Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42465 

• Beauty Bay Washington, LLC, Seattle, 

WA changes to Beauty Bay 

Washington, LLC, Edmonds, WA 

• Blue North Fisheries, Inc, Seattle, WA 

changes to Blue North Fisheries, Inc., 

Seattle, WA 

• Clipper Group, Ltd, Seattle, WA 

changes to Clipper Group, Ltd., 

Seattle, WA 

• Liberator Fisheries, LLC, Seattle, WA 

changes to Liberator Fisheries LLC, 

Seattle, WA 

• Siberian Sea Fisheries, LLC, Seattle, 

WA changes to Siberian Sea Fisheries 

LLC, Seattle, WA 

Alaska Longline Cod Commission’s 

proposed amendment of its Export 

Trade Certificate of Review would result 

in the following Membership list: 

1. Akulurak LLC, Seattle, WA; 

2. