28826 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

Memorandum NMFS–OPR–59) with the 

updated User Spreadsheet tool and the 

new companion User Manual is 

available in electronic form via the 

internet at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

Dated: June 18, 2018. 

Elaine T. Saiz, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13313 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG132 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the South Basin 

Improvements Project at the San 

Francisco Ferry Terminal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

San Francisco Bay Area Water 

Emergency Transportation Authority 

(WETA) to incidentally harass, by Level 

B harassment only, marine mammals 

during construction activities associated 

with the Downtown San Francisco Ferry 

Terminal Expansion Project, South 

Basin Improvements Project in San 

Francisco, California. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from June 1, 2018 through May 31, 

2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Fowler, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our action 

(i.e., the issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization) with respect 

to potential impacts on the human 

environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Summary of Request 

On January 22, 2018, NMFS received 

a request from WETA for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to 

expansion and improvements at the 

downtown San Francisco ferry terminal. 

The application was determined to be 

adequate and complete on April 10, 

2018. WETA’s request was for take of 

seven species of marine mammals by 

Level A and Level B harassment. This 

authorization is valid from June 1, 2018 

to May 31, 2019. Neither WETA nor 

NMFS expect serious injury or mortality 

to result from this activity and, 

therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued an IHA to 

WETA for similar work (82 FR 29521; 

June 29, 2017). WETA complied with all 

the requirements (e.g., mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHA and information regarding 

their monitoring results may be found in 

the ‘‘Estimated Take’’ section. 

Description of Activity 

WETA is planning to expand berthing 

capacity at the Downtown San 

Francisco Ferry Terminal, located at the 

San Francisco Ferry Building, to 

support existing and future planned 

water transit services operated on San 

Francisco Bay by WETA and WETA’s 

emergency operations. The Downtown 

San Francisco Ferry Terminal 

Expansion Project includes the 

construction of three new water transit 

gates and overwater berthing facilities, 

in addition to supportive landside 

improvements, such as additional 

passenger waiting and queueing areas, 

circulation improvements, and other 

water transit-related amenities. The new 

gates and other improvements would be 

designed to accommodate future 

planned water transit services between 

Downtown San Francisco and Antioch, 

Berkeley, Martinez, Hercules, Redwood 

City, Richmond, and Treasure Island, as 

well as emergency operation needs. The 

new gates will be constructed using 81 

steel piles, ranging in diameter from 24 

to 36 inches (in). All piles will be driven 

during the authorized in-water work 

window of June 1 to November 30, 

2018. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28827 

A detailed description of the planned 

terminal expansion project is provided 

in the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA (83 FR 18507; April 27, 

2018). Since that time, no changes have 

been made to the planned construction 

activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to WETA was published in the 

Federal Register on April 27, 2018 (83 

FR 18507). That notice described, in 

detail, WETA’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission). 

Comment 1: The Commission noted 

minor errors and missing information in 

the text of the notice and the proposed 

authorization. The Commission 

recommends that NMFS review its 

notices more thoroughly before 

submitting for publication. 

Response 1: NMFS thanks the 

Commission for pointing out the errors 

in the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed authorization. NMFS has 

addressed those errors in the notice of 

issuance of the authorization. NMFS 

makes every effort to read notices 

thoroughly prior to publication and will 

continue this effort to publish the best 

possible product for public comment. 

Comment 2: The Commission stated 

its concerns over the appropriateness of 

the manner in which Level A 

harassment zones are estimated. The 

Commission pointed out that for impact 

driving of 36-inch piles, the Level A 

harassment zone for high-frequency 

cetaceans was estimated to be 602 

meters, which is greater than the 341 

meter Level B harassment zone. The 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

consult with both internal and external 

scientists and acousticians to determine 

the relevant accumulation time that 

could result in Level A harassment 

based on associated permanent 

threshold shift from cumulative sound 

exposure levels. 

Response 2: NMFS understands the 

Commission’s concerns and continues 

to work to improve Level A harassment 

zone estimation based on realistic noise 

propagation models and energy 

accumulation scheme. Currently, Level 

A harassment zones are based on 

exposure of cumulative sound exposure 

levels over a period of one working 

day’s pile driving duration or 

instantaneous peak sound pressure 

level, while Level B harassment zones 

are based on instantaneous root-meansquared sound pressure level that 

contains 90 percent of acoustic energy. 

The difference in the metrics between 

sound exposure levels and sound 

pressure level in assessing Level A and 

Level B harassments reflects the fact 

that prolonged exposure of intense noise 

could lead to permanent threshold shift 

if the animal chooses to stay within the 

injury zone. Occasionally, the 

conservative assumptions built into the 

User Spreadsheet result in Level A 

zones that are larger than Level B zones. 

The process of impact assessments will 

continue to evolve as more scientific 

data become available. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS refrain from 

using a source level reduction factor for 

sound attenuation device 

implementation during impact pile 

driving for all relevant incidental take 

authorizations due to the different noise 

level reduction at different received 

ranges. 

Response 3: While it is true that noise 

level reduction measured at different 

received ranges does vary, given that 

both Level A and Level B estimation 

using geometric modeling is based on 

noise levels measured at near-source 

distances (∼ 10m), NMFS believes it 

reasonable to use a source level 

reduction factor for sound attenuation 

device implementation during impact 

pile driving. In the case of the SF–OBB 

impact driving isopleth estimates using 

an air bubble curtain for source level 

reduction, NMFS reviewed Caltrans’ 

bubble curtain ‘‘on and off’’ studies 

conducted in San Francisco Bay in 2003 

and 2004. The equipment used for 

bubble curtains has likely improved 

since 2004 but due to concerns for fish 

species, Caltrans has not able to conduct 

‘‘on and off’’ tests recently. Based on 74 

measurements (37 with the bubble 

curtain on and 37 with the bubble 

curtain off) at both near (<100 m) and 

far (≤100 m) distances, the linear 

averaged received level reduction is 6 

dB. If limiting the data points (a total of 

28 measurements, with 14 during 

bubble curtain on and 14 during bubble 

curtain off) to only near distance 

measurements, the linear averaged noise 

level reduction is 7 dB. Since impact 

zone analysis using geometric spreading 

model is typically based on 

measurements at near-source distance, 

we consider it appropriate to use a 

reduction of 7 dB as a noise level 

reduction factor for impact pile driving 

using an air bubble curtain system. 

NMFS will evaluate the 

appropriateness of using a certain 

source level reduction factor for sound 

attenuation device implementation 

during impact pile driving for all 

relevant incidental take authorizations 

when more data become available. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS promptly 

revise its draft rounding criteria and 

share it with the Commission. 

