: The process of issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass 
the public notice and comment requirements of the MMPA. The notice of 
the proposed IHA expressly notifies the public that under certain, 
limited conditions an applicant

[[Page 28828]]

could seek a renewal IHA for an additional year. The notice describes 
the conditions under which such a renewal request could be considered 
and expressly seeks public comment in the event such a renewal is 
sought. Importantly, such renewals would be limited to circumstances 
where: The activities are identical or nearly identical to those 
analyzed in the proposed IHA; monitoring does not indicate impacts that 
were not previously analyzed and authorized; and, the mitigation and 
monitoring requirements remain the same, all of which allow the public 
to comment on the appropriateness and effects of a renewal at the same 
time the public provides comments on the initial IHA. NMFS has, 
however, modified the language for future proposed IHAs to clarify that 
all IHAs, including renewal IHAs, are valid for no more than one year 
and that the agency would consider only one renewal for a project at 
this time. In addition, notice of issuance or denial of a renewal IHA 
would be published in the Federal Register, as they are for all IHAs. 
Last, NMFS will publish on our website a description of the renewal 
process before any renewal is issued utilizing the new process.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by 
WETA's actions, including brief introductions to the species and 
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population 
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, are 
provided in WETA's application and the Federal Register notice for the 
proposed IHA (83 FR 18507; April 27, 2018). We are not aware of any 
changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed 
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal 
Register notice for these descriptions. Please refer to additional 
species information available in the NMFS stock assessment reports for 
the Pacific at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/us-pacific-marine-mammal-stock-assessments-2016.
    Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence 
near downtown San Francisco and summarizes information related to the 
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA 
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in 
NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs)). While no mortality is 
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and 
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross 
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS's U.S. 2016 SARs (Caretta et al., 2017). All values presented in 
Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and 
are available in the 2016 SARs (Caretta et al., 2017).

                                            Table 1--Marine Mammals in the Vicinity of Downtown San Francisco
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             Strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -/- ; N             20,990 (0.05, 20,125,         624        132
                                                                                                             2011).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  California/Oregon/       E/D ; Y             1,918 (0.03, 1,876,            11       >6.5
                                                                Washington.                                  2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Bottlenose dolphin..............  Tursiops truncatus.....  California Coastal.....  -/- ; N             453 (0.06, 346, 2011).        2.7         >2
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  San Francisco-Russian    -/- ; N             9,886 (0.51, 6,625,            66          0
                                                                River.                                       2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California sea lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -/- ; N             296,750 (n/a, 153,337,      9,200        389
                                                                                                             2011).
    Northern fur seal...............  Callorhinus ursinus....  California.............  -/- ; N             14,050 (n/a, 7,524,           451        1.8
                                                                                                             2013).
    Guadalupe fur seal..............  Arctocephalus townsendi  Mexico to California...  T/D ; Y             20,000 (n/a, 15,830,          542       >3.2
                                                                                                             2010).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Pacific harbor seal.............  Phoca vitulina           California.............  -/- ; N             30,968 (n/a, 27,348,        1,641         43
                                       richardii.                                                            2012).
    Northern elephant seal..........  Mirounga angustirostris  California Breeding....  -/- ; N             179,000 (n/a, 81,368,       4,882        8.8
                                                                                                             2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

[[Page 28829]]

 
\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.
NOTE--Italicized species are not expected to be taken or proposed for authorization.

    All species that could potentially occur in the project area are 
included in Table 1. However, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of 
humpback whales and Guadalupe fur seals is such that take is not 
expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the 
explanation provided here. Humpback whales are rare visitors to the 
interior of San Francisco Bay. A recent, seasonal influx of humpback 
whales inside San Francisco Bay near the Golden Gate was recorded from 
April to November in 2016 and 2017 (Keener 2017). The Golden Gate is 
outside of this project's action area and humpback whales are not 
expected to be present during the project. Guadalupe fur seals 
occasionally range into the waters of Northern California and the 
Pacific Northwest. The Farallon Islands (off central California) and 
Channel Islands (off southern California) are used as haulouts during 
these movements (Simon 2016). Juvenile Guadalupe fur seals occasionally 
strand in the vicinity of San Francisco, especially during El 
Ni[ntilde]o events. Most strandings along the California coast are 
animals younger than two years old, with evidence of malnutrition (NMFS 
2017c). In the rare event that a Guadalupe fur seal or humpback whale 
is detected within the Level A or Level B harassment zones, work will 
cease until the animal has left the area (see ``Mitigation'').
    Information concerning marine mammal hearing, including marine 
mammal functional hearing groups, was provided in the Federal Register 
notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18507; April 27, 2018), therefore 
that information is not repeated here; please refer to that Federal 
Register notice for this information. For further information about 
marine mammal functional hearing groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. 
Seven marine mammal species (three cetacean and four pinniped (two 
phocid and two otariid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-
occur with the construction activities. Of the cetacean species that 
may be present, one is classified as a low-frequency cetacean (i.e., 
gray whale), one is classified as a mid-frequency cetacean (i.e., 
bottlenose dolphin), and one is classified as a high-frequency cetacean 
(i.e., harbor porpoise).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    The effects of underwater noise from pile driving activities for 
the Ferry Terminal Expansion Project have the potential to result in 
behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action 
area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18507; 
April 27, 2018) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic 
noise on marine mammals, therefore that information is not repeated 
here; please refer to the Federal Register notice for that information. 
No instances of hearing threshold shifts, injury, serious injury, or 
mortality are expected as a result of the planned activities.
    The main impact to habitat associated with the Ferry Terminal 
Expansion Project would be temporarily increased sound levels and the 
associated direct effects on marine mammals. The project would not 
result in permanent impacts to habitats used by marine mammals, such as 
haulout sits, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources 
such as fish and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during 
installation of piles. These potential effects are discussed in detail 
in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18507; April 
27, 2018), therefore that information is not repeated here; please 
refer to that Federal Register notice for that information.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration 
of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment as 
exposure to acoustic sources (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, primarily for harbor seals and 
California sea lions due to larger predicted auditory injury zones. 
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for cetaceans. The mitigation and 
monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such 
taking to the extent practicable.
    Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: 
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available 
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur 
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of 
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the 
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; 
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these 
components in more detail and present the take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur 
permanent threshold shift (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 (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment 
(e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what 
the available science indicates and the practical need to use a 
threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for 
most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on 
received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 
predicts that marine mammals are likely

