Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Mission Bay Ferry and Water Taxi Landing Project in San Francisco Bay, California, 53217-53231 [2018-22923]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: October 17, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2018–22993 Filed 10–19–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XG105 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Mission Bay Ferry and Water Taxi Landing Project in San Francisco Bay, California National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization. AGENCY: 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 Port of San Francisco to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during construction activities associated with the pile driving, pile removal, and drilling on the Mission Bay Ferry Landing (MBFL) and Water Taxi Landing (WTL) Project in San Francisco Bay, California. DATES: This Authorization is effective from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gray Redding, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 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/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of an incidental take authorization may be provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as ‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below. Summary of Request On November 2, 2017, NMFS received a request from the Port of San Francisco for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and drilling in San Francisco Bay. NMFS determined that a revised version of the Port’s application was adequate and complete PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 53217 on June 22, 2018. The Port of San Francisco’s request was for take of seven species of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. This authorization is valid from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. Neither the Port of San Francisco nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. Description of Proposed Activity Overview The Port of San Francisco plans to construct the MBFL and WTL on San Francisco Bay, within the Port of San Francisco’s Southern Waterfront in the Mission Bay/Central Waterfront area. The project will create two, two-berth, floating landings to add ferry and water taxi access to the area. The project’s activities that have the potential to take marine mammals include vibratory and impact pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and down the hole drilling. In total, 28 permanent piles ranging from 16-inch to 36-inch in diameter will be installed, but only 24 will require in water installation. Twelve older piles will be removed, and four 14-inch Hpiles and one 30-inch steel pile will be driven temporally to act as the caisson and supports during down the hole drilling at 10 locations. In addition, the project will include dredging, however authorization of take from this activity is neither requested nor proposed for authorization. All piles will be driven between June 1, 2019 and November 20, 2019. A detailed description of the planned Port of San Francisco MBFL and WTL project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 42465; August 22, 2018). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned Port of San Francisco activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity. While there were not changes to the planned activity, some errors were corrected and other minor changes occurred following publication of the proposed IHA. These changes are outlined in each section of this notice In this section, the rate of pile installation for 36-inch steel piles was corrected from 5 piles per day to 4, to address an inconsistency in the application and more accurately reflect the applicant’s expected schedule. E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 53218 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN WATER PILE INSTALLATION Project element Locations Debris Removal MBFL ........ WTL .......... Pile diameter (inch) Pile type Method Piles/day Construction days 12 Steel ..................... 12 If necessary, a vibratory hammer will be used to remove up to 12 piles 60-120 seconds/pile while pulling the pile up to loosen it from the sediment. 12 1 Pier ....................... 14 30 24 H-pile steel ........... Steel Caisson ....... Octagonal Concrete. 4 1 10 4 1 1 10 Float Guide Piles .. 36 Steel ..................... 6 4 2 Donut Fender Piles. 36 Steel ..................... 2 Platform ................ 16 Steel ..................... 2 Guide Piles ........... 20 Square Concrete .. 4 Four 14-inch steel H beams will be driven with Vibratory Driver 600 seconds/pile to support 30-inch steel caisson sleeve driven with Vibratory Driver (900 sec/pile) to refusal, drill out hole removing soils, place and position concrete pile, grout pile in place while simultaneously pulling the caisson. Vibratory Driver 1,200 sec/pile then Impact Hammer last 15 ft (150 strikes/pile ∼20 minutes); bubble curtain will be used during impact duration. Vibratory Driver 1200 sec/pile then Impact Hammer last 15 ft (150 strikes/pile ∼20 minutes); bubble curtain will be used during impact duration. Vibratory Driver 600 sec/pile then Impact Hammer last 15 ft (500 strikes/pile ∼20 minutes); bubble curtain will be used during impact duration. Impact Hammer 500 strikes/pile (max 20 minutes); a bubble curtain will be used during impact duration. Comments and Responses daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Number of piles A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue an IHA to the Port of San Francisco was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2018 (83 FR 42465). That notice described, in detail, the Port of San Francisco’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. The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures. Comment 1: The Commission recommended NMFS authorize take by Level A harassment for harbor seals, noting the estimated number that could occur in the Level A harassment zone, the potential for take, and the possible limited effectiveness of mitigation. Response 1: NMFS recognizes the potential for Level A harassment associated with the Port of San Francisco’s MBFL and WTL project, but notes that this anticipated take by Level A harassment of two harbor seals is avoidable given the required mitigation and monitoring. Additionally, this calculation is highly conservative because it uses the project’s largest Level A harassment zone for the entire duration, despite this zone being in effect for a short time and other Level A harassment zones being smaller. While NMFS could authorize take by Level A harassment associated with this activity as a precaution, we do not agree that such authorization is warranted and the applicant did not request such authorization. Additionally, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 observation of an animal within the Level A harassment zone does not necessarily equate to an incident of Level A harassment, as the calculation of that zone assumes that the animal is present at that distance from the driven pile for a given duration necessary to accumulate sufficient sound energy to actually incur injury. The largest Level A harassment zone for harbor seals, of 130 meters (m), assumes an activity duration of 40 minutes. Given that, it is unlikely that briefly occupying the Level A harassment zone would expose an animal to sound energy sufficient to cause take by Level A harassment. Comment 2: 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 2: While it is true that noise level reduction measured at different received ranges does vary, given that both Level A and Level B harassment estimation using geometric modeling is based on noise levels measured at nearsource distances (∼10 m), 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 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4 2 1 4 1 species, Caltrans has not been 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 decibels (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. Bubble curtains are effective at attenuating sound originating within the water column. Pile driving does generate sound within the seafloor as well. This sound travels within the seafloor and emerges back to the water column, but its intensity is reduced within the sediment due to absorption by the sediment and reflection at the sediment/water interface. 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 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS require the applicant to conduct sound source measurements of its drilling activities in conjunction with the required sound measurements of ambient conditions. Response 3: NMFS agrees that sound source measurements of the drilling E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 53219 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices activities would be valuable, but has determined that this would be an overly burdensome requirement relative to the expected impacts of the specified activity (refer to negligible impact section). The project’s permitted activity is short. Additionally, the process to record sound data sufficiently rigorous enough to provide new source information can be complex and costly. If the Port of San Francisco chooses to conduct sound source measurements, NMFS will work with the Port to help ensure these measurements are properly taken to best ensure their usefulness. Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS require applicants to provide proposed hydroacoustic monitoring plans with their applications to allow for public comment, or provide them to the Commission for review prior to final authorization. Response 4: NMFS disagrees that the MMPA or NMFS’s implementing regulations require that detailed hydroacoustic monitoring plans be made available for public review. Additionally, NMFS has the necessary technical expertise to properly evaluate and make recommendations to hydroacoustic monitoring plans that are received. That said, NMFS encourages applicants to prepare as detailed a monitoring plan as possible, as early in the process as possible, and shares these plans with the public if they are available at the time the proposed authorization is published. Comment 5: The Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from implementing its proposed renewal process and instead use abbreviated Federal Register notices and reference existing documents to streamline the incidental harassment authorization process. The Commission suggested that the MMPA states that public comment on proposed authorizations must be concurrent with publication in the Federal Register. The Commission further recommends that if NMFS did not pursue a more general route, NMFS provide the Commission and the public with a legal analysis supporting its conclusion that the process is consistent with the requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. Response 5: The notice of the proposed IHA expressly notifies the public that under certain, limited conditions an applicant 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. Additional reference to this solicitation of public comment has recently been added at the beginning of FR notices that consider renewals. NMFS appreciates the streamlining achieved by the use of abbreviated Federal Register notices and intends to continue using them for proposed IHAs that include minor changes from previously issued IHAs, but which do not satisfy the renewal requirements. However, we believe our proposed method for issuing renewals meets statutory requirements and maximizes efficiency. Importantly, such renewals would be limited to 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 are 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 the Port of San Francisco’s MBFL and WTL project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 42465; August 22, 2018); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ website (https://www.fisheries.noaa. gov/find-species) for generalized species accounts. Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the Mission Bay/Central Waterfront area of San Francisco Bay 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 the Committee on Taxonomy (2017). 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 Report (SAR)). While NMFS neither anticipates nor proposes to authorize mortality 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. 2017 SAR (Carretta et al., 2017). All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2017 SAR (Carretta et al., 2017). daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS IN THE PROJECT AREA Common name Scientific name ESA/ MMPA status; strategic (Y/N) 1 Stock Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2 PBR Annual M/SI 3 Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Eschrichtiidae: Gray whale ......................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Eschrichtius robustus ................ 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Eastern North Pacific ................ Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 -/-; N 20,990 (0.05, 20,125, 2011). E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 624 132 53220 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued ESA/ MMPA status; strategic (Y/N) 1 Common name Scientific name Stock Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals): Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeangliae .......... California/Oregon/Washington .. E/D; Y Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2 1,918 (0.03, 1,876, 2014) Annual M/SI 3 PBR 11 >6.5 Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family Delphinidae: Bottlenose dolphin .............. Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): Harbor porpoise .................. Tursiops truncatus .................... California Coastal ..................... -/-; N 453 (0.06, 346, 2011) ..... 2.7 >2 Phocoena phocoena ................. San Francisco-Russian River ... -/-; N 9,886 (0.51, 6,625, 2011) 66 0 296,750 (n/a, 153,337, 2011). 14,050 (n/a, 7,524, 2013) 626,734 (n.a., 530,474, 2014). 20,000 (n/a, 15,830, 2010). 9,200 389 451 11,405 1.8 1.1 542 >3.2 1,641 43 4,882 8.8 Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): California sea lion ............... Zalophus californianus .............. U.S. ........................................... -/-; N Northern fur seal ................. Callorhinus ursinus ................... California ................................... Eastern North Pacific ................ -/-; N -/-; N Guadalupe fur seal ............. Arctocephalus townsendi .......... Mexico to California .................. T/D; Y Family Phocidae (earless seals): Pacific harbor seal .............. Phoca vitulina richardii .............. California ................................... -/-; N Northern elephant seal ....... Mirounga angustirostris ............ California Breeding ................... -/-; N 30,968 (n/a, 27,348, 2012). 179,000 (n/a, 81,368, 2010). daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable 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 Port’s proposed project area in San Francisco Bay are included in Table 2. However, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of humpback whale and Guadalupe fur seal 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 Nin˜o events. Most strandings along the California coast are animals younger VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 than two years old, with evidence of malnutrition (NMFS 2017a). Because Guadalupe fur seals are rare in the area, and sightings are associated with abnormal weather conditions, such as El Nin˜o events, NMFS has determined that no Guadalupe fur seals are likely to occur in the project vicinity and, therefore, no take is expected to occur. Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat The effects of underwater noise from pile driving, pile removal, and drilling activities for the MBFL and WTL Project in San Francisco Bay, California 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 42465; August 22, 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 (83 FR 42465; August 22, 2018) for that information. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Anticipated Effects on Habitat The main impact associated with the Port of San Francisco’s MBFL and WTL project would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals. The project would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish, and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during installation/removal of piles and drilling during the MBFL and WTL project. These potential effects are discussed in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 42465; August 22, 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 for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS’ consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible impact determination. E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices After public comment and review of the proposed authorization, the following items have changed in the final authorization. (1) The Level B harassment zone for drilling activities has decreased from 21,544 m to 15,849 m to account for an error that was present in the proposed IHA. During the drafting of the proposed IHA, the source level for drilling activities was reduced from 170 dB to 168 dB based on proxy data from the Alaska Department of Transportation (2016). The resulting Level B harassment zone was not updated from 21,544 m to 15,849 m until this error was noticed during public comment (Table 5). (2) The Level B harassment zone for impact driving of 16-inch steel piles changed from 215 m to 136 m to account for an error that was present in the proposed IHA. This change resulted in a corresponding correction the ensonified area (Table 5). (3) The Level B harassment zone for vibratory installation of 16-inch steel pipe piles was reduced from 21,544 m to 3,415 m. This change was to correct a misstatement in the proposed IHA. The original Level B harassment zone was stated as 21,544 m, when 3,415 m was the correct value for the given source level (158 dB SPL). This source level remains at 158 dB as presented in the proposed IHA, and the Level B harassment zone has been updated to match this source level with a corresponding correction to the ensonified area (Table 5). (4) To correct errors present in the proposed IHA, duration estimates for some activities were updated. Updated activity durations included vibratory pile removal, vibratory pile installation of 36-inch steel piles, vibratory pile installation of 14-inch steel H piles, and down the hole drilling (Table 6). These changes were accompanied by corresponding but minor changes in Level A harassment zones (Table 7). (5) Errors in calculation of takes by Level B harassment for harbor seal, California sea lion, and harbor porpoise were corrected, resulting in decreased take estimates. Take estimates for northern elephant seal and northern fur seal were increased from 1 to 3 individuals to account for the large Level B harassment zones for certain activities (Table 9). Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment). Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to acoustic sources. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., use of a bubble curtain, wood cushion, and shutdown—discussed in detail below in the Mitigation Measures section), Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated. Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the take estimate. Acoustic Thresholds Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 53221 Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 micro pascal (mPa) root mean square (rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) sources. The Port of San Francisco’s activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving, down the hole drilling) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are applicable. Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The Port of San Francisco’s activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources. These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS’s 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/ marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 53222 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level) Hearing group Impulsive Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell 1: 3: 5: 7: 9: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: 219 230 202 218 232 dB; dB; dB; dB; dB; Non-impulsive LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1 μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. Ensonified Area Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss coefficients. Reference sound source levels used by the Port of San Francisco for all vibratory and impact piling/removal and drilling activities were derived from source level data from construction projects within Caltrans (2015) except for two cases noted below where Navy and Alaska Department of Transportation sources were used. To determine the ensonified areas for both the Level A and Level B harassment zones for vibratory piling of the 36-inch, 30-inch, and 16-inch steel piles and 14inch steel H piles, the Port of San Francisco used sound pressure levels (SPL) of 170 dB re 1 mPa rms, 170 dB re 1 mPa rms, 158 dB re 1 mPa rms, and 158 dB re 1 mPa rms, respectively. These were derived from vibratory pile driving data of 36-inch (for 36-inch and 30-inch steel piles), 18-inch (for 16-inch steel piles) and 14-inch (for 14-inch steel H- pile) steel piles reported in the values listed in Table 1.2–2 and Table 1.2.3 of Caltrans (2015), and Table 6–1 of Navy (2017). For vibratory pile removal, the Port of San Francisco used an SPL of 155 dB re 1 mPa rms. This proxy source level was derived from vibratory pile driving data of 12-inch steel pipe piles in Caltrans (2015; Table 1.2–2). In addition, for down the hole drilling activities used to place 24-inch octagonal concrete piles, an SPL of 168 dB was used, corresponding to the mean SPL reported in Table 72 of the Alaska Department of Transportation (2016) hydroacoustic report. For impact pile driving, the Port of San Francisco used both SPLs and sound exposure levels (SEL) derived from summary source level values reported in Caltrans (2015). These source levels were then reduced by 7 dB due to the Port of San Francisco’s use of a bubble curtain. NMFS used a reduction value of 7 dB as it was roughly the average sound reduction value derived from sound measurements of piles that used bubble curtains within Caltrans (2015). For piling of 36-inch steel piles, a source level of 183 dB SEL was chosen as a proxy value for modeling Level A harassment zones (Caltrans 2015, Table 1.2–1). This source level was reduced to 176 dB SEL with the 7 dB reduction. For piling of 20-inch concrete piles, a source level of 167 dB SEL was chosen as a proxy value for modeling Level A harassment zones (Caltrans 2015, Table 1.5–4, reported from 24-inch concrete pile measurements at a project in the Port of Oakland). This source level was selected as a proxy because of the proximity of the Port of Oakland project to the proposed work and it is more conservative than Caltrans (2015) summary value reported in Table 1.2–1. This source level was reduced to 160 dB SEL with the 7 dB reduction. In addition, for impact piling of 16-inch steel piles, a source level of 158 dB SEL was chosen as a proxy value for modeling Level A harassment zones (Caltrans 2015, Table I.2–1). This source level was reduced to 151 dB SEL with the 7 dB reduction. The stated source levels and their corresponding activity are presented in Table 4 below. TABLE 4—PROJECT SOURCE LEVELS Source level at 10 meters (dB) daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Activity Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal: 36-inch steel pile installation ............................................................................................................................................ 30-inch steel pile installation (Caisson) ............................................................................................................................ 14-inch steel H pile installation ........................................................................................................................................ Removal of pre-existing piles ........................................................................................................................................... 16-inch steel pile installation ............................................................................................................................................ Impact Pile Driving: * 36-inch steel pile installation ............................................................................................................................................ 20-inch concrete pile installation ...................................................................................................................................... 16-inch steel pile installation ............................................................................................................................................ Down the Hole Drilling: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 170 170 158 155 158 SPL SPL SPL SPL SPL 176 SEL/186 SPL 160 SEL/172 SPL 151 SEL/177 SPL 53223 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices TABLE 4—PROJECT SOURCE LEVELS—Continued Source level at 10 meters (dB) Activity 24-inch Octagonal Concrete (drilling of 30-inch hole) ..................................................................................................... 168 SPL * The values in the cells reflect a 7dB reduction due to the Port of San Francisco’s use of a bubble curtain. Level B Harassment Zones The practical spreading model was used by the Port of San Francisco to generate the Level B harassment zones for all piling/removal activities. Practical spreading is described in full detail below. Pile driving and drilling generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is: TL = B * log10 (R1/R2), Where R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement. This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (freefield) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20 * log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10 * log[range]). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Utilizing the practical spreading loss model, the Port of San Francisco determined underwater noise will fall below the behavioral effects threshold of 120 dB rms for marine mammals at a maximum radial distance of 21,544 m for vibratory piling (36 and 30-inch steel piles) and 15,849 m for drilling ((24inch octagonal concrete pile). The maximum Level B harassment zone for this activity will therefore be set at 21,544 m. However, previous sound monitoring for other projects in San Francisco Bay (i.e. Caltrans 2015; 2016) have shown background sound levels in the active portions of the Bay, near the project area, to range from 110 to 140 dB rms, with typical background levels in the range of 110 to 120 dB rms. This ambient noise may affect the ability to distinguish sound from vibratory pile driving in the region (Rodkin, 2009), but direct applicability of that finding to the Port’s work is unknown, and therefore no reduction in Level B harassment zone is applied. The maximum radial distance of the Level B harassment zone for impact pile driving equaled 541.2 m (impact driving 36-inch steel piles). At this radial distance, the entire Level B harassment zone for impact piling equaled 0.3699 square kilometers (km2). This ensonified area is based on a GIS map of the area accounting for structures and landmasses which would block sound spreading (Please see Figure 9 of the Application). Table 5 below provides all Level B radial distances and their corresponding areas for each activity during the Port of San Francisco’s project. Level B harassment zone areas are calculated using a GIS map (See Figure 9 of the Application). TABLE 5—LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES CALCULATED USING THE PRACTICAL SPREADING MODEL Calculated distance to Level B threshold (meters) Source Level B harassment zone (square kilometers km2) Vibratory Pile Driving 36-inch steel pile installation ....................................................................................................................... 30-inch steel pile installation ....................................................................................................................... 16-inch steel pile installation ....................................................................................................................... 14-inch steel H pile installation .................................................................................................................... Removal of pre-existing concrete and wood piles ...................................................................................... 21,544 21,544 3,415 3,415 2,154 47.1608 47.1608 7.6431 7.6431 3.1511 541.2 63.1 136 0.36993 0.006650 0.0291 15,849 47.1608 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Impact Pile Driving 36-inch steel pile installation ....................................................................................................................... 20-inch concrete pile installation ................................................................................................................. 16-inch steel pile installation ....................................................................................................................... Down the Hole Drilling VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 53224 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices Level A Harassment Zones When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that the ensonified area 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 overestimate of Level A harassment. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources (i.e. pile driving), NMFS’s 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. Daily ensonified areas for Level A harassment are approximated as a semi-circle because the pile driving and drilling are occurring close to shore and the coastline is approximately linear. TABLE 6—PARAMETERS OF PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING ACTIVITY Equipment type Spreadsheet Tab Used. Source Level .......... Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz). (a) Activity duration (hours) within 24 hours, (b) Number of strikes per pile, (c) Number of piles per day. Propagation (xLogR). Distance of source level measurement (meters) +. Vibratory pile driver (removal of concrete and wood piles) Vibratory pile driver (installation of 36-inch steel piles) Vibratory pile driver (installation of 30-inch steel piles) Vibratory pile driver (installation of 16-inch steel piles) Vibratory pile driver (installation of 14-inch steel H piles) Impact pile driver (36-inch steel piles) Impact pile driver (20-inch concrete piles) Impact pile driver (16-inch steel piles) Non-impulsive, continuous. 155 SPL ............ 2.5 ..................... Non-impulsive, continuous. 170 SPL ............ 2.5 ..................... Non-impulsive, continuous. 170 SPL ............ 2.5 ..................... Non-impulsive, continuous. 158 SPL ............ 2.5 ..................... Non-impulsive, continuous. 158 SPL ............ 2.5 ..................... Impulsive, Noncontinuous. 176 SEL * .......... 2 ........................ Impulsive, Noncontinuous. 160 SEL * .......... 2 ........................ Impulsive, Noncontinuous. 151 SEL * .......... 2 ........................ Non-impulsive, continuous. 168 SPL. 2. (a) 0.66 ............. (a) 1.33 ............. (a) 0.25 ............. (a) 0.33 ............. (a) 0.66 ............. (b) 150, (c) 4 .... (b) 500, (c) 4 .... (b) 500, (c) 2 .... (a) 5.5. 15 ...................... 15 ...................... 15 ...................... 15 ...................... 15 ...................... 15 ...................... 15 ...................... 15 ...................... 15. 10 ...................... 10 ...................... 10 ...................... 10 ...................... 10 ...................... 10 ...................... 10 ...................... 10 ...................... 10. Drilling (24-inch octagonal concrete pile) * Displayed source values include the 7 dB reduction for use of a bubble curtain. TABLE 7—LEVEL A HARASSMENT ZONE ISOPLETH AND ENSONIFIED AREA FOR PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING PTS isopleth (meters) Source type Lowfrequency cetaceans Midfrequency cetaceans Highfrequency cetaceans 1.5 32.9 10.8 3.3 2.1 242.6 46.4 7.3 62.7 0.1 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.2 8.6 1.7 0.3 3.5 2.2 48.7 16.0 4.9 3.0 288.9 55.3 8.8 54.9 0.9 20.0 6.6 2.0 1.3 129.8 24.8 3.9 33.5 0.1 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 9.5 1.8 0.3 2.4 0.02 13 1.6 0.14 0.06 120 4.5 0.1 19 7.6 3,730 402 37 14 131,100 4,800 120 4,730 1.3 628 68 6.3 2.7 26,460 966 24 1,760 0.02 3.1 0.4 0.02 0.02 140 5.1 0.1 9.0 Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal of concrete and wood piles) ............................ Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 36-inch steel piles) ................................... Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 30-inch steel piles) ................................... Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 14-inch steel H piles) ................................ Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 16-inch steel H piles) ................................ Impact Pile Driver (36-inch steel piles) .............................................................. Impact Pile Driver (20-inch concrete piles) ....................................................... Impact Pile Driver (16-inch steel piles) .............................................................. Drilling(24-inch octagonal concrete pile) ........................................................... Phocid pinnipeds Otariid pinnipeds Daily ensonified area (m2) daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal of concrete and wood piles) ............................ Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 36-inch steel piles) ................................... Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 30-inch steel piles) ................................... Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 14-inch steel H piles) ................................ Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 16-inch steel H piles) ................................ Impact Pile Driver (36-inch steel piles) .............................................................. Impact Pile Driver (20-inch concrete piles) ....................................................... Impact Pile Driver (16-inch steel piles) .............................................................. Drilling(24-inch octagonal concrete pile) ........................................................... 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. No systematic line transect surveys of marine mammals have been performed VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 3.5 1,700 183 17 6.9 92,450 3,380 84 6,180 in San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the inwater densities of harbor seals, California sea lions, and harbor porpoises were calculated based on 17 years of observations during monitoring for the San Francisco Bay-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) construction and PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 demolition project (Caltrans 2018). Care was taken to eliminate multiple observations of the same animal, although this can be difficult and is likely that the same individual may have been counted multiple times on the same day. The amount of monitoring E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices performed per year varied, depending on the frequency and duration of construction activities with the potential to affect marine mammals. During the 257 days of monitoring from 2000 through 2017 (including 15 days of baseline monitoring in 2003), 1,029 harbor seals, 83 California sea lions, and 24 harbor porpoises were observed in waters in the project vicinity in total. In 2015, 2016, and 2017, the number of harbor seals in the project area increased significantly. In 2017, the number of harbor porpoise in the project area also increased significantly. Therefore, a harbor seal density estimate was calculated using the 2015–2017 data, and a harbor porpoise density estimate was calculated using the 2017 data, which may better reflect the current use of the project area by these animals. These observations included data from baseline, pre-, during, and post-pile driving, mechanical dismantling, on-shore blasting, and offshore implosion activities. Insufficient sighting data exist to estimate the density of bottlenose dolphins. However, a single bottlenose dolphin has been observed regularly near the project site. One individual was documented regularly, through photo 53225 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. Numbers used for density calculations are shown in Table 8. These numbers were calculated from observations in nearby waters of the San Francisco Bay during San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge construction conducted by Caltrans (Caltrans 2018). These observations occurred from 2000 to 2017 in a 2 km2 monitoring zone for California sea lions, from 2015–2017 in a 2 km2 monitoring zone for harbor seals, and in 2017 in a 15 km2 zone for harbor porpoise. In the cases where densities were refined to capture a narrower range of years to be conservative, bold densities were used for take calculations. ID, over several months off the coast of the former Alameda Air Station (Perlman 2017). Insufficient sighting data exist to estimate elephant seal densities in the Bay. Generally, only juvenile elephant seals enter the Bay and do not remain long. The most recent sighting near the project area was in 2012, on the beach at Clipper Cove on Treasure Island, when a healthy yearling elephant seal hauled out for approximately 1 day. Approximately 100 juvenile northern elephant seals strand in or near the Bay each year, including individual strandings at Yerba Buena Island and Treasure Island (less than 10 strandings per year). In addition, insufficient sighting data exist to estimate northern fur seal and gray whale densities in the Bay. Only two to four northern fur seals strand in the Bay each year, and they are unlikely to occur in the project area. Also, during the 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 TABLE 8—ESTIMATED IN-WATER DENSITY OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA [Caltrans 2017] Area of monitoring zone (km2) Species observed Days of monitoring Number of animals observed Density animals/km2 Harbor seals 2000–2017 ................................ Harbor Seals 2015–2017 ................................ California Sea Lions 2000–2017 .................... Bottlenose Dolphins 2017 ............................... 2 2 2 2 257 47 257 6 1,029 372 83 2 Harbor Porpoise 2000–2017 ........................... Harbor Porpoise 2017 ..................................... Elephant Seal 2000–2017 .............................. 3 15 2 257 6 257 24 15 0 Northern Fur Seal 2000–2017 ........................ 2 257 0 Gray Whale 2000–2017 .................................. 2 257 0 2.002. 3.957. 0.161. Insufficient density. 0.031. 0.167. Insufficient density. Insufficient density. Insufficient density. sighting data exists to estimate sighting data exists to estimate sighting data exists to estimate sighting data exists to estimate daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Notes: Densities for Pacific harbor seals, California sea lions, and harbor porpoises are based on monitoring for the east span of the SFOBB from 2000 to 2017. A second set of Pacific harbor seal densities were calculated from the increase in sightings recorded from 2015 to 2017. A second set of harbor porpoise densities were calculated for the increase in sightings that were recorded in 2017. Bold densities were used for take calculations. Sources: CalTrans 2001, 2004b, 2013b, 2013c, 2014, 2015b, 2016, 2017; Perlman 2017. For species without enough sightings to construct a density estimate, we used information based on group size and frequency of sightings from previous years of work to inform the number of animals estimated to be taken, which is VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 detailed in the Take Estimation section below. Take Calculation and Estimation Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 When density data was available, Level B take for the project was calculated by multiplying the density times the largest Level B harassment zone (km2) times the number of construction days. Since density data was only available for harbor seals, E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 53226 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices harbor porpoises, and California sea lions, these were the only species whose take was calculated used this methodology. Table 9 shows the number of take calculated for species with density and without density estimates. For species without density information, information on average group size of the species was used. This is discussed below Table 9. TABLE 9—TAKE ESTIMATES AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE Level B harassment zone (km2) 1 Species Density animals/km2 Harbor Seal ....................................... California Sea Lions .......................... Harbor Porpoise ................................ Northern Elephant Seal .................... 3.957 ................................................ 0.161 ................................................ 0.167 ................................................ Insufficient sighting data exists to estimate density. Insufficient sighting data exists to estimate density. Insufficient sighting data exists to estimate density. Insufficient sighting data exists to estimate density. Northern Fur Seal ............................. Gray Whale ....................................... Bottlenose Dolphin ............................ Construction days 2 Proposed Level B take Percentage of stock 47.1608 47.1608 47.1608 47.1608 15 15 15 15 2,799 114 118 3 9.0 0.038 1.2 0.0034 47.1608 15 3 0.0005 47.1608 15 3 0.014 47.1608 15 15 3.3 1 Represents 2 Total area of largest Level B harassment zone during pile driving/removal and drilling activities. construction days for pile driving/removal and drilling. Gray Whale Northern Fur Seal Mitigation Measures Gray whales occasionally enter San Francisco Bay during their northward migration period of February and March. Pile driving and drilling are not proposed to 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 conservatively estimated that, at most, 3 gray whales, or one average sized group, may be exposed to Level B harassment during the 15 days of pile driving/drilling. Observations of northern fur seals are too few to establish a density for this species in San Francisco Bay. The Marine Mammal Center (TMMC) reported only two to four northern fur seal strandings in the Bay in 2015 and 2016 (in Marin, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties) (TMMC 2017). To account for the possible rare presence of the species in the action area, NMFS authorizes three takes by Level B harassment of northern fur seal. The only change to mitigation measures were updates to the minimum shutdown zones to reflect the changes in Level A harassment zones discussed in the previous section. 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 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 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) and one individual has been observed near Alameda (GGCR 2016). Observations of bottlenose dolphins are primarily west of Treasure Island and concentrated along the nearshore areas of San Francisco south to Redwood City (Caltrans 2018). Bottlenose dolphins rarely occur in San Francisco Bay, but given the size of the Level B harassment zone NMFS authorizes take of 15 bottlenose dolphins by level B harassment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 Northern Elephant Seal Elephant seals breed between December and March and have been rarely cited in San Francisco Bay. It is anticipated that if an elephant seal is encountered at all during pile driving or drilling it would be a juvenile. To account for the possible rare presence of the species in the action area, NMFS authorizes three takes by Level B harassment of elephant seal. Level A Harassment High frequency cetaceans (including harbor porpoise) have the largest Level A harassment zone resulting from this project as shown in Table 7. Estimated take by Level A harassment for harbor porpoise, based on density reported in Table 8 and the Level A harassment zone, is less than one individual (Density * Days * Ensonified Area). Given the required mitigation measures, including shutdown zones which exceed the Level A harassment zone, NMFS authorizes no Level A harassment for harbor porpoise or any marine mammal. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 53227 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices 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. In addition to the specific measures described later in this section, the Port must conduct briefings for construction supervisors and crews, the monitoring team, and Port staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, the marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures. Timing Restrictions All work will be conducted during daylight hours. If poor environmental conditions restrict full visibility of the shutdown zone, pile installation would be delayed. Sound Attenuation Sound attenuation methods, including a bubble curtain, will be implemented for the duration of impact pile driving to install 36-inch and 16inch steel and 20-inch concrete piles. Additionally, a caisson sleeve will be used during down the whole drilling. The Port shall implement the following bubble curtain 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; • The selected contractor will ensure that personnel are trained in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers and shall require that construction contractors submit an inspection/ performance report for approval by the Port of San Francisco within 72 hours following the performance test. Corrections to the attenuation device to meet the performance standards shall occur prior to impact driving. Shutdown Zone For In-Water Heavy Machinery Work For in-water heavy machinery work (using, e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), a minimum 10 meter shutdown zone shall be implemented. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such operations, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This type of work could include (but is not limited to) the following activities: (1) Vibratory pile driving; (2) movement of the barge to the pile location; (3) positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile); or (4) removal of the pile from the water column/substrate via a crane (i.e., deadpull). Additional Shutdown Zones For all pile driving/removal and drilling activities, The Port of San Francisco will establish a shutdown zone for a marine mammal species that is greater than its corresponding Level A harassment zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). The shutdown zones for each of the pile driving and drilling activities are listed below in Table 10. TABLE 10—SHUTDOWN ZONES Shutdown zones (meters) Low-frequency cetaceans (humpback whale, minke whale) Source Mid-frequency cetaceans (Pacific-white sided dolphin) Highfrequency cetaceans (Dall’s porpoise, harbor porpoise) Phocid (harbor seal) Otariid (sea lion) In-Water Construction Activities * In Water Heavy Construction (i.e., Barge movements, pile positioning, deadpulling, and sound attenuation) ................ 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 75 10 10 10 10 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 10 75 300 10 30 150 10 10 25 10 50 20 10 Vibratory Pile Driving Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Vibratory Pile Pile Pile Pile Pile Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver (Removal of concrete and wood piles) .. (Installation of 14-inch steel H piles) ...... (Installation of 16-inch steel H piles) ...... (Installation of 30-inch steel piles) ......... (Installation of 36-inch steel piles) ......... 10 10 10 25 50 Impact Pile Driving daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Impact Pile Driver (16-inch steel piles) .................................... Impact Pile Driver (20-inch concrete piles) ............................. Impact Pile Driver (36-inch steel piles) .................................... 10 75 300 Drilling 24-inch concrete pile (1 pile) (5.5 hours per day) ................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 75 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 53228 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices Monitoring Zones The Port of San Francisco will establish and observe a monitoring zone. The monitoring zones for this project will differ based on activity. For vibratory pile driving and down the hole drilling, it may not be possible to observe the entire Level B harassment zones (areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed 120 dB rms) due to their size. The Port is expected to monitor and record observations in the largest reasonable portion of this Level B harassment zone based on the number of observers and visibility, but conditions may require efforts to be focused in a smaller monitoring zone. For impact pile driving, the monitoring zones are areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed 160 dB rms. For vibratory pile driving/drilling and impact pile driving the Level B Harassment zones are presented in Table 11 below. For the vibratory pile driving and drilling activities, it is noted that Level B harassment zone radius and area will not necessarily equal the monitoring zone. These zones provide utility for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area, but outside the shutdown zone, and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring is for documenting instances of Level B harassment; disturbance zone monitoring is discussed in detail later (see Monitoring and Reporting). TABLE 11—MONITORING ZONES Radial Distance to Level B threshold (meters) Source Level B Harassment Zone (km2) Vibratory Pile Driving 36-inch steel pile installation ................................................................................................................................... 