Response 4: NMFS appreciates the 

Commission’s ongoing concern in this 

matter. Calculating predicted take is not 

an exact science and there are 

arguments for taking different 

mathematical approaches in different 

situations, and for making qualitative 

adjustments in other situations. We 

believe, however, that the methodology 

used for take calculation in this IHA 

remains appropriate and is not at odds 

with the 24-hour reset policy the 

Commission references. We look 

forward to continued discussion with 

the Commission on this matter and will 

share the rounding guidance as soon as 

it is completed. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

expressed concern about the lack of 

adequate time to provide public 

comments as well as the abbreviated 

timeframes during which NMFS is able 

to address public comments. The 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

ensure that it publishes and finalizes 

proposed IHAs sufficiently before the 

planned start date of the proposed 

activities to ensure full consideration is 

given to all comments received. 

Response 5: NMFS will work to 

provide adequate time for public 

comment and response. NMFS also 

seeks to process IHA applications in a 

more expeditious manner. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

requested clarification regarding certain 

issues associated with NMFS’s notice 

that one-year renewals could be issued 

in certain limited circumstances and 

expressed concern that the process 

would bypass the public notice and 

comment requirements. The 

Commission also suggested that NMFS 

should discuss the possibility of 

renewals through a more general route, 

such as a rulemaking, instead of notice 

in a specific authorization. The 

Commission further recommended that 

if NMFS did not pursue a more general 

route, that the agency provide the 

Commission and the public with a legal 

analysis supporting our conclusion that 

this process is consistent with the 

requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA. 

Response 6: The process of issuing a 

renewal IHA does not bypass the public 

notice and comment requirements of the 

MMPA. The notice of the proposed IHA 

expressly notifies the public that under 

certain, limited conditions an applicant 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28828 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

could seek a renewal IHA for an 

additional year. The notice describes the 

conditions under which such a renewal 

request could be considered and 

expressly seeks public comment in the 

event such a renewal is sought. 

Importantly, such renewals would be 

limited to circumstances where: The 

activities are identical or nearly 

identical to those analyzed in the 

proposed IHA; monitoring does not 

indicate impacts that were not 

previously analyzed and authorized; 

and, the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements remain the same, all of 

which allow the public to comment on 

the appropriateness and effects of a 

renewal at the same time the public 

provides comments on the initial IHA. 

NMFS has, however, modified the 

language for future proposed IHAs to 

clarify that all IHAs, including renewal 

IHAs, are valid for no more than one 

year and that the agency would consider 

only one renewal for a project at this 

time. In addition, notice of issuance or 

denial of a renewal IHA would be 

published in the Federal Register, as 

they are for all IHAs. Last, NMFS will 

publish on our website a description of 

the renewal process before any renewal 

is issued utilizing the new process. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by WETA’s actions, 

including brief introductions to the 

species and relevant stocks as well as 

available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

are provided in WETA’s application and 

the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA (83 FR 18507; April 27, 

2018). We are not aware of any changes 

in the status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please refer to additional 

species information available in the 

NMFS stock assessment reports for the 

Pacific at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/ 

document/us-pacific-marine-mammalstock-assessments-2016. 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence near downtown 

San Francisco and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and ESA and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

For taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s Stock Assessment 

Reports (SARs)). While no mortality is 

anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 

annual serious injury and mortality 

from anthropogenic sources are 

included here as gross indicators of the 

status of the species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. 2016 SARs (Caretta et al., 

2017). All values presented in Table 1 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

2016 SARs (Caretta et al., 2017). 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VICINITY OF DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

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 ........................................ Eschrichtius robustus ....... Eastern North Pacific ........ -/- ; N 20,990 (0.05, 20,125, 

2011).

624 132 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals): 

Humpback whale .............................. Megaptera novaeangliae .. California/Oregon/Washington.E/D ; Y 1,918 (0.03, 1,876, 2014) 11 >6.5 

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 

River.

-/- ; N 9,886 (0.51, 6,625, 2011) 66 0 

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, 

2011).

9,200 389 

Northern fur seal ............................... Callorhinus ursinus ........... California ........................... -/- ; N 14,050 (n/a, 7,524, 2013) 451 1.8 

Guadalupe fur seal ........................... Arctocephalus townsendi .. Mexico to California .......... T/D ; Y 20,000 (n/a, 15,830, 2010) 542 >3.2 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Pacific harbor seal ............................ Phoca vitulina richardii ..... California ........................... -/- ; N 30,968 (n/a, 27,348, 2012) 1,641 43 

Northern elephant seal ..................... Mirounga angustirostris .... California Breeding ........... -/- ; N 179,000 (n/a, 81,368, 

2010).

4,882 8.8 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28829 

3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

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

All species that could potentially 

occur in the project area are included in 

Table 1. However, the temporal and/or 

spatial occurrence of humpback whales 

and Guadalupe fur seals is such that 

take is not expected to occur, and they 

are not discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. Humpback 

whales are rare visitors to the interior of 

San Francisco Bay. A recent, seasonal 

influx of humpback whales inside San 

Francisco Bay near the Golden Gate was 

recorded from April to November in 

2016 and 2017 (Keener 2017). The 

Golden Gate is outside of this project’s 

action area and humpback whales are 

not expected to be present during the 

project. Guadalupe fur seals 

occasionally range into the waters of 

Northern California and the Pacific 

Northwest. The Farallon Islands (off 

central California) and Channel Islands 

(off southern California) are used as 

haulouts during these movements 

(Simon 2016). Juvenile Guadalupe fur 

seals occasionally strand in the vicinity 

of San Francisco, especially during El 

Nin ̃ o events. Most strandings along the 

California coast are animals younger 

than two years old, with evidence of 

malnutrition (NMFS 2017c). In the rare 

event that a Guadalupe fur seal or 

humpback whale is detected within the 

Level A or Level B harassment zones, 

work will cease until the animal has left 

the area (see ‘‘Mitigation’’). 

Information concerning marine 

mammal hearing, including marine 

mammal functional hearing groups, was 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18507; 

April 27, 2018), therefore that 

information is not repeated here; please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

this information. For further 

information about marine mammal 

functional hearing groups and 

associated frequency ranges, please see 

NMFS (2016) for a review of available 

information. Seven marine mammal 

species (three cetacean and four 

pinniped (two phocid and two otariid) 

species) have the reasonable potential to 

co-occur with the construction 

activities. Of the cetacean species that 

may be present, one is classified as a 

low-frequency cetacean (i.e., gray 

whale), one is classified as a midfrequency cetacean (i.e., bottlenose 

dolphin), and one is classified as a highfrequency cetacean (i.e., harbor 

porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

pile driving activities for the Ferry 

Terminal Expansion Project have the 

potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the action area. The Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 

FR 18507; April 27, 2018) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals, therefore that information is 

not repeated here; please refer to the 

Federal Register notice for that 

information. No instances of hearing 

threshold shifts, injury, serious injury, 

or mortality are expected as a result of 

the planned activities. 