[[Page 28830]]

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment 
when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 
120 decibels (dB) re 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa) (root mean square (rms)) 
for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 
dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns 
and impact pile driving) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) 
sources.
    WETA's activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile 
driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 
120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are applicable.
    Level A harassment - NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the 
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical 
Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury 
(Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on 
hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two 
different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). WETA's 
activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-
impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JN18.000

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds.
Level B Harassment
    In-Water Disturbance during Vibratory Pile Driving--Level B 
behavioral disturbance may occur

[[Page 28831]]

incidental to the use of a vibratory or impact hammer due to 
propagation of underwater noise during installation of new steel piles. 
A total of 81 steel piles will be installed at the Ferry Terminal. 
During the 2017 construction season, all piles were installed using a 
vibratory hammer. The hydroacoustic monitoring conducted for vibratory 
driving during the 2017 season has been used to establish the expected 
source values of piles driven during the 2018 construction season. The 
SLs were measured at 10 m for the 30- and 36-in piles and between 9 and 
15 m for the 24-in piles. The SLs for 24-in piles were calculated using 
the measured values from 9 to 15 m normalized to 10 m. The median RMS 
values were used as the SLs to estimate take from vibratory driving. 
These values are provided in Table 3.

                                    Table 3--Sound Source Levels by Pile Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Source level at 10 m (dB re 1 [mu]Pa)
                Pile size and installation method                -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       Peak             RMS             SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Vibratory.................................................  ..............             154  ..............
24-in Impact1 2.................................................             196             183             170
30-in Vibratory.................................................  ..............             151  ..............
30-in Impact1 2.................................................             203             183             170
36-in Vibratory.................................................  ..............             157  ..............
36-in Impact1 2.................................................             203             186             176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Caltrans 2009.
\2\ Impact SLs include 7 dB reduction due to bubble curtain.

    Additionally, monitoring conducted during 2017 construction 
established that for vibratory pile driving in the project area, the 
transmission loss is greater than the standard value of 15 used in 
typical take calculations. For estimating take from vibratory pile 
driving, Level B harassment zones were calculated using the average 
transmission loss measured during pile driving from June through August 
of 2017 minus one standard deviation of those measurements (22.26 - 
3.51 = 18.75). Additional pile driving in September and November of 
2017 yielded a mean transmission loss of 19.0. The F value originally 
calculated (18.75) is comparable to the final reported average and is 
slightly more conservative, and was therefore used to calculate the 
harassment zones from vibratory pile driving. Using the calculated 
transmission loss model (18.75logR), the in-water Level B harassment 
zones were determined for each pile size (Table 4). For 24-in steel 
piles driven with a vibratory hammer, the Level B harassment zone is 
expected to be 651 m (2,136 ft). For 30-in piles, the Level B 
harassment zone is expected to be 450 m (1,476 ft). For 36-in piles, 
the Level B harassment zone is expected to be 940 m (3,084 ft).
    In-Water Disturbance During Impact Pile Driving--As stated 
previously, all piles installed in the 2017 construction season were 
installed solely using a vibratory hammer. However, the use of an 
impact hammer to install piles may be required; therefore, the effects 
of impact pile driving is discussed here. Level B behavioral 
disturbance may occur incidental to the use of an impact hammer due to 
the propagation of underwater noise during the installation of steel 
piles. Piles will be driven to approximately 120 to 140 ft below Mean 
Lower Low Water (MLLW). Installation of these pipe piles may require up 
to 1,800 strikes per piles from an impact hammer using a DelMag D46-32, 
or similar diesel hammer, producing approximately 122,000 foot-pounds 
maximum energy per blow, and 1.5 seconds per blow average.
    Other projects constructed under similar circumstances were 
reviewed to estimate the approximate noise produced by the 24-, 30, and 
36-in steel piles. These projects include the driving of similarly 
sized piles at the Alameda Bay Ship and Yacht project, the Rodeo Dock 
Repair project, and the Amorco Wharf Repair Project (Caltrans 2012). 
Bubble curtains will be used during the installation of these piles, 
which, based on guidance provided by Caltrans for a mid-sized steel 
piles (with a diameter greater than 24 but less than 48 in), is 
expected to reduce noise levels by 7 dB rms (Caltrans 2015a).
    Because no impact pile driving was used in the 2017 construction 
season, no site-specific transmission loss measurements exist for this 
project. The Practical Spreading Loss Model (15logR) is used to 
determine the Level B harassment zones for each pile size (Table 4). 
Both 24- and 30-in steel piles have a SL of 183 dB rms re 1 [micro]Pa 
and therefore have the same Level B harassment zone of 341 m (1,120 
ft). For 36-in piles, the Level B harassment zone is expected to be 541 
m (1,775 ft).