30-inch steel pile installation ................................................................................................................................... 16-inch steel pile installation ................................................................................................................................... 14-inch steel H pile installation ................................................................................................................................ Removal of pre-existing concrete and wood piles .................................................................................................. * 21,544 * 21,544 * 3,415 * 3,415 * 2,154 * 47.1608 * 47.1608 * 7.6431 * 7.6431 * 3.1511 541.2 63.1 136 0.3699 0.006650 0.0291 * 15,849 * 47.1608 Impact Pile Driving 36-inch steel pile installation ................................................................................................................................... 20-inch concrete pile installation ............................................................................................................................. 16-inch steel pile installation ................................................................................................................................... Down the Hole Drilling .................................................................................................................................................................................. * The monitored radius and area of the Level B harassment zone may vary based on visibility. Non-Authorized Take Prohibited If a species enters or approaches the Level B harassment zone and that species is either not authorized for take or its authorized takes are met, pile driving, pile removal, and drilling activities must shut down immediately using delay and shut-down procedures. Activities must not resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or an observation time period of 15 minutes has elapsed. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Soft Start The use of a soft-start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the impact hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors will be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer at 40 percent energy, each strike followed by no less than a 30-second waiting period. This procedure will be conducted a total of three times before VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 impact pile driving begins. This soft start procedure must be implemented at the start of a day’s impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact driving of 30 minutes or greater. Soft start is not required during vibratory pile driving/removal or drilling activities. Pre-Activity Monitoring Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving or drilling of 30 minutes or longer occurs, the observer will observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. 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 is observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 animal has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes. If the monitoring zone has been observed for 30 minutes and non-permitted species are not present within the zone, soft start procedures can commence and work can continue even if visibility becomes impaired within the monitoring zone. When a marine mammal permitted for take by Level B harassment is present in the monitoring zone, pile driving, pile removal, and drilling activities may begin and take by Level B harassment will be recorded. As stated above, if the entire Level B harassment zone is not visible at the start of construction, piling or drilling activities can begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both the monitoring zone and shutdown zone will commence. Based on our evaluation of the applicant’s mitigation measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Monitoring and Reporting Between the proposed IHA and final IHA, the only change to monitoring and reporting protocols were a decrease in the required minimum number of protected species observers (PSOs) from two to one. To minimize the burden of monitoring on the applicant, two PSOs will be used for the first week of the project. Later portions of the project will utilize one PSO if monitoring results up to that point have not shown unexpectedly high numbers of marine mammals. NMFS determined that one PSO is sufficient to effectively observe the shutdown zones and a portion of the monitoring zone. This level of observation minimized burden on the applicant while still ensuring effective monitoring. Additionally, the use of two PSOs for a portion of the project will increase understanding of the impacts of this and similar projects on marine mammals in San Francisco Bay, while not placing an excessive burden on the Port of San Francisco. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 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 The Port recognizes in their application the need to implement a sound monitoring plan (SMP) as required by the Regional NMFS and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programmatic review for pile driving activities in San Francisco Bay. The Port indicates that this SMP will recommend sound monitoring stations at 10 m, 100 m, and 300 m to monitor ambient noise conditions in the area. NMFS feels that ambient noise measurements are highly specific to the time and place they were taken, and therefore might have limited use to future projects. However, there are few source level measurements for down the hole drilling activities, as shown by the use of Alaska DOT proxy data in this IHA. NMFS feels that rigorous hydroacoustic monitoring of source level for the down the hole drilling activity will be more beneficial for future projects in this region and others. While NMFS is not requiring these source level measurements, if the Port were already planning to conduct measurements, we recommend focusing on source level verification and could offer guidance on its implementation. Visual Monitoring Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all pile driving/removal and drilling activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven, removed, or pile holes being drilled. Pile driving and drilling activities include the time to install, remove, or drill a hole for a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 53229 equipment is no more than thirty minutes. Monitoring will be conducted by NMFS approved PSOs. There will be a minimum of one PSO during all pile driving/removal and drilling activities. Two PSOs will be required to observe the shutdown and disturbance zones for the first five (5) days of combined pile driving, pile removal, and drilling. PSOs shall scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting scopes, and shall use a handheld GPS or rangefinder device to verify the distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs shall be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In addition, monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers, who shall be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained and/or experienced professionals, with the following minimum qualifications: i. At least one PSO must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction activities; • Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel); ii. Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; iii. Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator shall be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction; iv. The Port of San Francisco shall submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS; The Port of San Francisco shall ensure that observers have the following additional qualifications: • Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water’s surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target; • 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; • Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 53230 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices 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; • 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; and • Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operations to provide for personal safety during observations. The Port of San Francisco shall submit a draft report to NMFS not later than 90 days following the end of construction activities. The Port of San Francisco shall provide a final report within 30 days following resolution of NMFS’ comments on the draft report. Reports shall contain, at minimum, the following: • Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for each day conducted (monitoring period); • Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven; • Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile types, average driving times, etc.; • Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, percent cloud cover, visibility); • Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea state, tide state); • Extrapolated estimates of the total observed Level B harassment takes based on the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that was not visible or was not monitored. • For each marine mammal sighting: Æ Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals; Æ Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity; Æ Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point; Æ Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the Level B harassment zone; Æ Description of implementation of mitigation measures within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay); Æ Other human activity in the area within each monitoring period; and Æ A summary of the following: D Total number of individuals of each species detected within the monitoring VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 zone, and estimated as taken if correction factor appropriate; D Total number of individuals of each species detected within the Level A harassment zone and the average amount of time that they remained in that zone; and D Daily average number of individuals of each species (differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and estimated as taken, if appropriate. Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS’s implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels). As stated in the mitigation section, bubble curtains will be used and shutdown zones that encompass the area in which Level A harassment might be expected to occur will be implemented. As a result, no take by Level A harassment is expected nor authorized for this activity. Exposures to elevated sound levels produced during pile driving activities may cause behavioral responses by an animal, but they are expected to be mild and temporary. Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease. Within the project area, there are no critical habitats or other biologically important areas (Calambokidis et al., 2015). The area is an active commercial port, and while harbor seals, California sea lions, and other marine mammals may be present, the area is not an established rookery or breeding ground for local populations. During all impact driving, implementation of soft start procedures, the use of a bubble curtain, and monitoring of established shutdown zones will be required. Given sufficient notice through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from an irritating sound source prior to it becoming potentially injurious. In addition, PSOs will be stationed within the action area whenever pile driving/ removal and drilling operations are underway. Depending on the activity, The Port of San Francisco will employ the use of at least one PSO to monitor shutdown and monitoring zones. Although the MBFL and WTL Project would have some permanent removal of habitat available to marine mammals, the area lost would be negligible. Construction of the MBFL and WTL structures and dredging for the project will result in the disturbance of up to approximately 8.4 acres of predominantly fine-grained sediment and the associated benthic infaunal community. Total habitat disturbed from the project activities is estimated at 0.000071 percent of the total South San Francisco Bay subtidal habitat available (NOAA 2007). This is a relatively small fraction of area relative to the total available habitat for foraging and transit for marine mammals. In addition, to minimize impacts, in-water construction will be limited to locally established environmental work windows between June and November. Overall, impacts to marine mammals and prey species due to the Mission Bay Ferry and Water Taxi Landing Project are expected to be minor and temporary. The area impacted by the project is very E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2018 / Notices daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES small compared to the available habitat around San Francisco Bay. The most likely impact to prey will be temporary behavioral avoidance of the immediate area. During pile driving and drilling, it is expected that fish and marine mammals would temporarily move to nearby locations and return to the area following cessation of in-water construction activities. Therefore, indirect effects on marine mammal prey during the construction are not expected to be substantial. 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: • Mortality is not anticipated or authorized; • Minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat are expected; • Bubble curtain and other sound attenuating devices are used during impact pile driving will lessen the amount of behavioral disturbance and contribute to the alleviation of the likelihood of injury; • Impacts are not occurring in rookeries, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction in the project area; • Anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; and • Required mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown zones) are expected to be effective in reducing the effects of the specified activity. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. Take for all species authorized except harbor seal is less than five percent of their respective stock abundance. For harbor seal, the authorized take is less than 10 percent of the stock abundance. Based on this and the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed 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. 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. Endangered Species Act (ESA) No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 53231 Dated: October 16, 2018. Catherine Marzin, Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2018–22923 Filed 10–19–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XG575 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. AGENCY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Advisory Panel (AP). DATES: The Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management AP meeting will take place November 6, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., November 7, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., and November 8, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The meetings will be held at the Sirata Beach Resort and Conference Center, 5300 Gulf Boulevard, St. Petersburg, FL 33706; phone: (727) 363–5100. Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N Charleston, SC 29405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571–4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769– 4520; email: kim.iverson@safmc.net. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management AP meeting is open to the public and will be available via webinar as it occurs. Registration is required. Webinar registration information and other meeting materials will be posted to the Council’s website at: https:// safmc.net/safmc-meetings/currentadvisory-panel-meetings/ as it becomes available. The Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management AP meeting agenda will include the following: An update on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Navy Fleet Training and Testing Area cooperatively developed by the Navy SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53217-53231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG105