The main impact to habitat associated 

with the Ferry Terminal Expansion 

Project would be temporarily increased 

sound levels and the associated direct 

effects on marine mammals. The project 

would not result in permanent impacts 

to habitats used by marine mammals, 

such as haulout sits, but may have 

potential short-term impacts to food 

sources such as fish and minor impacts 

to the immediate substrate during 

installation of piles. These potential 

effects are discussed in detail in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 18507; April 27, 2018), 

therefore that information is not 

repeated here; please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for that 

information. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment as exposure to 

acoustic sources (i.e., impact and 

vibratory pile driving) has the potential 

to result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for harbor seals and 

California sea lions due to larger 

predicted auditory injury zones. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 

cetaceans. The mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 

Below we describe how the take is 

estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: 

(1) Acoustic thresholds above which 

NMFS believes the best available 

science indicates marine mammals will 

be behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) of some degree 

(equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle), 

the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and 

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context) and can be difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison 

et al., 2011). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28830 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above received levels of 120 

decibels (dB) re 1 microPascal (mPa) 

(root mean square (rms)) for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 

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

airguns and impact pile driving) or 

intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) 

sources. 

WETA’s activity includes the use of 

continuous (vibratory pile driving) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, 

and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) are applicable. 

Level A harassment – NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical 

Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria 

to assess auditory injury (Level A 

harassment) to five different marine 

mammal groups (based on hearing 

sensitivity) as a result of exposure to 

noise from two different types of 

sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). 

WETA’s activity includes the use of 

impulsive (impact pile driving) and 

non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) 

sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2016 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

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

guidelines.htm. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

Level B Harassment 

In-Water Disturbance during 

Vibratory Pile Driving—Level B 

behavioral disturbance may occur 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1EN21JN18.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28831 

incidental to the use of a vibratory or 

impact hammer due to propagation of 

underwater noise during installation of 

new steel piles. A total of 81 steel piles 

will be installed at the Ferry Terminal. 

During the 2017 construction season, all 

piles were installed using a vibratory 

hammer. The hydroacoustic monitoring 

conducted for vibratory driving during 

the 2017 season has been used to 

establish the expected source values of 

piles driven during the 2018 

construction season. The SLs were 

measured at 10 m for the 30- and 36-in 

piles and between 9 and 15 m for the 

24-in piles. The SLs for 24-in piles were 

calculated using the measured values 

from 9 to 15 m normalized to 10 m. The 

median RMS values were used as the 

SLs to estimate take from vibratory 

driving. These values are provided in 

Table 3. 

TABLE 3—SOUND SOURCE LEVELS BY PILE TYPE

Pile size and installation method 

Source level at 10 m (dB re 1 μPa) 

Peak RMS SEL 

24-in Vibratory ............................................................................................................................. ........................ 154 ........................

24-in Impact1 2 .............................................................................................................................. 196 183 170 

30-in Vibratory ............................................................................................................................. ........................ 151 ........................

30-in Impact1 2 .............................................................................................................................. 203 183 170 

36-in Vibratory ............................................................................................................................. ........................ 157 ........................

36-in Impact1 2 .............................................................................................................................. 203 186 176 

1 Caltrans 2009. 

2 Impact SLs include 7 dB reduction due to bubble curtain. 

Additionally, monitoring conducted 

during 2017 construction established 

that for vibratory pile driving in the 

project area, the transmission loss is 

greater than the standard value of 15 

used in typical take calculations. For 

estimating take from vibratory pile 

driving, Level B harassment zones were 

calculated using the average 

transmission loss measured during pile 

driving from June through August of 

2017 minus one standard deviation of 

those measurements (22.26 ¥ 3.51 = 

18.75). Additional pile driving in 

September and November of 2017 

yielded a mean transmission loss of 

19.0. The F value originally calculated 

(18.75) is comparable to the final 

reported average and is slightly more 

conservative, and was therefore used to 

calculate the harassment zones from 

vibratory pile driving. Using the 

calculated transmission loss model 

(18.75logR), the in-water Level B 

harassment zones were determined for 

each pile size (Table 4). For 24-in steel 

piles driven with a vibratory hammer, 

the Level B harassment zone is expected 

to be 651 m (2,136 ft). For 30-in piles, 

the Level B harassment zone is expected 

to be 450 m (1,476 ft). For 36-in piles, 

the Level B harassment zone is expected 

to be 940 m (3,084 ft). 

In-Water Disturbance During Impact 

Pile Driving—As stated previously, all 

piles installed in the 2017 construction 

season were installed solely using a 

vibratory hammer. However, the use of 

an impact hammer to install piles may 

be required; therefore, the effects of 

impact pile driving is discussed here. 

Level B behavioral disturbance may 

occur incidental to the use of an impact 

hammer due to the propagation of 

underwater noise during the installation 

of steel piles. Piles will be driven to 

approximately 120 to 140 ft below Mean 

Lower Low Water (MLLW). Installation 

of these pipe piles may require up to 

1,800 strikes per piles from an impact 

hammer using a DelMag D46–32, or 

similar diesel hammer, producing 

approximately 122,000 foot-pounds 

maximum energy per blow, and 1.5 

seconds per blow average. 

Other projects constructed under 

similar circumstances were reviewed to 

estimate the approximate noise 

produced by the 24-, 30, and 36-in steel 

piles. These projects include the driving 

of similarly sized piles at the Alameda 

Bay Ship and Yacht project, the Rodeo 

Dock Repair project, and the Amorco 

Wharf Repair Project (Caltrans 2012). 

Bubble curtains will be used during the 

installation of these piles, which, based 

on guidance provided by Caltrans for a 

mid-sized steel piles (with a diameter 

greater than 24 but less than 48 in), is 

expected to reduce noise levels by 7 dB 

rms (Caltrans 2015a). 

Because no impact pile driving was 

used in the 2017 construction season, 

no site-specific transmission loss 

measurements exist for this project. The 

Practical Spreading Loss Model (15logR) 

is used to determine the Level B 

harassment zones for each pile size 

(Table 4). Both 24- and 30-in steel piles 

have a SL of 183 dB rms re 1 mPa and 

therefore have the same Level B 

harassment zone of 341 m (1,120 ft). For 

36-in piles, the Level B harassment zone 

is expected to be 541 m (1,775 ft). 