                        Table 4--Pile Driving Source Levels and Level B Harassment Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Level B
                                                   Source level   Threshold  (dB    Propagation     Distance to
        Pile size and installation method            (dB re 1       re 1 [mu]Pa       (xLogR)         level B
                                                    [mu]Pa rms)        rms)                       threshold  (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Vibratory.................................             154             120           18.75             651
24-in Impact....................................         \a\ 183             160              15             341
30-in Vibratory.................................             151             120           18.75             450
30-in Impact....................................         \a\ 183             160              15             341
36-in Vibratory.................................             157             120           18.75             940
36-in Impact....................................         \a\ 186             160              15             541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Impact source levels include 7 dB reduction due to bubble curtain.


[[Page 28832]]

Level A Harassment
    When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition 
of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically 
challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new 
thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine 
mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going 
to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of 
overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way 
to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling 
methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to 
quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the 
output where appropriate. For stationary sources (such as impact and 
vibratory pile driving), NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest 
distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the 
whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in 
the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths are reported below.

                                         Table 5--Inputs for Determining Distances to Cumulative PTS Thresholds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Number of                       Activity
            Pile size and installation method              Source level    Source level     Propagation    strikes  per      Number of       duration
                                                          at 10 m  (SEL)  at 10 m  (rms)      (xLogR)          pile        piles per day     (seconds)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Vibratory.........................................  ..............             154           18.75  ..............               4             900
24-in Impact............................................         \a\ 170  ..............              15           1,800               3  ..............
30-in Vibratory.........................................  ..............             151           18.75  ..............               4             900
30-in Impact............................................         \a\ 170  ..............              15           1,800               3  ..............
36-in Vibratory.........................................  ..............             157           18.75  ..............               4            1200
36-in Impact............................................         \a\ 176  ..............              15           1,800               2  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source level includes 7 dB reduction due to bubble curtain.


                                      Table 6--Resulting Level A Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Distance to level A threshold  (m)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Pile size and installation                                          High-
             method                Low-frequency   Mid-frequency     frequency        Phocid          Otariid
                                     cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Vibratory.................             3.1              <1               4               2              <1
24-in Impact....................             418              15             498             224              16
30-in Vibratory.................               2              <1               3               1              <1
30-in Impact....................             418              15             498             224              16
36-in Vibratory.................               5              <1               7               4              <1
36-in Impact....................             801              29             954             429              31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting PTS isopleths assume an animal would remain 
stationary at that distance for the duration of the activity. The 
largest isopleths result from impact pile driving. All piles installed 
in the 2017 construction season were driven solely using a vibratory 
hammer indicating that vibratory driving will be the most likely method 
of installation in the 2018 season. Level A take of harbor seals and 
California sea lions has been authorized given their increased presence 
in the nearshore waters of the project site and the large Level A 
harassment zones, especially for 36-in piles.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
Gray Whale
    Caltrans Richmond-San Rafael Bridge project monitors recorded 12 
living and two dead gray whales in the surveys performed in 2012. All 
sightings were in either the Central or North Bay, and all but two 
sightings occurred during the months of April and May. One gray whale 
was sighted in June and one in October. The Oceanic Society has tracked 
gray whale sightings since they began returning to San Francisco Bay 
regularly in the late 1990s. Most sightings occurred just a mile or two 
inside of the Golden Gate, with some traveling into San Pablo Bay in 
the northern part of the San Francisco Bay (Self 2012). The Oceanic 
Society data show that all age classes of gray whales enter San 
Francisco Bay and they enter as singles or in groups of up to five 
individuals (Winning 2008). It is estimated that two to six gray whales 
enter San Francisco Bay in any given year.
Bottlenose Dolphin
    Bottlenose dolphins are most often seen just within the Golden Gate 
or just east of the bridge when they are present in San Francisco Bay, 
and their presence may depend on the tides (GGCR 2016). Beginning in 
the summer of 2015, one to two bottlenose dolphins have been observed 
frequently swimming in the Oyster Point area of South San Francisco 
(GGCR 2016, 2017; Perlman 2017). Despite this recent occurrence, this 
stock is highly transitory in nature and is not expected to spend 
extended periods of time in San Francisco Bay. However, the number of 
sightings in the Central Bay has increased, suggesting that bottlenose 
dolphins are becoming more of a resident species.
Harbor Porpoise
    In the last six decades, harbor porpoises have been observed 
outside of San Francisco Bay. The few porpoises that entered were not 
sighted past the Central Bay close to the Golden Gate Bridge. In recent 
years, however, there have been increasingly common observations of 
harbor porpoises in central, North, and South San Francisco Bay. 
According to observations by the