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Mission Bay Ferry and Water
Taxi Landing Project in San Francisco Bay, California

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of 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 Port of San Francisco to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment
only, marine mammals during construction activities associated with the
pile driving, pile removal, and drilling on the Mission Bay Ferry
Landing (MBFL) and Water Taxi Landing (WTL) Project in San Francisco
Bay, California.

DATES: This Authorization is effective from June 1, 2019, to May 31,
2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Summary of Request

On November 2, 2017, NMFS received a request from the Port of San
Francisco for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving
and drilling in San Francisco Bay. NMFS determined that a revised
version of the Port's application was adequate and complete on June 22,
2018. The Port of San Francisco's request was for take of seven species
of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. This authorization is
valid from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. Neither the Port of San
Francisco nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from
this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

The Port of San Francisco plans to construct the MBFL and WTL on
San Francisco Bay, within the Port of San Francisco's Southern
Waterfront in the Mission Bay/Central Waterfront area. The project will
create two, two-berth, floating landings to add ferry and water taxi
access to the area. The project's activities that have the potential to
take marine mammals include vibratory and impact pile driving,
vibratory pile removal, and down the hole drilling. In total, 28
permanent piles ranging from 16-inch to 36-inch in diameter will be
installed, but only 24 will require in water installation. Twelve older
piles will be removed, and four 14-inch H-piles and one 30-inch steel
pile will be driven temporally to act as the caisson and supports
during down the hole drilling at 10 locations. In addition, the project
will include dredging, however authorization of take from this activity
is neither requested nor proposed for authorization. All piles will be
driven between June 1, 2019 and November 20, 2019.
A detailed description of the planned Port of San Francisco MBFL
and WTL project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (83 FR 42465; August 22, 2018). Since that time, no
changes have been made to the planned Port of San Francisco activities.
Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to
that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific
activity.
While there were not changes to the planned activity, some errors
were corrected and other minor changes occurred following publication
of the proposed IHA. These changes are outlined in each section of this
notice In this section, the rate of pile installation for 36-inch steel
piles was corrected from 5 piles per day to 4, to address an
inconsistency in the application and more accurately reflect the
applicant's expected schedule.

[[Page 53218]]

Table 1--Summary of In Water Pile Installation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile
Locations Project element diameter Pile type Number of Method Piles/day Construction
(inch) piles days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debris Removal 12 Steel....................... 12 If necessary, a 12 1
vibratory hammer will
be used to remove up
to 12 piles
60[hyphen]120 seconds/
pile while pulling the
pile up to loosen it
from the sediment.
---------------------------------------------------
MBFL................ Pier........................ 14 H-pile steel................ 4 Four 14-inch steel H 4 10
30 Steel Caisson............... 1 beams will be driven 1
24 Octagonal Concrete.......... 10 with Vibratory Driver 1
600 seconds/pile to
support 30[hyphen]inch
steel caisson sleeve
driven with Vibratory
Driver (900 sec/pile)
to refusal, drill out
hole removing soils,
place and position
concrete pile, grout
pile in place while
simultaneously pulling
the caisson.
Float Guide Piles........... 36 Steel....................... 6 Vibratory Driver 1,200 4 2
sec/pile then Impact
Hammer last 15 ft (150
strikes/pile ~20
minutes); bubble
curtain will be used
during impact duration.
Donut Fender Piles.......... 36 Steel....................... 2 Vibratory Driver 1200 4
sec/pile then Impact
Hammer last 15 ft (150
strikes/pile ~20
minutes); bubble
curtain will be used
during impact duration.
WTL................. Platform.................... 16 Steel....................... 2 Vibratory Driver 600 2 1
sec/pile then Impact
Hammer last 15 ft (500
strikes/pile ~20
minutes); bubble
curtain will be used
during impact duration.
Guide Piles................. 20 Square Concrete............. 4 Impact Hammer 500 4 1
strikes/pile (max 20
minutes); a bubble
curtain will be used
during impact duration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments and Responses

A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Port of San
Francisco was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2018 (83
FR 42465). That notice described, in detail, the Port of San
Francisco'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. The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS
issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting measures.
Comment 1: The Commission recommended NMFS authorize take by Level
A harassment for harbor seals, noting the estimated number that could
occur in the Level A harassment zone, the potential for take, and the
possible limited effectiveness of mitigation.
Response 1: NMFS recognizes the potential for Level A harassment
associated with the Port of San Francisco's MBFL and WTL project, but
notes that this anticipated take by Level A harassment of two harbor
seals is avoidable given the required mitigation and monitoring.
Additionally, this calculation is highly conservative because it uses
the project's largest Level A harassment zone for the entire duration,
despite this zone being in effect for a short time and other Level A
harassment zones being smaller. While NMFS could authorize take by
Level A harassment associated with this activity as a precaution, we do
not agree that such authorization is warranted and the applicant did
not request such authorization. Additionally, the observation of an
animal within the Level A harassment zone does not necessarily equate
to an incident of Level A harassment, as the calculation of that zone
assumes that the animal is present at that distance from the driven
pile for a given duration necessary to accumulate sufficient sound
energy to actually incur injury. The largest Level A harassment zone
for harbor seals, of 130 meters (m), assumes an activity duration of 40
minutes. Given that, it is unlikely that briefly occupying the Level A
harassment zone would expose an animal to sound energy sufficient to
cause take by Level A harassment.
Comment 2: 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 2: While it is true that noise level reduction measured at
different received ranges does vary, given that both Level A and Level
B harassment estimation using geometric modeling is based on noise
levels measured at near-source distances (~10 m), 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 been 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 decibels (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.
Bubble curtains are effective at attenuating sound originating
within the water column. Pile driving does generate sound within the
seafloor as well. This sound travels within the seafloor and emerges
back to the water column, but its intensity is reduced within the
sediment due to absorption by the sediment and reflection at the
sediment/water interface.
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 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS require the
applicant to conduct sound source measurements of its drilling
activities in conjunction with the required sound measurements of
ambient conditions.
Response 3: NMFS agrees that sound source measurements of the
drilling

[[Page 53219]]

activities would be valuable, but has determined that this would be an
overly burdensome requirement relative to the expected impacts of the
specified activity (refer to negligible impact section). The project's
permitted activity is short. Additionally, the process to record sound
data sufficiently rigorous enough to provide new source information can
be complex and costly. If the Port of San Francisco chooses to conduct
sound source measurements, NMFS will work with the Port to help ensure
these measurements are properly taken to best ensure their usefulness.
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS require applicants
to provide proposed hydroacoustic monitoring plans with their
applications to allow for public comment, or provide them to the
Commission for review prior to final authorization.
Response 4: NMFS disagrees that the MMPA or NMFS's implementing
regulations require that detailed hydroacoustic monitoring plans be
made available for public review. Additionally, NMFS has the necessary
technical expertise to properly evaluate and make recommendations to
hydroacoustic monitoring plans that are received. That said, NMFS
encourages applicants to prepare as detailed a monitoring plan as
possible, as early in the process as possible, and shares these plans
with the public if they are available at the time the proposed
authorization is published.
Comment 5: The Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from
implementing its proposed renewal process and instead use abbreviated
Federal Register notices and reference existing documents to streamline
the incidental harassment authorization process. The Commission
suggested that the MMPA states that public comment on proposed
authorizations must be concurrent with publication in the Federal
Register. The Commission further recommends that if NMFS did not pursue
a more general route, NMFS provide the Commission and the public with a
legal analysis supporting its conclusion that the process is consistent
with the requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
Response 5: The notice of the proposed IHA expressly notifies the
public that under certain, limited conditions an applicant 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. Additional
reference to this solicitation of public comment has recently been
added at the beginning of FR notices that consider renewals. NMFS
appreciates the streamlining achieved by the use of abbreviated Federal
Register notices and intends to continue using them for proposed IHAs
that include minor changes from previously issued IHAs, but which do
not satisfy the renewal requirements. However, we believe our proposed
method for issuing renewals meets statutory requirements and maximizes
efficiency. Importantly, such renewals would be limited to 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 are 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 the
Port of San Francisco's MBFL and WTL project, including brief
introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available
information regarding population trends and threats, and information
regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 42465; August 22, 2018); since that
time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species
and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here.
Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions.
Please also refer to NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized species accounts.
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the Mission Bay/Central Waterfront area of San Francisco Bay 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 the Committee on
Taxonomy (2017). 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
Report (SAR)). While NMFS neither anticipates nor proposes to authorize
mortality 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. 2017 SAR (Carretta et al., 2017). All values presented in
Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2017 SAR (Carretta et al., 2017).

Table 2--Marine Mammals in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).

[[Page 53220]]

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).
Eastern North Pacific.. -/-; N 626,734 (n.a., 11,405 1.1
530,474, 2014).
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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable
\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 Port's proposed
project area in San Francisco Bay are included in Table 2. However, the
temporal and/or spatial occurrence of humpback whale and Guadalupe fur
seal 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 2017a). Because Guadalupe fur seals are rare in the
area, and sightings are associated with abnormal weather conditions,
such as El Ni[ntilde]o events, NMFS has determined that no Guadalupe
fur seals are likely to occur in the project vicinity and, therefore,
no take is expected to occur.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat

The effects of underwater noise from pile driving, pile removal,
and drilling activities for the MBFL and WTL Project in San Francisco
Bay, California 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 42465; August 22, 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 (83 FR 42465; August 22, 2018) for that
information.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

The main impact associated with the Port of San Francisco's MBFL
and WTL project would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the
associated direct effects on marine mammals. The project would not
result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine
mammals, such as haulout sites, but may have potential short-term
impacts to food sources such as forage fish, and minor impacts to the
immediate substrate during installation/removal of piles and drilling
during the MBFL and WTL project. These potential effects are discussed
in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR
42465; August 22, 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
for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS'
consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determination.

[[Page 53221]]

After public comment and review of the proposed authorization, the
following items have changed in the final authorization.
(1) The Level B harassment zone for drilling activities has
decreased from 21,544 m to 15,849 m to account for an error that was
present in the proposed IHA. During the drafting of the proposed IHA,
the source level for drilling activities was reduced from 170 dB to 168
dB based on proxy data from the Alaska Department of Transportation
(2016). The resulting Level B harassment zone was not updated from
21,544 m to 15,849 m until this error was noticed during public comment
(Table 5).
(2) The Level B harassment zone for impact driving of 16-inch steel
piles changed from 215 m to 136 m to account for an error that was
present in the proposed IHA. This change resulted in a corresponding
correction the ensonified area (Table 5).
(3) The Level B harassment zone for vibratory installation of 16-
inch steel pipe piles was reduced from 21,544 m to 3,415 m. This change
was to correct a misstatement in the proposed IHA. The original Level B
harassment zone was stated as 21,544 m, when 3,415 m was the correct
value for the given source level (158 dB SPL). This source level
remains at 158 dB as presented in the proposed IHA, and the Level B
harassment zone has been updated to match this source level with a
corresponding correction to the ensonified area (Table 5).
(4) To correct errors present in the proposed IHA, duration
estimates for some activities were updated. Updated activity durations
included vibratory pile removal, vibratory pile installation of 36-inch
steel piles, vibratory pile installation of 14-inch steel H piles, and
down the hole drilling (Table 6). These changes were accompanied by
corresponding but minor changes in Level A harassment zones (Table 7).
(5) Errors in calculation of takes by Level B harassment for harbor
seal, California sea lion, and harbor porpoise were corrected,
resulting in decreased take estimates. Take estimates for northern
elephant seal and northern fur seal were increased from 1 to 3
individuals to account for the large Level B harassment zones for
certain activities (Table 9).
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to acoustic sources. Based on the nature of the
activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures
(i.e., use of a bubble curtain, wood cushion, and shutdown--discussed
in detail below in the Mitigation Measures section), Level A harassment
is neither anticipated nor authorized.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe these
components in more detail and present the take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 micro pascal ([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., impact pile
driving) sources.
The Port of San Francisco's activity includes the use of continuous
(vibratory pile driving, down the hole drilling) and impulsive (impact
pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) thresholds are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
The Port of San Francisco's activity includes the use of impulsive
(impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving)
sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS's 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

[[Page 53222]]

Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.

Ensonified Area

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficients.
Reference sound source levels used by the Port of San Francisco for
all vibratory and impact piling/removal and drilling activities were
derived from source level data from construction projects within
Caltrans (2015) except for two cases noted below where Navy and Alaska
Department of Transportation sources were used. To determine the
ensonified areas for both the Level A and Level B harassment zones for
vibratory piling of the 36-inch, 30-inch, and 16-inch steel piles and
14-inch steel H piles, the Port of San Francisco used sound pressure
levels (SPL) of 170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms, 170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms, 158 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa rms, and 158 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms, respectively. These were
derived from vibratory pile driving data of 36-inch (for 36-inch and
30-inch steel piles), 18-inch (for 16-inch steel piles) and 14-inch
(for 14-inch steel H-pile) steel piles reported in the values listed in
Table 1.2-2 and Table 1.2.3 of Caltrans (2015), and Table 6-1 of Navy
(2017). For vibratory pile removal, the Port of San Francisco used an
SPL of 155 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms. This proxy source level was derived from
vibratory pile driving data of 12-inch steel pipe piles in Caltrans
(2015; Table 1.2-2). In addition, for down the hole drilling activities
used to place 24-inch octagonal concrete piles, an SPL of 168 dB was
used, corresponding to the mean SPL reported in Table 72 of the Alaska
Department of Transportation (2016) hydroacoustic report.
For impact pile driving, the Port of San Francisco used both SPLs
and sound exposure levels (SEL) derived from summary source level
values reported in Caltrans (2015). These source levels were then
reduced by 7 dB due to the Port of San Francisco's use of a bubble
curtain. NMFS used a reduction value of 7 dB as it was roughly the
average sound reduction value derived from sound measurements of piles
that used bubble curtains within Caltrans (2015). For piling of 36-inch
steel piles, a source level of 183 dB SEL was chosen as a proxy value
for modeling Level A harassment zones (Caltrans 2015, Table 1.2-1).
This source level was reduced to 176 dB SEL with the 7 dB reduction.
For piling of 20-inch concrete piles, a source level of 167 dB SEL was
chosen as a proxy value for modeling Level A harassment zones (Caltrans
2015, Table 1.5-4, reported from 24-inch concrete pile measurements at
a project in the Port of Oakland). This source level was selected as a
proxy because of the proximity of the Port of Oakland project to the
proposed work and it is more conservative than Caltrans (2015) summary
value reported in Table 1.2-1. This source level was reduced to 160 dB
SEL with the 7 dB reduction. In addition, for impact piling of 16-inch
steel piles, a source level of 158 dB SEL was chosen as a proxy value
for modeling Level A harassment zones (Caltrans 2015, Table I.2-1).
This source level was reduced to 151 dB SEL with the 7 dB reduction.
The stated source levels and their corresponding activity are presented
in Table 4 below.

Table 4--Project Source Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source level at 10 meters
Activity (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal:
36-inch steel pile installation....... 170 SPL
30-inch steel pile installation 170 SPL
(Caisson).
14-inch steel H pile installation..... 158 SPL
Removal of pre-existing piles......... 155 SPL
16-inch steel pile installation....... 158 SPL
Impact Pile Driving: *
36-inch steel pile installation....... 176 SEL/186 SPL
20-inch concrete pile installation.... 160 SEL/172 SPL
16-inch steel pile installation....... 151 SEL/177 SPL
Down the Hole Drilling:

[[Page 53223]]

24-inch Octagonal Concrete (drilling 168 SPL
of 30-inch hole).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The values in the cells reflect a 7dB reduction due to the Port of San
Francisco's use of a bubble curtain.

Level B Harassment Zones

The practical spreading model was used by the Port of San Francisco
to generate the Level B harassment zones for all piling/removal
activities. Practical spreading is described in full detail below.
Pile driving and drilling generates underwater noise that can
potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project
area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as
an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters
vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * log10 (R1/R2),

Where

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement.

This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is
assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface,
resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of
distance from the source (20 * log[range]). Cylindrical spreading
occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the
water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound
level for each doubling of distance from the source (10 * log[range]).
A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions where
water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the
shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would
lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions.
Utilizing the practical spreading loss model, the Port of San
Francisco determined underwater noise will fall below the behavioral
effects threshold of 120 dB rms for marine mammals at a maximum radial
distance of 21,544 m for vibratory piling (36 and 30-inch steel piles)
and 15,849 m for drilling ((24-inch octagonal concrete pile). The
maximum Level B harassment zone for this activity will therefore be set
at 21,544 m. However, previous sound monitoring for other projects in
San Francisco Bay (i.e. Caltrans 2015; 2016) have shown background
sound levels in the active portions of the Bay, near the project area,
to range from 110 to 140 dB rms, with typical background levels in the
range of 110 to 120 dB rms. This ambient noise may affect the ability
to distinguish sound from vibratory pile driving in the region (Rodkin,
2009), but direct applicability of that finding to the Port's work is
unknown, and therefore no reduction in Level B harassment zone is
applied. The maximum radial distance of the Level B harassment zone for
impact pile driving equaled 541.2 m (impact driving 36-inch steel
piles). At this radial distance, the entire Level B harassment zone for
impact piling equaled 0.3699 square kilometers (km\2\). This ensonified
area is based on a GIS map of the area accounting for structures and
landmasses which would block sound spreading (Please see Figure 9 of
the Application). Table 5 below provides all Level B radial distances
and their corresponding areas for each activity during the Port of San
Francisco's project. Level B harassment zone areas are calculated using
a GIS map (See Figure 9 of the Application).

Table 5--Level B Harassment Zones Calculated Using the Practical
Spreading Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated Level B
distance to Level harassment zone
Source B threshold (square
(meters) kilometers km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel pile installation... 21,544 47.1608
30-inch steel pile installation... 21,544 47.1608
16-inch steel pile installation... 3,415 7.6431
14-inch steel H pile installation. 3,415 7.6431
Removal of pre-existing concrete 2,154 3.1511
and wood piles...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel pile installation... 541.2 0.36993
20-inch concrete pile installation 63.1 0.006650
16-inch steel pile installation... 136 0.0291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Down the Hole Drilling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15,849 47.1608
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 53224]]

Level A Harassment Zones

When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in
recognition of the fact that the ensonified area 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
overestimate of Level A harassment. However, these tools offer the best
way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources (i.e. pile
driving), NMFS's 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. Daily
ensonified areas for Level A harassment are approximated as a semi-
circle because the pile driving and drilling are occurring close to
shore and the coastline is approximately linear.

Table 6--Parameters of Pile Driving and Drilling Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile Vibratory pile Vibratory pile Vibratory pile
Vibratory pile driver driver driver driver Impact pile Impact pile Impact pile Drilling (24-
Equipment type driver (removal (installation of (installation of (installation of (installation of driver (36-inch driver (20-inch driver (16-inch inch octagonal
of concrete and 36-inch steel 30-inch steel 16-inch steel 14-inch steel H steel piles) concrete piles) steel piles) concrete pile)
wood piles) piles) piles) piles) piles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used.......... Non-impulsive, Non-impulsive, Non-impulsive, Non-impulsive, Non-impulsive, Impulsive, Non- Impulsive, Non- Impulsive, Non- Non-impulsive,
continuous. continuous. continuous. continuous. continuous. continuous. continuous. continuous. continuous.
Source Level.................. 155 SPL......... 170 SPL......... 170 SPL......... 158 SPL......... 158 SPL......... 176 SEL *....... 160 SEL *....... 151 SEL *....... 168 SPL.
Weighting Factor Adjustment 2.5............. 2.5............. 2.5............. 2.5............. 2.5............. 2............... 2............... 2............... 2.
(kHz).
(a) Activity duration (hours) (a) 0.66........ (a) 1.33........ (a) 0.25........ (a) 0.33........ (a) 0.66........ (b) 150, (c) 4.. (b) 500, (c) 4.. (b) 500, (c) 2.. (a) 5.5.
within 24 hours, (b) Number
of strikes per pile, (c)
Number of piles per day.
Propagation (xLogR)........... 15.............. 15.............. 15.............. 15.............. 15.............. 15.............. 15.............. 15.............. 15.
Distance of source level 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.
measurement (meters) +.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Displayed source values include the 7 dB reduction for use of a bubble curtain.