TABLE 4—PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES

Pile size and installation method 

Source level 

(dB re 1 μPa 

rms) 

Level B 

Threshold 

(dB re 1 μPa 

rms) 

Propagation 

(xLogR) 

Distance to 

level B 

threshold 

(m) 

24-in Vibratory ................................................................................................. 154 120 18.75 651 

24-in Impact ..................................................................................................... a 183 160 15 341 

30-in Vibratory ................................................................................................. 151 120 18.75 450 

30-in Impact ..................................................................................................... a 183 160 15 341 

36-in Vibratory ................................................................................................. 157 120 18.75 940 

36-in Impact ..................................................................................................... a 186 160 15 541 

a Impact source levels include 7 dB reduction due to bubble curtain. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28832 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

Level A Harassment 

When NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which will result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A take. However, 

these tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools, and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For stationary sources (such as impact 

and vibratory pile driving), NMFS User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which, if a marine mammal 

remained at that distance the whole 

duration of the activity, it would not 

incur PTS. Inputs used in the User 

Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths 

are reported below. 

TABLE 5—INPUTS FOR DETERMINING DISTANCES TO CUMULATIVE PTS THRESHOLDS

Pile size and installation method 

Source level at 

10 m 

(SEL) 

Source level at 

10 m 

(rms) 

Propagation 

(xLogR) 

Number of 

strikes 

per pile 

Number of 

piles per day 

Activity 

duration 

(seconds) 

24-in Vibratory .......................................... ........................ 154 18.75 ........................ 4 900 

24-in Impact ............................................. a 170 ........................ 15 1,800 3 ........................

30-in Vibratory .......................................... ........................ 151 18.75 ........................ 4 900 

30-in Impact ............................................. a 170 ........................ 15 1,800 3 ........................

36-in Vibratory .......................................... ........................ 157 18.75 ........................ 4 1200 

36-in Impact ............................................. a 176 ........................ 15 1,800 2 ........................

aSource level includes 7 dB reduction due to bubble curtain. 

TABLE 6—RESULTING LEVEL A ISOPLETHS

Pile size and installation method 

Distance to level A threshold 

(m) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

24-in Vibratory ...................................................................... 3.1 <1 4 2 <1 

24-in Impact ......................................................................... 418 15 498 224 16 

30-in Vibratory ...................................................................... 2 <1 3 1 <1 

30-in Impact ......................................................................... 418 15 498 224 16 

36-in Vibratory ...................................................................... 5 <1 7 4 <1 

36-in Impact ......................................................................... 801 29 954 429 31 

The resulting PTS isopleths assume 

an animal would remain stationary at 

that distance for the duration of the 

activity. The largest isopleths result 

from impact pile driving. All piles 

installed in the 2017 construction 

season were driven solely using a 

vibratory hammer indicating that 

vibratory driving will be the most likely 

method of installation in the 2018 

season. Level A take of harbor seals and 

California sea lions has been authorized 

given their increased presence in the 

nearshore waters of the project site and 

the large Level A harassment zones, 

especially for 36-in piles. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Gray Whale 

Caltrans Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 

project monitors recorded 12 living and 

two dead gray whales in the surveys 

performed in 2012. All sightings were in 

either the Central or North Bay, and all 

but two sightings occurred during the 

months of April and May. One gray 

whale was sighted in June and one in 

October. The Oceanic Society has 

tracked gray whale sightings since they 

began returning to San Francisco Bay 

regularly in the late 1990s. Most 

sightings occurred just a mile or two 

inside of the Golden Gate, with some 

traveling into San Pablo Bay in the 

northern part of the San Francisco Bay 

(Self 2012). The Oceanic Society data 

show that all age classes of gray whales 

enter San Francisco Bay and they enter 

as singles or in groups of up to five 

individuals (Winning 2008). It is 

estimated that two to six gray whales 

enter San Francisco Bay in any given 

year. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Bottlenose dolphins are most often 

seen just within the Golden Gate or just 

east of the bridge when they are present 

in San Francisco Bay, and their 

presence may depend on the tides 

(GGCR 2016). Beginning in the summer 

of 2015, one to two bottlenose dolphins 

have been observed frequently 

swimming in the Oyster Point area of 

South San Francisco (GGCR 2016, 2017; 

Perlman 2017). Despite this recent 

occurrence, this stock is highly 

transitory in nature and is not expected 

to spend extended periods of time in 

San Francisco Bay. However, the 

number of sightings in the Central Bay 

has increased, suggesting that bottlenose 

dolphins are becoming more of a 

resident species. 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the last six decades, harbor 

porpoises have been observed outside of 

San Francisco Bay. The few porpoises 

that entered were not sighted past the 

Central Bay close to the Golden Gate 

Bridge. In recent years, however, there 

have been increasingly common 

observations of harbor porpoises in 

central, North, and South San Francisco 

Bay. According to observations by the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28833 

Golden Gate Cetacean Research team as 

part of their multi-year assessment, over 

100 porpoises may be seen at one time 

entering San Francisco Bay and over 

600 individual animals have been 

documented in a photo-ID database. 

Porpoise activity inside San Francisco 

Bay is thought to be related to tidedependent foraging, as well as mating 

behaviors (Keener 2011; Duffy 2015). 

Sightings are concentrated in the 

vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and 

Angel Island, with fewer numbers 

sighted south of Alcatraz and west of 

Treasure Island (Keener 2011). 

California Sea Lion 

In San Francisco Bay, sea lions haul 

out primarily on floating K docks at Pier 

39 in the Fisherman’s Wharf area of the 

San Francisco Marine. The Pier 39 

haulout is approximately 1.5 miles from 

the project vicinity. The Marine 

Mammal Center (TMMC) in Sausalito, 

California has performed monitoring 

surveys at this location since 1991. A 

maximum of 1,706 sea lions was seen 

hauled out during one survey effort in 

2009 (TMMC 2015). Winter numbers are 

generally over 500 animals (Goals 

Project 2000). In August to September, 

counts average from 350 to 850 (NMFS 

2004). Of the California sea lions 

observed, approximately 85 percent 

were male. No pupping activity has 

been observed at this site or at other 

locations in the San Francisco Bay 

(Caltrans 2012). The California sea lions 

usually frequent Pier 39 in August after 

returning from the Channel Islands 

(Caltrans 2013). In addition to the Pier 

39 haulout, California sea lions haul out 

on buoys and similar structures 

throughout San Francisco Bay. They are 

mainly seen swimming off the San 

Francisco and Marin shorelines within 

San Francisco Bay, but may 

occasionally enter the project area to 

forage. 

Northern Fur Seal 

Juvenile northern fur seals 

occasionally strand during El Nin ̃ o 

events (TMMC 2016). In normal years, 

TMMC admits about five northern fur 

seals that strand on the central 

California coast. During El Nin ̃o years, 

this number dramatically increases. For 

example, during the 2006 El Nin ̃ o event, 

33 fur seals were admitted. Some of 

these stranded animals were collected 

from shorelines in San Francisco Bay 

(TMMC 2016). The shoreline in the 

vicinity of the project is developed 

waterfront, consisting of piers and 

wharves where northern fur seals are 

unlikely to strand. 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

Long-term monitoring studies have 

been conducted at the largest harbor 

seal colonies in Point Reyes National 

Seashore and Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area since 1976. Castro 

Rocks and other haulouts in San 

Francisco Bay are part of the regional 

survey area for this study and have been 

included in annual survey efforts. 

Between 2007 and 2012, the average 

number of adults observed ranged from 

126 to 166 during the breeding season 

(March through May), and from 92 to 

129 during the molting season (June 

through July) (Truchinski et al., 2008; 

Flynn et al., 2009; Codde et al., 2010, 

2011, 2012; Codde and Allen 2015). 

Marine mammal monitoring at multiple 

locations inside San Francisco Bay was 

conducted by the California Department 

of Transportation (Caltrans) from May 

1998 to February 2002, and determined 

that at least 500 harbor seals populate 

San Francisco Bay (Green et al., 2002). 

This estimate agrees with previous seal 

counts in the San Francisco Bay, which 

ranged from 524 to 641 seals from 1987 

to 1999 (Goals Project 2000). 

Yerba Buena Island is the nearest 

harbor seal haulout site, with as many 

as 188 individuals observed hauled out. 

Harbor seals are more likely to be 

hauled out in the late afternoon and 

evening, and are more likely to be in the 

water during the morning and early 

afternoon. Tidal stage is a major 

controlling factor of haulout use by 

harbor seals, with more seals present 

during low tides than high tide periods 

(Green et al., 2002). Therefore, the 

number of harbor seals in the vicinity of 

Yerba Buena Island will vary 

throughout the work period. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals are seen 

frequently on the California coast. 

Elephant seals aggregate at various sites 

along the coast to give birth and breed 

from December through March. Pups 

remain onshore or in adjacent shallow 

water through May. Adults make two 

foraging migrations each year, one after 

breeding and the second after molting 

(Stewart and DeLong 1995). Most 

strandings occur in May as young pups 

make their first trip out to sea. When 

those pups return to their rookery sites 

to molt in late summer and fall, some 

make brief stops in San Francisco Bay. 

Approximately 100 juvenile elephant 

seals strand in San Francisco Bay each 

year, including individual strandings at 

Yerba Buena Island and Treasure Island 

(fewer than 10 strandings per year) 

(Caltrans 2015b). 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

While impact pile driving may be 

used during this project, all piles in the 

previous year of construction were 

installed completely with vibratory pile 

driving. Impact driving take calculations 

are included for informational purposes 

(Tables 7 and 8). However, only 

vibratory pile driving take calculations 

are conservatively used to calculate 

Level B takes in this IHA as vibratory 

driving is the most likely method of pile 

installation and results in greater Level 

B harassment zones. In the event impact 

driving does occur, we have authorized 

small numbers of Level A takes of 

harbor seals and California sea lions due 

to the large Level A harassment zones. 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales occasionally enter San 

Francisco Bay during their northward 

migration period of February and 

March. Pile driving will not occur 

during this time and gray whales are not 

likely to be present at other times of the 

year. It is estimated that two to six gray 

whales enter the Bay in any given year, 

but they are unlikely to be present 

during the work period (June 1 through 

November 30). However, individual 

gray whales have occasionally been 

observed in San Francisco Bay during 

the work period, and therefore it is 

estimated that, at most, one pair of gray 

whales may be exposed to Level B 

harassment during two days of pile 

driving if they enter the Level B 

harassment zones (Table 12). 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

When bottlenose dolphins are present 

in San Francisco Bay, they are more 

typically found close to the Golden 

Gate. Recently, beginning in 2015, two 

individuals have been observed 

frequently in the vicinity of Oyster Point 

(GGCR 2016, 2017; Perlman 2017). The 

average reported group size for 

bottlenose dolphins is five. Reports 

show that a group normally comes into 

San Francisco Bay and transits past 

Yerba Buena Island once per week for 

approximately a two week stint, then 

leaves (NMFS 2017b). Assuming the 

dolphins come into San Francisco Bay 

three times per year, the group of five 

dolphins would make six passes 

through the Level B harassment zone for 

a total of 30 takes (Table 11). 

Harbor Porpoise 

A small but growing population of 

harbor porpoises uses San Francisco 

Bay. Porpoises are usually spotted in the 

vicinity of Angel Island and the Golden 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28834 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

Gate Bridge (Keener 2011), but may use 

other areas of the Central Bay in low 

numbers. During construction activities 

in 2017, marine mammal observers 

recorded eight sightings of harbor 

porpoises, including a group of two to 

three individuals that was seen three 

times over the course of the pile-driving 

season. Harbor porpoises generally 

travel individually or in small groups of 

two or three (Sekiguchi 1995), and a pod 

of up to four individuals was observed 

in the area south of Yerba Buena Island 

during the 2017 Bay Bridge monitoring 

window. A pod of four harbor porpoises 

could potentially enter the Level B 

harassment zone on as many as eight 

days of pile driving, for 32 total takes 

(Table 11). 

California Sea Lion 

Caltrans has conducted monitoring of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

Bay Bridge for 16 years. From those 

data, Caltrans has produced at-sea 

density estimates for California sea lions 

of 0.161 animals per square kilometer 

(0.42 per square mile) for the summerlate fall season (Caltrans 2016). Marine 

mammal monitoring observations from 

the 2017 construction season were used 

to calculate a project-specific estimate of 

take per driving day (1.29 animals per 

day). Observations from marine 

mammal monitoring in 2017 were 

assumed to represent the occurrence of 

California sea lions along the waterfront 

while the Caltrans density represents 

the occurrence of California sea lions in 

open water in the bay. The two numbers 

were combined to calculate the daily 

average take over the entire Level B 

harassment zone (Table 7). 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED DAILY CALIFORNIA SEA LION TAKES

Pile size and installation method 

Area of 

level B 

harassment 

zone 

(square km) 

At-sea 

density 

(animals per 

square km) a

Takes per 

day from 

density 

Takes per 

day from 

2017 

monitoring 

Total daily 

level B takes 

24-in Vibratory ...................................................................... 0.519 0.161 0.0836 1.29 1.37 

30-in Vibratory ...................................................................... 0.248 0.161 0.0399 1.29 1.33 

36-in Vibratory ...................................................................... 1.084 0.161 0.1745 1.29 1.46 

a Caltrans 2016. 

During El Nin ̃ o conditions, the 

density of California sea lions in San 

Francisco Bay may be much greater than 

the value used above. The likelihood of 

El Nin ̃ o conditions occurring in 2018 is 

currently low, with La Nin ̃ a conditions 

expected to develop (NOAA 2018). 