[[Page 28833]]

Golden Gate Cetacean Research team as part of their multi-year 
assessment, over 100 porpoises may be seen at one time entering San 
Francisco Bay and over 600 individual animals have been documented in a 
photo-ID database. Porpoise activity inside San Francisco Bay is 
thought to be related to tide-dependent foraging, as well as mating 
behaviors (Keener 2011; Duffy 2015). Sightings are concentrated in the 
vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and Angel Island, with fewer numbers 
sighted south of Alcatraz and west of Treasure Island (Keener 2011).
California Sea Lion
    In San Francisco Bay, sea lions haul out primarily on floating K 
docks at Pier 39 in the Fisherman's Wharf area of the San Francisco 
Marine. The Pier 39 haulout is approximately 1.5 miles from the project 
vicinity. The Marine Mammal Center (TMMC) in Sausalito, California has 
performed monitoring surveys at this location since 1991. A maximum of 
1,706 sea lions was seen hauled out during one survey effort in 2009 
(TMMC 2015). Winter numbers are generally over 500 animals (Goals 
Project 2000). In August to September, counts average from 350 to 850 
(NMFS 2004). Of the California sea lions observed, approximately 85 
percent were male. No pupping activity has been observed at this site 
or at other locations in the San Francisco Bay (Caltrans 2012). The 
California sea lions usually frequent Pier 39 in August after returning 
from the Channel Islands (Caltrans 2013). In addition to the Pier 39 
haulout, California sea lions haul out on buoys and similar structures 
throughout San Francisco Bay. They are mainly seen swimming off the San 
Francisco and Marin shorelines within San Francisco Bay, but may 
occasionally enter the project area to forage.
Northern Fur Seal
    Juvenile northern fur seals occasionally strand during El 
Ni[ntilde]o events (TMMC 2016). In normal years, TMMC admits about five 
northern fur seals that strand on the central California coast. During 
El Ni[ntilde]o years, this number dramatically increases. For example, 
during the 2006 El Ni[ntilde]o event, 33 fur seals were admitted. Some 
of these stranded animals were collected from shorelines in San 
Francisco Bay (TMMC 2016). The shoreline in the vicinity of the project 
is developed waterfront, consisting of piers and wharves where northern 
fur seals are unlikely to strand.
Pacific Harbor Seal
    Long-term monitoring studies have been conducted at the largest 
harbor seal colonies in Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area since 1976. Castro Rocks and other haulouts in 
San Francisco Bay are part of the regional survey area for this study 
and have been included in annual survey efforts. Between 2007 and 2012, 
the average number of adults observed ranged from 126 to 166 during the 
breeding season (March through May), and from 92 to 129 during the 
molting season (June through July) (Truchinski et al., 2008; Flynn et 
al., 2009; Codde et al., 2010, 2011, 2012; Codde and Allen 2015). 
Marine mammal monitoring at multiple locations inside San Francisco Bay 
was conducted by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 
from May 1998 to February 2002, and determined that at least 500 harbor 
seals populate San Francisco Bay (Green et al., 2002). This estimate 
agrees with previous seal counts in the San Francisco Bay, which ranged 
from 524 to 641 seals from 1987 to 1999 (Goals Project 2000).
    Yerba Buena Island is the nearest harbor seal haulout site, with as 
many as 188 individuals observed hauled out. Harbor seals are more 
likely to be hauled out in the late afternoon and evening, and are more 
likely to be in the water during the morning and early afternoon. Tidal 
stage is a major controlling factor of haulout use by harbor seals, 
with more seals present during low tides than high tide periods (Green 
et al., 2002). Therefore, the number of harbor seals in the vicinity of 
Yerba Buena Island will vary throughout the work period.
Northern Elephant Seal
    Northern elephant seals are seen frequently on the California 
coast. Elephant seals aggregate at various sites along the coast to 
give birth and breed from December through March. Pups remain onshore 
or in adjacent shallow water through May. Adults make two foraging 
migrations each year, one after breeding and the second after molting 
(Stewart and DeLong 1995). Most strandings occur in May as young pups 
make their first trip out to sea. When those pups return to their 
rookery sites to molt in late summer and fall, some make brief stops in 
San Francisco Bay. Approximately 100 juvenile elephant seals strand in 
San Francisco Bay each year, including individual strandings at Yerba 
Buena Island and Treasure Island (fewer than 10 strandings per year) 
(Caltrans 2015b).