Table 7--Level A Harassment Zone Isopleth and Ensonified Area for Pile Driving and Drilling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS isopleth (meters)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Source type Low- Mid- High-
frequency frequency frequency Phocid Otariid
cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans pinnipeds pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal of concrete and wood 1.5 0.1 2.2 0.9 0.1
piles).............................................
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 36-inch steel 32.9 2.9 48.7 20.0 1.4
piles).............................................
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 30-inch steel 10.8 1.0 16.0 6.6 0.5
piles).............................................
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 14-inch steel 3.3 0.3 4.9 2.0 0.1
H piles)...........................................
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 16-inch steel 2.1 0.2 3.0 1.3 0.1
H piles)...........................................
Impact Pile Driver (36-inch steel piles)............ 242.6 8.6 288.9 129.8 9.5
Impact Pile Driver (20-inch concrete piles)......... 46.4 1.7 55.3 24.8 1.8
Impact Pile Driver (16-inch steel piles)............ 7.3 0.3 8.8 3.9 0.3
Drilling(24-inch octagonal concrete pile)........... 62.7 3.5 54.9 33.5 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily ensonified area (m\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal of concrete and wood 3.5 0.02 7.6 1.3 0.02
piles).............................................
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 36-inch steel 1,700 13 3,730 628 3.1
piles).............................................
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 30-inch steel 183 1.6 402 68 0.4
piles).............................................
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 14-inch steel 17 0.14 37 6.3 0.02
H piles)...........................................
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 16-inch steel 6.9 0.06 14 2.7 0.02
H piles)...........................................
Impact Pile Driver (36-inch steel piles)............ 92,450 120 131,100 26,460 140
Impact Pile Driver (20-inch concrete piles)......... 3,380 4.5 4,800 966 5.1
Impact Pile Driver (16-inch steel piles)............ 84 0.1 120 24 0.1
Drilling(24-inch octagonal concrete pile)........... 6,180 19 4,730 1,760 9.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
No systematic line transect surveys of marine mammals have been
performed in San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the in-water densities of
harbor seals, California sea lions, and harbor porpoises were
calculated based on 17 years of observations during monitoring for the
San Francisco Bay-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) construction and
demolition project (Caltrans 2018). Care was taken to eliminate
multiple observations of the same animal, although this can be
difficult and is likely that the same individual may have been counted
multiple times on the same day. The amount of monitoring

[[Page 53225]]

performed per year varied, depending on the frequency and duration of
construction activities with the potential to affect marine mammals.
During the 257 days of monitoring from 2000 through 2017 (including 15
days of baseline monitoring in 2003), 1,029 harbor seals, 83 California
sea lions, and 24 harbor porpoises were observed in waters in the
project vicinity in total. In 2015, 2016, and 2017, the number of
harbor seals in the project area increased significantly. In 2017, the
number of harbor porpoise in the project area also increased
significantly. Therefore, a harbor seal density estimate was calculated
using the 2015-2017 data, and a harbor porpoise density estimate was
calculated using the 2017 data, which may better reflect the current
use of the project area by these animals. These observations included
data from baseline, pre-, during, and post-pile driving, mechanical
dismantling, on-shore blasting, and off-shore implosion activities.
Insufficient sighting data exist to estimate the density of
bottlenose dolphins. However, a single bottlenose dolphin has been
observed regularly near the project site. One individual was documented
regularly, through photo ID, over several months off the coast of the
former Alameda Air Station (Perlman 2017).
Insufficient sighting data exist to estimate elephant seal
densities in the Bay. Generally, only juvenile elephant seals enter the
Bay and do not remain long. The most recent sighting near the project
area was in 2012, on the beach at Clipper Cove on Treasure Island, when
a healthy yearling elephant seal hauled out for approximately 1 day.
Approximately 100 juvenile northern elephant seals strand in or near
the Bay each year, including individual strandings at Yerba Buena
Island and Treasure Island (less than 10 strandings per year).
In addition, insufficient sighting data exist to estimate northern
fur seal and gray whale densities in the Bay. Only two to four northern
fur seals strand in the Bay each year, and they are unlikely to occur
in the project area. Also, during the 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.
Numbers used for density calculations are shown in Table 8. These
numbers were calculated from observations in nearby waters of the San
Francisco Bay during San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge construction
conducted by Caltrans (Caltrans 2018). These observations occurred from
2000 to 2017 in a 2 km\2\ monitoring zone for California sea lions,
from 2015-2017 in a 2 km\2\ monitoring zone for harbor seals, and in
2017 in a 15 km\2\ zone for harbor porpoise. In the cases where
densities were refined to capture a narrower range of years to be
conservative, bold densities were used for take calculations.

Table 8--Estimated In-Water Density of Marine Mammal Species in San Francisco Bay Area
[Caltrans 2017]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area of Number of
Species observed monitoring Days of animals Density animals/km\2\
zone (km\2\) monitoring observed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seals 2000-2017................ 2 257 1,029 2.002.
Harbor Seals 2015-2017................ 2 47 372 3.957.
California Sea Lions 2000-2017........ 2 257 83 0.161.
Bottlenose Dolphins 2017.............. 2 6 2 Insufficient sighting
data exists to estimate
density.
Harbor Porpoise 2000-2017............. 3 257 24 0.031.
Harbor Porpoise 2017.................. 15 6 15 0.167.
Elephant Seal 2000-2017............... 2 257 0 Insufficient sighting
data exists to estimate
density.
Northern Fur Seal 2000-2017........... 2 257 0 Insufficient sighting
data exists to estimate
density.
Gray Whale 2000-2017.................. 2 257 0 Insufficient sighting
data exists to estimate
density.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Densities for Pacific harbor seals, California sea lions, and harbor porpoises are based on monitoring for the
east span of the SFOBB from 2000 to 2017.
A second set of Pacific harbor seal densities were calculated from the increase in sightings recorded from 2015
to 2017.
A second set of harbor porpoise densities were calculated for the increase in sightings that were recorded in
2017.
Bold densities were used for take calculations.
Sources: CalTrans 2001, 2004b, 2013b, 2013c, 2014, 2015b, 2016, 2017; Perlman 2017.

For species without enough sightings to construct a density
estimate, we used information based on group size and frequency of
sightings from previous years of work to inform the number of animals
estimated to be taken, which is detailed in the Take Estimation section
below.

Take Calculation and Estimation

Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
When density data was available, Level B take for the project was
calculated by multiplying the density times the largest Level B
harassment zone (km\2\) times the number of construction days. Since
density data was only available for harbor seals,

[[Page 53226]]

harbor porpoises, and California sea lions, these were the only species
whose take was calculated used this methodology. Table 9 shows the
number of take calculated for species with density and without density
estimates. For species without density information, information on
average group size of the species was used. This is discussed below
Table 9.

Table 9--Take Estimates as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Density animals/ harassment Construction Proposed Level Percentage of
Species km\2\ zone (km\2\) days \2\ B take stock
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal................... 3.957........... 47.1608 15 2,799 9.0
California Sea Lions.......... 0.161........... 47.1608 15 114 0.038
Harbor Porpoise............... 0.167........... 47.1608 15 118 1.2
Northern Elephant Seal........ Insufficient 47.1608 15 3 0.0034
sighting data
exists to
estimate
density.
Northern Fur Seal............. Insufficient 47.1608 15 3 0.0005
sighting data
exists to
estimate
density.
Gray Whale.................... Insufficient 47.1608 15 3 0.014
sighting data
exists to
estimate
density.
Bottlenose Dolphin............ Insufficient 47.1608 15 15 3.3
sighting data
exists to
estimate
density.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents area of largest Level B harassment zone during pile driving/removal and drilling activities.
\2\ Total construction days for pile driving/removal and drilling.

Gray Whale
Gray whales occasionally enter San Francisco Bay during their
northward migration period of February and March. Pile driving and
drilling are not proposed to 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 conservatively estimated that, at most, 3 gray whales, or one
average sized group, may be exposed to Level B harassment during the 15
days of pile driving/drilling.
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) and one individual has
been observed near Alameda (GGCR 2016). Observations of bottlenose
dolphins are primarily west of Treasure Island and concentrated along
the nearshore areas of San Francisco south to Redwood City (Caltrans
2018). Bottlenose dolphins rarely occur in San Francisco Bay, but given
the size of the Level B harassment zone NMFS authorizes take of 15
bottlenose dolphins by level B harassment.
Northern Fur Seal
Observations of northern fur seals are too few to establish a
density for this species in San Francisco Bay. The Marine Mammal Center
(TMMC) reported only two to four northern fur seal strandings in the
Bay in 2015 and 2016 (in Marin, San Francisco, and Santa Clara
counties) (TMMC 2017). To account for the possible rare presence of the
species in the action area, NMFS authorizes three takes by Level B
harassment of northern fur seal.
Northern Elephant Seal
Elephant seals breed between December and March and have been
rarely cited in San Francisco Bay. It is anticipated that if an
elephant seal is encountered at all during pile driving or drilling it
would be a juvenile. To account for the possible rare presence of the
species in the action area, NMFS authorizes three takes by Level B
harassment of elephant seal.
Level A Harassment
High frequency cetaceans (including harbor porpoise) have the
largest Level A harassment zone resulting from this project as shown in
Table 7. Estimated take by Level A harassment for harbor porpoise,
based on density reported in Table 8 and the Level A harassment zone,
is less than one individual (Density * Days * Ensonified Area). Given
the required mitigation measures, including shutdown zones which exceed
the Level A harassment zone, NMFS authorizes no Level A harassment for
harbor porpoise or any marine mammal.

Mitigation Measures

The only change to mitigation measures were updates to the minimum
shutdown zones to reflect the changes in Level A harassment zones
discussed in the previous section.
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

[[Page 53227]]

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.
In addition to the specific measures described later in this
section, the Port must conduct briefings for construction supervisors
and crews, the monitoring team, and Port staff prior to the start of
all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in
order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, the marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

Timing Restrictions

All work will be conducted during daylight hours. If poor
environmental conditions restrict full visibility of the shutdown zone,
pile installation would be delayed.

Sound Attenuation

Sound attenuation methods, including a bubble curtain, will be
implemented for the duration of impact pile driving to install 36-inch
and 16-inch steel and 20-inch concrete piles. Additionally, a caisson
sleeve will be used during down the whole drilling. The Port shall
implement the following bubble curtain 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;
The selected contractor will ensure that personnel are
trained in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers and shall
require that construction contractors submit an inspection/performance
report for approval by the Port of San Francisco within 72 hours
following the performance test. Corrections to the attenuation device
to meet the performance standards shall occur prior to impact driving.

Shutdown Zone For In-Water Heavy Machinery Work

For in-water heavy machinery work (using, e.g., standard barges,
tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or clamshell equipment used to
place or remove material), a minimum 10 meter shutdown zone shall be
implemented. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such operations,
operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum
level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This
type of work could include (but is not limited to) the following
activities: (1) Vibratory pile driving; (2) movement of the barge to
the pile location; (3) positioning of the pile on the substrate via a
crane (i.e., stabbing the pile); or (4) removal of the pile from the
water column/substrate via a crane (i.e., deadpull).

Additional Shutdown Zones

For all pile driving/removal and drilling activities, The Port of
San Francisco will establish a shutdown zone for a marine mammal
species that is greater than its corresponding Level A harassment zone.
The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within
which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). The
shutdown zones for each of the pile driving and drilling activities are
listed below in Table 10.