However, to account for the potential of 

El Nin ̃ o developing in 2018, daily take 

estimated has been increased by a factor 

of 5 for each pile type (Table 8). 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED TOTAL CALIFORNIA SEA LION TAKES FROM VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING

Pile size Number of 

piles 

Number of 

days Daily takes Total takes by pile type 

24-in ................................................................................................................. 35 18 6.87 124 

30-in ................................................................................................................. 18 9 6.65 60 

36-in ................................................................................................................. 28 14 7.32 103 

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 286 

In addition to Level B takes due to 

vibratory pile driving, NMFS has 

authorized a small number of Level A 

takes due to impact pile driving, should 

impact driving occur. Given the 31 m 

Level A harassment zone from impact 

driving of 36-in piles, NMFS has 

authorized the Level A take of one 

California sea lion per day of impact 

driving of 36-in piles (14 days) for a 

total of 14 Level A takes. WETA will be 

required to implement a 30 m shutdown 

zone to minimize Level A takes but this 

authorization allows for the taking of 

California sea lions that unexpectedly 

surface within the Level A zone before 

a shutdown can be initiated. 

Northern Fur Seal 

The incidence of northern fur seals in 

San Francisco Bay depends largely on 

oceanic conditions, with animals more 

likely to strand during El Nin ̃ o events. 

El Nin ̃o conditions are unlikely to 

develop in 2018 (NOAA 2018) but it is 

anticipated that up to 10 northern fur 

seals may be in San Francisco Bay and 

enter the Level B harassment zone 

(Table 11) (NMFS 2016b). 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

Caltrans has produced at-sea density 

estimates for Pacific harbor seals of 

3.957 animals per square kilometer 

(10.25 per square mile) for the fallwinter season (Caltrans 2016). Even 

though work will predominantly occur 

during the summer, when at-sea density 

has been observed to be lower (Caltrans 

2016), the higher value of fall-winter 

density is conservatively used. 

Additionally, marine mammal 

monitoring observations from the 2017 

construction season were used to 

calculate a project-specific estimate of 

take per driving day (3.18 animals per 

day). Observations from marine 

mammal monitoring in 2017 were 

assumed to represent the occurrence of 

harbor seals along the waterfront while 

the Caltrans density represents the 

occurrence of harbor seals in open water 

in the bay. The two numbers were 

combined to calculate the daily average 

take over the entire Level B harassment 

zone (Table 9). The daily take and days 

of pile installation were used to 

calculate total harbor seal Level B takes 

(Table 10). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28835 

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED DAILY HARBOR SEAL TAKES

Pile size and installation method 

Area of 

level B 

harassment 

zone 

(square km) 

At-sea 

density 

(animals per 

square km) a

Takes per 

day from 

density 

Takes per 

day from 

2017 

monitoring 

Total daily 

level B 

takes 

24-in Vibratory ...................................................................... 0.510 3.957 2.054 3.18 5.23 

30-in Vibratory ...................................................................... 0.248 3.957 0.981 3.18 4.16 

36-in Vibratory ...................................................................... 1.084 3.957 4.289 3.18 7.47 

a Caltrans 2016. 

TABLE 10—ESTIMATED TOTAL PACIFIC HARBOR SEAL TAKES FROM VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING

Pile size Number of 

piles 

Number of 

days Daily takes Total takes by pile type 

24-in ................................................................................................................. 35 18 5.23 94 

30-in ................................................................................................................. 18 9 4.16 37 

36-in ................................................................................................................. 28 14 7.47 105 

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 236 

In addition to Level B takes due to 

vibratory pile driving, NMFS has 

authorized a small number of Level A 

takes due to impact pile driving, should 

impact driving occur. Given the large 

(224–429 m) Level A harassment zones 

from impact driving, NMFS has 

authorized the Level A take of three 

harbor seals per day on half of the 

planned days of activity (21 days) for a 

total of 63 Level A takes. WETA will be 

required to implement a 30 m shutdown 

zone to minimize Level A takes but this 

authorization allows for the taking of 

harbor seals that unexpectedly surface 

within the Level A zone before a 

shutdown can be initiated. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Small numbers of elephant seals haul 

out or strand on Yerba Buena Island and 

Treasure Island each year. Monitoring of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

Bay Bridge has been ongoing for 15 

years. From these data, Caltrans has 

produced an estimated at-sea density for 

elephant seals of 0.06 animals per 

square kilometer (0.16 per square mile) 

(Caltrans 2015b). Most sightings of 

elephant seals occur in spring or early 

summer, and are less likely to occur 

during the period of in-water work for 

this project. As a result, densities during 

pile driving would be much lower. It is 

possible that a lone elephant seal may 

enter the Level B harassment zone once 

per week during the 26 week pile 

driving window (June 1 to November 

30) for a total of 26 takes (Table 11). 

TABLE 11—TOTAL AUTHORIZED TAKES

Gray whale Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Harbor 

porpoise 

California 

sea lion 

Northern 

fur seal 

Pacific 

harbor seal 

Northern 

elephant 

seal 

Level B Take Authorized ........................... 4 30 32 286 10 236 26 

Level A Take Authorized ........................... 0 0 0 14 0 63 0 

Total ...................... 4 30 32 300 10 299 26 

Percent of Total Stock 

(%) ............................ 0.02 6.9 0.32 0.10 0.07 0.96 0.01 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned) and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28836 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

General Construction Measures 

A Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) plan has been 

prepared to address the emergency 

cleanup of any hazardous material, and 

will be available onsite. The SPCC plan 

incorporates SPCC, hazardous waste, 

stormwater, and other emergency 

planning requirements. In addition, the 

project will comply with the Port’s 

stormwater regulations. Fueling of land 

and marine-based equipment will be 

conducted in accordance with 

procedures outlined in the SPCC. Wellmaintained equipment will be used to 

perform work, and except in the case of 

a failure or breakdown, equipment 

maintenance will be performed offsite. 

Equipment will be inspected daily by 

the operator for leaks or spills. If leaks 

or spills are encountered, the source of 

the leak will be identified, leaked 

material will be cleaned up, and the 

cleaning materials will be collected and 

properly disposed. Fresh cement or 

concrete will not be allowed to enter 

San Francisco Bay. All construction 

materials, wastes, debris, sediment, 

rubbish, trash, fencing, etc. will be 

removed from the site once project 

construction is complete, and 

transported to an authorized disposal 

area. 