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    While impact pile driving may be used during this project, all 
piles in the previous year of construction were installed completely 
with vibratory pile driving. Impact driving take calculations are 
included for informational purposes (Tables 7 and 8). However, only 
vibratory pile driving take calculations are conservatively used to 
calculate Level B takes in this IHA as vibratory driving is the most 
likely method of pile installation and results in greater Level B 
harassment zones. In the event impact driving does occur, we have 
authorized small numbers of Level A takes of harbor seals and 
California sea lions due to the large Level A harassment zones.
Gray Whale
    Gray whales occasionally enter San Francisco Bay during their 
northward migration period of February and March. Pile driving will not 
occur during this time and gray whales are not likely to be present at 
other times of the year. It is estimated that two to six gray whales 
enter the Bay in any given year, but they are unlikely to be present 
during the work period (June 1 through November 30). However, 
individual gray whales have occasionally been observed in San Francisco 
Bay during the work period, and therefore it is estimated that, at 
most, one pair of gray whales may be exposed to Level B harassment 
during two days of pile driving if they enter the Level B harassment 
zones (Table 12).
Bottlenose Dolphin
    When bottlenose dolphins are present in San Francisco Bay, they are 
more typically found close to the Golden Gate. Recently, beginning in 
2015, two individuals have been observed frequently in the vicinity of 
Oyster Point (GGCR 2016, 2017; Perlman 2017). The average reported 
group size for bottlenose dolphins is five. Reports show that a group 
normally comes into San Francisco Bay and transits past Yerba Buena 
Island once per week for approximately a two week stint, then leaves 
(NMFS 2017b). Assuming the dolphins come into San Francisco Bay three 
times per year, the group of five dolphins would make six passes 
through the Level B harassment zone for a total of 30 takes (Table 11).
Harbor Porpoise
    A small but growing population of harbor porpoises uses San 
Francisco Bay. Porpoises are usually spotted in the vicinity of Angel 
Island and the Golden

[[Page 28834]]

Gate Bridge (Keener 2011), but may use other areas of the Central Bay 
in low numbers. During construction activities in 2017, marine mammal 
observers recorded eight sightings of harbor porpoises, including a 
group of two to three individuals that was seen three times over the 
course of the pile-driving season. Harbor porpoises generally travel 
individually or in small groups of two or three (Sekiguchi 1995), and a 
pod of up to four individuals was observed in the area south of Yerba 
Buena Island during the 2017 Bay Bridge monitoring window. A pod of 
four harbor porpoises could potentially enter the Level B harassment 
zone on as many as eight days of pile driving, for 32 total takes 
(Table 11).
California Sea Lion
    Caltrans has conducted monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity 
of the Bay Bridge for 16 years. From those data, Caltrans has produced 
at-sea density estimates for California sea lions of 0.161 animals per 
square kilometer (0.42 per square mile) for the summer-late fall season 
(Caltrans 2016). Marine mammal monitoring observations from the 2017 
construction season were used to calculate a project-specific estimate 
of take per driving day (1.29 animals per day). Observations from 
marine mammal monitoring in 2017 were assumed to represent the 
occurrence of California sea lions along the waterfront while the 
Caltrans density represents the occurrence of California sea lions in 
open water in the bay. The two numbers were combined to calculate the 
daily average take over the entire Level B harassment zone (Table 7).

                               Table 7--Estimated Daily California Sea Lion Takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Area of  level      At-sea
   Pile size and installation      B  harassment      density     Takes per  day  Takes per  day    Total daily
             method                zone  (square   (animals per    from  density    from  2017     level B takes
                                        km)       square km) \a\                    monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Vibratory.................           0.519           0.161          0.0836            1.29            1.37
30-in Vibratory.................           0.248           0.161          0.0399            1.29            1.33
36-in Vibratory.................           1.084           0.161          0.1745            1.29            1.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Caltrans 2016.

    During El Ni[ntilde]o conditions, the density of California sea 
lions in San Francisco Bay may be much greater than the value used 
above. The likelihood of El Ni[ntilde]o conditions occurring in 2018 is 
currently low, with La Ni[ntilde]a conditions expected to develop (NOAA 
2018). However, to account for the potential of El Ni[ntilde]o 
developing in 2018, daily take estimated has been increased by a factor 
of 5 for each pile type (Table 8).

                 Table 8--Estimated Total California Sea Lion Takes From Vibratory Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Number of                    Total takes by
                    Pile size                          piles           days         Daily takes      pile type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in...........................................              35              18            6.87             124
30-in...........................................              18               9            6.65              60
36-in...........................................              28              14            7.32             103
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............             286
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to Level B takes due to vibratory pile driving, NMFS 
has authorized a small number of Level A takes due to impact pile 
driving, should impact driving occur. Given the 31 m Level A harassment 
zone from impact driving of 36-in piles, NMFS has authorized the Level 
A take of one California sea lion per day of impact driving of 36-in 
piles (14 days) for a total of 14 Level A takes. WETA will be required 
to implement a 30 m shutdown zone to minimize Level A takes but this 
authorization allows for the taking of California sea lions that 
unexpectedly surface within the Level A zone before a shutdown can be 
initiated.
Northern Fur Seal
    The incidence of northern fur seals in San Francisco Bay depends 
largely on oceanic conditions, with animals more likely to strand 
during El Ni[ntilde]o events. El Ni[ntilde]o conditions are unlikely to 
develop in 2018 (NOAA 2018) but it is anticipated that up to 10 
northern fur seals may be in San Francisco Bay and enter the Level B 
harassment zone (Table 11) (NMFS 2016b).
Pacific Harbor Seal
    Caltrans has produced at-sea density estimates for Pacific harbor 
seals of 3.957 animals per square kilometer (10.25 per square mile) for 
the fall-winter season (Caltrans 2016). Even though work will 
predominantly occur during the summer, when at-sea density has been 
observed to be lower (Caltrans 2016), the higher value of fall-winter 
density is conservatively used. Additionally, marine mammal monitoring 
observations from the 2017 construction season were used to calculate a 
project-specific estimate of take per driving day (3.18 animals per 
day). Observations from marine mammal monitoring in 2017 were assumed 
to represent the occurrence of harbor seals along the waterfront while 
the Caltrans density represents the occurrence of harbor seals in open 
water in the bay. The two numbers were combined to calculate the daily 
average take over the entire Level B harassment zone (Table 9). The 
daily take and days of pile installation were used to calculate total 
harbor seal Level B takes (Table 10).