Table 10--Shutdown Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zones (meters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency High- frequency
Source cetaceans Mid-frequency cetaceans Otariid
(humpback cetaceans (Dall's Phocid (harbor (sea
whale, minke (Pacific-white porpoise, harbor seal) lion)
whale) sided dolphin) porpoise)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-Water Construction Activities *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Water Heavy Construction (i.e., 10 10 10 10 10
Barge movements, pile positioning,
deadpulling, and sound
attenuation)......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal of 10 10 10 10 10
concrete and wood piles)..........
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation 10 10 10 10 10
of 14-inch steel H piles).........
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation 10 10 10 10 10
of 16-inch steel H piles).........
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation 25 10 25 10 10
of 30-inch steel piles)...........
Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation 50 10 75 25 10
of 36-inch steel piles)...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driver (16-inch steel 10 10 10 10 10
piles)............................
Impact Pile Driver (20-inch 75 10 75 30 10
concrete piles)...................
Impact Pile Driver (36-inch steel 300 25 300 150 25
piles)............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch concrete pile (1 pile) (5.5 75 10 50 20 10
hours per day)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 53228]]

Monitoring Zones

The Port of San Francisco will establish and observe a monitoring
zone. The monitoring zones for this project will differ based on
activity. For vibratory pile driving and down the hole drilling, it may
not be possible to observe the entire Level B harassment zones (areas
where SPLs are equal to or exceed 120 dB rms) due to their size. The
Port is expected to monitor and record observations in the largest
reasonable portion of this Level B harassment zone based on the number
of observers and visibility, but conditions may require efforts to be
focused in a smaller monitoring zone. For impact pile driving, the
monitoring zones are areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed 160 dB
rms. For vibratory pile driving/drilling and impact pile driving the
Level B Harassment zones are presented in Table 11 below. For the
vibratory pile driving and drilling activities, it is noted that Level
B harassment zone radius and area will not necessarily equal the
monitoring zone. These zones provide utility for monitoring conducted
for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by
establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown
zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of
and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area, but
outside the shutdown zone, and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of
activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring
is for documenting instances of Level B harassment; disturbance zone
monitoring is discussed in detail later (see Monitoring and Reporting).

Table 11--Monitoring Zones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radial
Distance to Level B
Source Level B Harassment
threshold Zone (km2)
(meters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel pile installation......... * 21,544 * 47.1608
30-inch steel pile installation......... * 21,544 * 47.1608
16-inch steel pile installation......... * 3,415 * 7.6431
14-inch steel H pile installation....... * 3,415 * 7.6431
Removal of pre-existing concrete and * 2,154 * 3.1511
wood piles.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel pile installation......... 541.2 0.3699
20-inch concrete pile installation...... 63.1 0.006650
16-inch steel pile installation......... 136 0.0291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Down the Hole Drilling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 15,849 * 47.1608
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The monitored radius and area of the Level B harassment zone may vary
based on visibility.

Non-Authorized Take Prohibited

If a species enters or approaches the Level B harassment zone and
that species is either not authorized for take or its authorized takes
are met, pile driving, pile removal, and drilling activities must shut
down immediately using delay and shut-down procedures. Activities must
not resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or
an observation time period of 15 minutes has elapsed.

Soft Start

The use of a soft-start procedure is believed to provide additional
protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine
mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the impact hammer operating
at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors will be required
to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer at 40 percent
energy, each strike followed by no less than a 30-second waiting
period. This procedure will be conducted a total of three times before
impact pile driving begins. This soft start procedure must be
implemented at the start of a day's impact pile driving and at any time
following cessation of impact driving of 30 minutes or greater. Soft
start is not required during vibratory pile driving/removal or drilling
activities.

Pre-Activity Monitoring

Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or
whenever a break in pile driving or drilling of 30 minutes or longer
occurs, the observer will observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for
a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be cleared when a marine
mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period.
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 is observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot
proceed until the animal has left the zone or has not been observed for
15 minutes. If the monitoring zone has been observed for 30 minutes and
non-permitted species are not present within the zone, soft start
procedures can commence and work can continue even if visibility
becomes impaired within the monitoring zone. When a marine mammal
permitted for take by Level B harassment is present in the monitoring
zone, pile driving, pile removal, and drilling activities may begin and
take by Level B harassment will be recorded. As stated above, if the
entire Level B harassment zone is not visible at the start of
construction, piling or drilling activities can begin. If work ceases
for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both the
monitoring zone and shutdown zone will commence.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's mitigation measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable
impact on

[[Page 53229]]

the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

Between the proposed IHA and final IHA, the only change to
monitoring and reporting protocols were a decrease in the required
minimum number of protected species observers (PSOs) from two to one.
To minimize the burden of monitoring on the applicant, two PSOs will be
used for the first week of the project. Later portions of the project
will utilize one PSO if monitoring results up to that point have not
shown unexpectedly high numbers of marine mammals. NMFS determined that
one PSO is sufficient to effectively observe the shutdown zones and a
portion of the monitoring zone. This level of observation minimized
burden on the applicant while still ensuring effective monitoring.
Additionally, the use of two PSOs for a portion of the project will
increase understanding of the impacts of this and similar projects on
marine mammals in San Francisco Bay, while not placing an excessive
burden on the Port of San Francisco.
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

The Port recognizes in their application the need to implement a
sound monitoring plan (SMP) as required by the Regional NMFS and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers programmatic review for pile driving activities
in San Francisco Bay. The Port indicates that this SMP will recommend
sound monitoring stations at 10 m, 100 m, and 300 m to monitor ambient
noise conditions in the area. NMFS feels that ambient noise
measurements are highly specific to the time and place they were taken,
and therefore might have limited use to future projects. However, there
are few source level measurements for down the hole drilling
activities, as shown by the use of Alaska DOT proxy data in this IHA.
NMFS feels that rigorous hydroacoustic monitoring of source level for
the down the hole drilling activity will be more beneficial for future
projects in this region and others. While NMFS is not requiring these
source level measurements, if the Port were already planning to conduct
measurements, we recommend focusing on source level verification and
could offer guidance on its implementation.

Visual Monitoring

Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after all pile driving/removal and drilling activities. In
addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal
occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document
any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being
driven, removed, or pile holes being drilled. Pile driving and drilling
activities include the time to install, remove, or drill a hole for 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.
Monitoring will be conducted by NMFS approved PSOs. There will be a
minimum of one PSO during all pile driving/removal and drilling
activities. Two PSOs will be required to observe the shutdown and
disturbance zones for the first five (5) days of combined pile driving,
pile removal, and drilling.
PSOs shall scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting
scopes, and shall use a handheld GPS or range-finder device to verify
the distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs shall be
trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required
to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In
addition, monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers, who
shall be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable
by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers
are trained and/or experienced professionals, with the following
minimum qualifications:
i. At least one PSO must have prior experience working as a marine
mammal observer during construction activities;
Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel);
ii. Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological
science or related field) or training for experience;
iii. Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead
observer or monitoring coordinator shall be designated. The lead
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer
during construction;
iv. The Port of San Francisco shall submit PSO CVs for approval by
NMFS;

The Port of San Francisco shall ensure that observers have the
following additional qualifications:
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
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;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of

[[Page 53230]]

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;
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; and
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operations to provide for personal safety during
observations.
The Port of San Francisco shall submit a draft report to NMFS not
later than 90 days following the end of construction activities. The
Port of San Francisco shall provide a final report within 30 days
following resolution of NMFS' comments on the draft report. Reports
shall contain, at minimum, the following:
Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for
each day conducted (monitoring period);
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile
types, average driving times, etc.;
Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea
state, tide state);
Extrapolated estimates of the total observed Level B
harassment takes based on the percentage of the Level B harassment zone
that was not visible or was not monitored.
For each marine mammal sighting:
[cir] Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
[cir] Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
[cir] Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
[cir] Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the
Level B harassment zone;
[cir] Description of implementation of mitigation measures within
each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay);
[cir] Other human activity in the area within each monitoring
period; and
[cir] A summary of the following:
[ssquf] Total number of individuals of each species detected within
the monitoring zone, and estimated as taken if correction factor
appropriate;
[ssquf] Total number of individuals of each species detected within
the Level A harassment zone and the average amount of time that they
remained in that zone; and
[ssquf] Daily average number of individuals of each species
(differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring
zone, and estimated as taken, if appropriate.

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).
As stated in the mitigation section, bubble curtains will be used
and shutdown zones that encompass the area in which Level A harassment
might be expected to occur will be implemented. As a result, no take by
Level A harassment is expected nor authorized for this activity.
Exposures to elevated sound levels produced during pile driving
activities may cause behavioral responses by an animal, but they are
expected to be mild and temporary. 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. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside
quickly when the exposures cease. Within the project area, there are no
critical habitats or other biologically important areas (Calambokidis
et al., 2015). The area is an active commercial port, and while harbor
seals, California sea lions, and other marine mammals may be present,
the area is not an established rookery or breeding ground for local
populations.
During all impact driving, implementation of soft start procedures,
the use of a bubble curtain, and monitoring of established shutdown
zones will be required. Given sufficient notice through use of soft
start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away
from an irritating sound source prior to it becoming potentially
injurious. In addition, PSOs will be stationed within the action area
whenever pile driving/removal and drilling operations are underway.
Depending on the activity, The Port of San Francisco will employ the
use of at least one PSO to monitor shutdown and monitoring zones.
Although the MBFL and WTL Project would have some permanent removal
of habitat available to marine mammals, the area lost would be
negligible. Construction of the MBFL and WTL structures and dredging
for the project will result in the disturbance of up to approximately
8.4 acres of predominantly fine[hyphen]grained sediment and the
associated benthic infaunal community. Total habitat disturbed from the
project activities is estimated at 0.000071 percent of the total South
San Francisco Bay subtidal habitat available (NOAA 2007). This is a
relatively small fraction of area relative to the total available
habitat for foraging and transit for marine mammals. In addition, to
minimize impacts, in[hyphen]water construction will be limited to
locally established environmental work windows between June and
November.
Overall, impacts to marine mammals and prey species due to the
Mission Bay Ferry and Water Taxi Landing Project are expected to be
minor and temporary. The area impacted by the project is very

[[Page 53231]]

small compared to the available habitat around San Francisco Bay. The
most likely impact to prey will be temporary behavioral avoidance of
the immediate area. During pile driving and drilling, it is expected
that fish and marine mammals would temporarily move to nearby locations
and return to the area following cessation of in-water construction
activities. Therefore, indirect effects on marine mammal prey during
the construction are not expected to be substantial.
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:
Mortality is not anticipated or authorized;
Minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat are expected;
Bubble curtain and other sound attenuating devices are
used during impact pile driving will lessen the amount of behavioral
disturbance and contribute to the alleviation of the likelihood of
injury;
Impacts are not occurring in rookeries, or known areas or
features of special significance for foraging or reproduction in the
project area;
Anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at
worst, temporary modifications in behavior; and
Required mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown zones) are
expected to be effective in reducing the effects of the specified
activity.
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.
Take for all species authorized except harbor seal is less than
five percent of their respective stock abundance. For harbor seal, the
authorized take is less than 10 percent of the stock abundance. Based
on this and the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed 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.

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.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is
not required for this action.

Dated: October 16, 2018.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-22923 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.