Pile Driving 

Pre-activity monitoring will take place 

from 30 minutes prior to initiation of 

pile driving activity and post-activity 

monitoring will continue through 30 

minutes post-completion of pile driving 

activity. Pile driving may commence at 

the end of the 30-minute pre-activity 

monitoring period, provided observers 

have determined that the shutdown 

zone (described below) is clear of 

marine mammals, which includes 

delaying start of pile driving activities if 

a marine mammal is sighted in the zone, 

as described below. A determination 

that the shutdown zone is clear must be 

made during a period of good visibility 

(i.e., the entire shutdown zone and 

surrounding waters must be visible to 

the naked eye). 

If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during 

activities or pre-activity monitoring, all 

pile driving activities at that location 

shall be halted or delayed, respectively. 

If pile driving is halted or delayed due 

to the presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not resume or commence 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

left and been visually confirmed beyond 

the shutdown zone and 15 or 30 

minutes (for pinnipeds/small cetaceans 

or large cetaceans, respectively) have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than thirty 

minutes. 

For all pile driving activities, a 

minimum of one protected species 

observed (PSO) will be required, 

stationed at the active pile driving rig or 

at the best vantage point(s) practicable 

to monitor the shutdown zones for 

marine mammals and implement 

shutdown or delay procedures when 

applicable through communication with 

the equipment operator. Two PSOs will 

be required on days when impact pile 

driving occurs. 

Monitoring of pile driving will be 

conducted by qualified PSOs (see 

below) who will have no other assigned 

tasks during monitoring periods. WETA 

will adhere to the following conditions 

when selecting observers: 

• Independent PSOs will be used 

(i.e., not construction personnel); 

• PSOs must have prior experience 

working as a marine mammal observer 

during construction activities; and 

• WETA will submit PSO CVs for 

approval by NMFS. 

WETA will ensure that observers have 

the following additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

To prevent Level A take of cetaceans, 

elephant seals, and Northern fur seals, 

shutdown zones equivalent to the Level 

A harassment zones will be established. 

If the Level A harassment zone is less 

than 10 m, a minimum 10 m shutdown 

zone will be enforced. WETA will 

implement shutdown zones as follows: 

TABLE 12—PILE DRIVING SHUTDOWN ZONES

Pile size and 

installation method 

Shutdown zone (m) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

24-in Vibratory ................................... 10 10 10 10 ..................................................... 10 

24-in Impact ...................................... 420 15 500 30 for harbor seals, 224 for all other 

species.

16 

30-in Vibratory ................................... 10 10 10 10 ..................................................... 10 

30-in Impact ...................................... 420 15 500 30 for harbor seals, 224 for all other 

species.

16 

36-in Vibratory ................................... 10 10 10 10 ..................................................... 10 

36-in Impact ...................................... 800 30 955 30 for harbor seals, 430 for all other 

species.

30 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized takes are met, is 

observed approaching or within the 

Level B harassment zones (Table 4), pile 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28837 

driving and removal activities must 

cease immediately using delay and shutdown procedures. Similarly, if a species 

for which Level A take has not been 

authorized, or a species for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

authorized takes are met, is observed 

approaching or within the Level A 

harassment zones (Table 6), pile driving 

and removal activities must cease 

immediately. Activities must not 

resume until the animal has been 

confirmed to have left the area or 15 or 

30 minutes (pinniped/small cetacean or 

large cetacean, respectively) has 

elapsed. 

Piles driven with an impact hammer 

will employ a ‘‘soft start’’ technique to 

give fish and marine mammals an 

opportunity to move out of the area 

before full-powered impact pile driving 

begins. This soft start will include an 

initial set of three strikes from the 

impact hammer at reduced energy, 

followed by a 30 second waiting period, 

then two subsequent three-strike sets. 

Soft start will be required at the 

beginning of each day’s impact pile 

driving work and at any time following 

a cessation of impact pile driving of 30 

minutes or longer. 

Impact hammers will be cushioned 

using a 12-in thick wood cushion block. 

WETA will also employ a bubble 

curtain during impact pile driving. 

WETA will implement the following 

performance standards: 

• The bubble curtain must distribute 

air bubbles around 100 percent of the 

piling perimeter for the full depth of the 

water column; 

• The lowest bubble ring shall be in 

contact with the mudline for the full 

circumference of the ring, and the 

weights attached to the bottom ring 

shall ensure 100 percent mudline 

contact. No parts of the ring or other 

objects shall prevent full mudline 

contact; and 

• WETA shall require that 

construction contractors train personnel 

in the proper balancing of air flow to the 

bubblers, and shall require that 

construction contractors submit an 

inspection/performance report for 

approval by WETA within 72 hours 

following the performance test. 

Corrections to the attenuation device to 

meet the performance standards shall 

occur prior to impact driving. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

mitigation measures listed above, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Hydroacoustic Monitoring 

WETA’s monitoring and reporting is 

also described in their Hydroacoustic 

Monitoring Plan and Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan, available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. 

Hydroacoustic monitoring will be 

conducted in consultation with the 

California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (CDFW) during a minimum of 

ten percent of all impact pile driving 

activities. Hydroacoustic monitoring of 

vibratory pile driving was completed 

during the 2017 construction season and 

will not be conducted in 2018. 

Monitoring of impact pile driving will 

be done in accordance with the 

methodology outlined in the 

Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan. The 

monitoring will be conducted to achieve 

the following: 

• Be based on the dual metric criteria 

(Popper et al., 2006) and the 

accumulated SEL; 

• Establish field locations that will be 

used to document the extent of the area 

experiencing 187 dB SEL accumulated; 

• Verify the distance of the Marine 

Mammal Level A harassment/shutdown 

zone and Level B harassment zone 

thresholds; 

• Describe the methods necessary to 

continuously assess underwater noise 

on a real-time basis, including details on 

the number, location, distance, and 

depth of hydrophones and associated 

monitoring equipment; 

• Provide a means of recording the 

time and number of pile strikes, the 

peak sound energy per strike, and 

interval between strikes; and 

• Provide provisions to provide all 

monitoring data to the CDFW and 

NMFS. 

Visual Marine Mammal Observations 

WETA will collect sighting data and 

behavioral responses to construction for 

marine mammal species observed in the 

Level B harassment zones during the 

period of activity. All PSOs will be 

trained in marine mammal 

identification and behaviors and are 

required to have no other constructionrelated tasks while conducting 

monitoring. WETA proposes to use one 

PSO to monitor the shutdown zones and 

Level B harassment zones during 

vibratory pile driving. During impact 

pile driving, two PSOs will be used. The 

monitoring zones will be established 

equivalent to the Level B harassment 

zones for each pile size and installation 

method (Table 4). The PSO will monitor 

the shutdown zones and monitoring 

zones before, during, and after pile 

driving. Based on our requirements, 

WETA will implement the following 

procedures for pile driving and removal: 

• The PSO will be located at the best 

vantage point in order to properly see 

the entire shutdown zone and as much 

of the monitoring zone as possible; 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28838 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

• During all observation periods, the 

observer will use binoculars and the 

naked eye to search continuously for 

marine mammals; 

• If the shutdown zones are obscured 

by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile 

driving will not be initiated until that 

zone is visible. Should such conditions 

arise while pile driving is underway, the 

activity would be halted; and 

• The shutdown and monitoring 

zones will be monitored for the 

presence of marine mammals before, 

during, and after any pile driving 

activity. 