[[Page 28835]]



                                   Table 9--Estimated Daily Harbor Seal Takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Area of  level      At-sea
   Pile size and installation      B  harassment      density     Takes per  day  Takes per  day    Total daily
             method                zone  (square   (animals per    from  density    from  2017    level B  takes
                                        km)       square km) \a\                    monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Vibratory.................           0.510           3.957           2.054            3.18            5.23
30-in Vibratory.................           0.248           3.957           0.981            3.18            4.16
36-in Vibratory.................           1.084           3.957           4.289            3.18            7.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Caltrans 2016.


                 Table 10--Estimated Total Pacific Harbor Seal Takes From Vibratory Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Number of                      Total takes
                    Pile size                          piles           days         Daily takes    by pile type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in...........................................              35              18            5.23              94
30-in...........................................              18               9            4.16              37
36-in...........................................              28              14            7.47             105
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............             236
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to Level B takes due to vibratory pile driving, NMFS 
has authorized a small number of Level A takes due to impact pile 
driving, should impact driving occur. Given the large (224-429 m) Level 
A harassment zones from impact driving, NMFS has authorized the Level A 
take of three harbor seals per day on half of the planned days of 
activity (21 days) for a total of 63 Level A takes. WETA will be 
required to implement a 30 m shutdown zone to minimize Level A takes 
but this authorization allows for the taking of harbor seals that 
unexpectedly surface within the Level A zone before a shutdown can be 
initiated.
Northern Elephant Seal
    Small numbers of elephant seals haul out or strand on Yerba Buena 
Island and Treasure Island each year. Monitoring of marine mammals in 
the vicinity of the Bay Bridge has been ongoing for 15 years. From 
these data, Caltrans has produced an estimated at-sea density for 
elephant seals of 0.06 animals per square kilometer (0.16 per square 
mile) (Caltrans 2015b). Most sightings of elephant seals occur in 
spring or early summer, and are less likely to occur during the period 
of in-water work for this project. As a result, densities during pile 
driving would be much lower. It is possible that a lone elephant seal 
may enter the Level B harassment zone once per week during the 26 week 
pile driving window (June 1 to November 30) for a total of 26 takes 
(Table 11).

                                                            Table 11--Total Authorized Takes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Bottlenose        Harbor        California     Northern  fur      Pacific        Northern
                                            Gray whale        dolphin        porpoise        sea lion          seal         harbor seal   elephant  seal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Take Authorized.................               4              30              32             286              10             236              26
Level A Take Authorized.................               0               0               0              14               0              63               0
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................               4              30              32             300              10             299              26
Percent of Total Stock (%)..............            0.02             6.9            0.32            0.10            0.07            0.96            0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned) and;
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case

[[Page 28836]]

of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of 
implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military 
readiness activity.

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

General Construction Measures
    A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan has been 
prepared to address the emergency cleanup of any hazardous material, 
and will be available onsite. The SPCC plan incorporates SPCC, 
hazardous waste, stormwater, and other emergency planning requirements. 
In addition, the project will comply with the Port's stormwater 
regulations. Fueling of land and marine-based equipment will be 
conducted in accordance with procedures outlined in the SPCC. Well-
maintained equipment will be used to perform work, and except in the 
case of a failure or breakdown, equipment maintenance will be performed 
offsite. Equipment will be inspected daily by the operator for leaks or 
spills. If leaks or spills are encountered, the source of the leak will 
be identified, leaked material will be cleaned up, and the cleaning 
materials will be collected and properly disposed. Fresh cement or 
concrete will not be allowed to enter San Francisco Bay. All 
construction materials, wastes, debris, sediment, rubbish, trash, 
fencing, etc. will be removed from the site once project construction 
is complete, and transported to an authorized disposal area.
Pile Driving
    Pre-activity monitoring will take place from 30 minutes prior to 
initiation of pile driving activity and post-activity monitoring will 
continue through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. 
Pile driving may commence at the end of the 30-minute pre-activity 
monitoring period, provided observers have determined that the shutdown 
zone (described below) is clear of marine mammals, which includes 
delaying start of pile driving activities if a marine mammal is sighted 
in the zone, as described below. A determination that the shutdown zone 
is clear must be made during a period of good visibility (i.e., the 
entire shutdown zone and surrounding waters must be visible to the 
naked eye).
    If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during 
activities or pre-activity monitoring, all pile driving activities at 
that location shall be halted or delayed, respectively. If pile driving 
is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the 
activity may not resume or commence until either the animal has 
voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone 
and 15 or 30 minutes (for pinnipeds/small cetaceans or large cetaceans, 
respectively) have passed without re-detection of the animal. 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 equipment is no more than thirty minutes.
    For all pile driving activities, a minimum of one protected species 
observed (PSO) will be required, stationed at the active pile driving 
rig or at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor the shutdown 
zones for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures 
when applicable through communication with the equipment operator. Two 
PSOs will be required on days when impact pile driving occurs.
    Monitoring of pile driving will be conducted by qualified PSOs (see 
below) who will have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods. 
WETA will adhere to the following conditions when selecting observers:
     Independent PSOs will be used (i.e., not construction 
personnel);
     PSOs must have prior experience working as a marine mammal 
observer during construction activities; and
     WETA will submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS.
    WETA will ensure that observers 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.
    To prevent Level A take of cetaceans, elephant seals, and Northern 
fur seals, shutdown zones equivalent to the Level A harassment zones 
will be established. If the Level A harassment zone is less than 10 m, 
a minimum 10 m shutdown zone will be enforced. WETA will implement 
shutdown zones as follows:

                                      Table 12--Pile Driving Shutdown Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Shutdown zone (m)
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Pile size and  installation                                        High-
            method               Low-frequency   Mid-frequency     frequency         Phocid           Otariid
                                   cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans        pinnipeds        pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Vibratory...............              10              10              10  10..............              10
24-in Impact..................             420              15             500  30 for harbor                 16
                                                                                 seals, 224 for
                                                                                 all other
                                                                                 species.
30-in Vibratory...............              10              10              10  10..............              10
30-in Impact..................             420              15             500  30 for harbor                 16
                                                                                 seals, 224 for
                                                                                 all other
                                                                                 species.
36-in Vibratory...............              10              10              10  10..............              10
36-in Impact..................             800              30             955  30 for harbor                 30
                                                                                 seals, 430 for
                                                                                 all other
                                                                                 species.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a 
species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized 
takes are met, is observed approaching or within the Level B harassment 
zones (Table 4), pile

[[Page 28837]]

driving and removal activities must cease immediately using delay and 
shut-down procedures. Similarly, if a species for which Level A take 
has not been authorized, or a species for which authorization has been 
granted but the authorized takes are met, is observed approaching or 
within the Level A harassment zones (Table 6), pile driving and removal 
activities must cease immediately. Activities must not resume until the 
animal has been confirmed to have left the area or 15 or 30 minutes 
(pinniped/small cetacean or large cetacean, respectively) has elapsed.
    Piles driven with an impact hammer will employ a ``soft start'' 
technique to give fish and marine mammals an opportunity to move out of 
the area before full-powered impact pile driving begins. This soft 
start will include an initial set of three strikes from the impact 
hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30 second waiting period, then 
two subsequent three-strike sets. Soft start will be required at the 
beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and at any time 
following a cessation of impact pile driving of 30 minutes or longer.
    Impact hammers will be cushioned using a 12-in thick wood cushion 
block. WETA will also employ a bubble curtain during impact pile 
driving. WETA will implement the following performance standards:
     The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 
percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column;
     The lowest bubble ring shall be in contact with the 
mudline for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights 
attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent mudline contact. 
No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline 
contact; and
     WETA shall require that construction contractors train 
personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers, and 
shall require that construction contractors submit an inspection/
performance report for approval by WETA within 72 hours following the 
performance test. Corrections to the attenuation device to meet the 
performance standards shall occur prior to impact driving.
    Based on our evaluation of the mitigation measures listed above, 
NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

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

Hydroacoustic Monitoring

    WETA's monitoring and reporting is also described in their 
Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan and Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, 
available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
    Hydroacoustic monitoring will be conducted in consultation with the 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) during a minimum of 
ten percent of all impact pile driving activities. Hydroacoustic 
monitoring of vibratory pile driving was completed during the 2017 
construction season and will not be conducted in 2018. Monitoring of 
impact pile driving will be done in accordance with the methodology 
outlined in the Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan. The monitoring will be 
conducted to achieve the following:
     Be based on the dual metric criteria (Popper et al., 2006) 
and the accumulated SEL;
     Establish field locations that will be used to document 
the extent of the area experiencing 187 dB SEL accumulated;
     Verify the distance of the Marine Mammal Level A 
harassment/shutdown zone and Level B harassment zone thresholds;
     Describe the methods necessary to continuously assess 
underwater noise on a real-time basis, including details on the number, 
location, distance, and depth of hydrophones and associated monitoring 
equipment;
     Provide a means of recording the time and number of pile 
strikes, the peak sound energy per strike, and interval between 
strikes; and
     Provide provisions to provide all monitoring data to the 
CDFW and NMFS.

Visual Marine Mammal Observations

    WETA will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to 
construction for marine mammal species observed in the Level B 
harassment zones during the period of activity. All PSOs will be 
trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required 
to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting 
monitoring. WETA proposes to use one PSO to monitor the shutdown zones 
and Level B harassment zones during vibratory pile driving. During 
impact pile driving, two PSOs will be used. The monitoring zones will 
be established equivalent to the Level B harassment zones for each pile 
size and installation method (Table 4). The PSO will monitor the 
shutdown zones and monitoring zones before, during, and after pile 
driving. Based on our requirements, WETA will implement the following 
procedures for pile driving and removal:
     The PSO will be located at the best vantage point in order 
to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the monitoring 
zone as possible;

[[Page 28838]]

     During all observation periods, the observer will use 
binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;
     If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting 
conditions, pile driving will not be initiated until that zone is 
visible. Should such conditions arise while pile driving is underway, 
the activity would be halted; and
     The shutdown and monitoring zones will be monitored for 
the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any pile 
driving activity.
    PSOs implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its 
effectiveness using an adaptive approach. The monitoring biologist will 
use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek 
improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any 
modifications to the protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and 
WETA.
    In addition, the PSO will survey the Level A and Level B harassment 
zones on two separate days--no earlier than seven days before the first 
day of construction--to establish baseline observations. Monitoring 
will be timed to occur during various tides (preferably low and high 
tides) during daylight hours from locations that are publicly 
accessible (e.g., Pier 14 or the Ferry Plaza). The information 
collected from baseline monitoring will be used for comparison with 
results of monitoring during pile-driving activities.