PSOs implementing the monitoring 

protocol will assess its effectiveness 

using an adaptive approach. The 

monitoring biologist will use their best 

professional judgment throughout 

implementation and seek improvements 

to these methods when deemed 

appropriate. Any modifications to the 

protocol will be coordinated between 

NMFS and WETA. 

In addition, the PSO will survey the 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

on two separate days—no earlier than 

seven days before the first day of 

construction—to establish baseline 

observations. Monitoring will be timed 

to occur during various tides (preferably 

low and high tides) during daylight 

hours from locations that are publicly 

accessible (e.g., Pier 14 or the Ferry 

Plaza). The information collected from 

baseline monitoring will be used for 

comparison with results of monitoring 

during pile-driving activities. 

Data Collection 

WETA will record detailed 

information about any implementation 

of shutdowns, including the distance of 

animals to the pile and description of 

specific actions that ensued and 

resulting behavior of the animal, if any. 

In addition, WETA will attempt to 

distinguish between the number of 

individual animals taken and the 

number of incidences of take. We 

require that, at a minimum, the 

following information be collected on 

the sighting forms: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

age and sex class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of 

travel, and if possible, the correlation to 

SPLs; 

• Distance from pile driving activities 

to marine mammals and distance from 

the marine mammals to the observation 

point; 

• Description of implementation of 

mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown or 

delay); 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

Reporting 

A draft report will be submitted to 

NMFS within 90 days of the completion 

of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty 

days prior to the requested date of 

issuance of any future IHA for projects 

at the same location, whichever comes 

first. The report will include marine 

mammal observations pre-activity, 

during-activity, and post-activity during 

pile driving and removal days, and will 

also provide descriptions of any 

behavioral responses to construction 

activities by marine mammals and a 

complete description of all mitigation 

shutdowns and the results of those 

actions and an extrapolated total take 

estimate based on the number of marine 

mammals observed during the course of 

construction. A final report must be 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of comments on the draft 

report. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., 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). 

Pile driving activities associated with 

the ferry terminal construction project, 

as outlined previously, have the 

potential to disturb or displace marine 

mammals. Specifically, the specified 

activities may result in take, in the form 

of Level A (PTS) and Level B 

harassment (behavioral disturbance), 

from underwater sounds generated from 

pile driving and removal. Potential takes 

could occur if individuals of these 

species are present in the ensonified 

zone when pile driving and removal 

occurs. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activities and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

these outcomes is minimized through 

the construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures. Specifically, 

vibratory hammers will be the primary 

method of installation (impact driving is 

included only as a contingency). Impact 

pile driving produces short, sharp 

pulses with higher peak levels and 

much sharper rise time to reach those 

peaks. If impact driving is necessary, 

implementation of soft start and 

shutdown zones significantly reduces 

any possibility of injury. Given 

sufficient ‘‘notice’’ through use of soft 

start (for impact driving), marine 

mammals are expected to move away 

from a sound source that is annoying 

prior to it becoming potentially 

injurious. WETA will also employ the 

use of 12-in-thick wood cushion block 

on impact hammers, and a bubble 

curtain as sound attenuation devices. 

Environmental conditions in San 

Francisco Ferry Terminal mean that 

marine mammal detection ability by 

trained observers is high, enabling a 

high rate of success in implementation 

of shutdowns to avoid injury. 

WETA’s activities are localized and of 

relatively short duration (a maximum of 

41 days of pile driving over the work 

season). The entire project area is 

limited to the San Francisco ferry 

terminal area and its immediate 

surroundings. These localized and 

short-term noise exposures may cause 

short-term behavioral modifications in 

harbor seals, northern fur seals, 

northern elephant seals, California sea 

lions, harbor porpoises, bottlenose 

dolphins, and gray whales. Moreover, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28839 

the planned mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to reduce the 

likelihood of injury and behavior 

exposures. Additionally, no important 

feeding and/or reproductive areas for 

marine mammals are known to be 

within the ensonified area during the 

construction time frame. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. The 

project activities will not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

will likely be limited to reactions such 

as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were occurring) 

(e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006; Lerma 

2014). Most likely, individuals will 

simply move away from the sound 

source and be temporarily displaced 

from the areas of pile driving, although 

even this reaction has been observed 

primarily only in association with 

impact pile driving. Thus, even repeated 

Level B harassment of some small 

subset of the overall stock is unlikely to 

result in any significant realized 

decrease in fitness for the affected 

individuals, and thus will not result in 

any adverse impact to the stock as a 

whole. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized 

• Injurious takes are not expected due 

to the presumed efficacy of the planned 

mitigation measures in reducing the 

effects of the specified activity to the 

level of least practicable impact; 

• Level B harassment may consist of, 

at worst, temporary modifications in 

behavior (e.g., temporary avoidance of 

habitat or changes in behavior); 

• The lack of important feeding, 

pupping, or other areas in the action 

area; 

• The high level of ambient noise 

already in the ferry terminal area; and 

• The small percentage of the stock 

that may be affected by project activities 

(less than seven percent for all species). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the activity will have 

a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Table 11 details the number of 

instances that animals could be exposed 

to received noise levels that could cause 

Level A and Level B harassment for the 

planned work at the ferry terminal 

project site relative to the total stock 

abundance. The instances of take 

authorized to be taken for all stocks are 

considered small relative to the relevant 

stocks or populations even if each 

estimated instance of take occurred to a 

new individual—an unlikely scenario. 

The total percent of the population (if 

each instance was a separate individual) 

for which take is requested is 

approximately seven percent for 

bottlenose dolphins, two percent for 

harbor seals, and less than one percent 

for all other species (Table 13). For 

pinnipeds occurring in the vicinity of 

the ferry terminal, there will almost 

certainly be some overlap in individuals 

present day-to-day, and the number of 

individuals taken is expected to be 

notably lower. Similarly, the number of 

bottlenose dolphins that could be 

subject to Level B harassment is 

expected to be a single pod of five 

individuals exposed up to six times over 

the course of the project. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is authorized or expected to 

result from this activity. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

is not required for this action. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to WETA for 

the potential harassment of small 

numbers of seven marine mammal 

species incidental to the Downtown San 

Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion 

Project, South Basin Improvements 

Project, including the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures. 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13281 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG242 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Bluefish Fishery; Scoping 

Process; Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement; notice 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1