Data Collection

    WETA will record detailed information about any implementation of 
shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and 
description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of 
the animal, if any. In addition, WETA will attempt to distinguish 
between the number of individual animals taken and the number of 
incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following 
information be collected on the sighting forms:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
     Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
     Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
     Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
     Species, numbers, and, if possible, age and sex class of 
marine mammals;
     Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel, and if possible, 
the correlation to SPLs;
     Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals 
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
     Description of implementation of mitigation measures 
(e.g., shutdown or delay);
     Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
     Other human activity in the area.

Reporting

    A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the 
completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the 
requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same 
location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal 
observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during 
pile driving and removal days, and will also provide descriptions of 
any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals 
and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results 
of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the 
number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A 
final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of 
comments on the draft report.

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 responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    Pile driving activities associated with the ferry terminal 
construction project, as outlined previously, have the potential to 
disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified 
activities may result in take, in the form of Level A (PTS) and Level B 
harassment (behavioral disturbance), from underwater sounds generated 
from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if 
individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when 
pile driving and removal occurs.
    No serious injury or mortality is anticipated given the nature of 
the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of 
injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized 
through the construction method and the implementation of the planned 
mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory hammers will be the 
primary method of installation (impact driving is included only as a 
contingency). Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with 
higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. If 
impact driving is necessary, implementation of soft start and shutdown 
zones significantly reduces any possibility of injury. Given sufficient 
``notice'' through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine 
mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying 
prior to it becoming potentially injurious. WETA will also employ the 
use of 12-in-thick wood cushion block on impact hammers, and a bubble 
curtain as sound attenuation devices. Environmental conditions in San 
Francisco Ferry Terminal mean that marine mammal detection ability by 
trained observers is high, enabling a high rate of success in 
implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury.
    WETA's activities are localized and of relatively short duration (a 
maximum of 41 days of pile driving over the work season). The entire 
project area is limited to the San Francisco ferry terminal area and 
its immediate surroundings. These localized and short-term noise 
exposures may cause short-term behavioral modifications in harbor 
seals, northern fur seals, northern elephant seals, California sea 
lions, harbor porpoises, bottlenose dolphins, and gray whales. 
Moreover,

[[Page 28839]]

the planned mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce 
the likelihood of injury and behavior exposures. Additionally, no 
important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are 
known to be within the ensonified area during the construction time 
frame.
    The project also is not expected to have significant adverse 
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities 
will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount 
of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of 
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging 
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because 
of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area 
of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal 
habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative 
consequences.
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the 
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other 
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as 
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased 
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 
2006; Lerma 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from 
the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile 
driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only 
in association with impact pile driving. Thus, even repeated Level B 
harassment of some small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to 
result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for the affected 
individuals, and thus will not result in any adverse impact to the 
stock as a whole.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity 
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality is anticipated or authorized
     Injurious takes are not expected due to the presumed 
efficacy of the planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of 
the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact;
     Level B harassment may consist of, at worst, temporary 
modifications in behavior (e.g., temporary avoidance of habitat or 
changes in behavior);
     The lack of important feeding, pupping, or other areas in 
the action area;
     The high level of ambient noise already in the ferry 
terminal area; and
     The small percentage of the stock that may be affected by 
project activities (less than seven percent for all species).
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the 
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal 
species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified 
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not 
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are 
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most 
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in 
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small 
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may 
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of 
the activities.
    Table 11 details the number of instances that animals could be 
exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B 
harassment for the planned work at the ferry terminal project site 
relative to the total stock abundance. The instances of take authorized 
to be taken for all stocks are considered small relative to the 
relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated instance of take 
occurred to a new individual--an unlikely scenario. The total percent 
of the population (if each instance was a separate individual) for 
which take is requested is approximately seven percent for bottlenose 
dolphins, two percent for harbor seals, and less than one percent for 
all other species (Table 13). For pinnipeds occurring in the vicinity 
of the ferry terminal, there will almost certainly be some overlap in 
individuals present day-to-day, and the number of individuals taken is 
expected to be notably lower. Similarly, the number of bottlenose 
dolphins that could be subject to Level B harassment is expected to be 
a single pod of five individuals exposed up to six times over the 
course of the project.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including 
the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of 
marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be 
taken relative to the population size of the affected species or 
stocks.

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 (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized 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.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to WETA for the potential harassment of 
small numbers of seven marine mammal species incidental to the Downtown 
San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project, South Basin 
Improvements Project, including the previously mentioned mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting measures.

    Dated: June 15, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-13281 Filed 6-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P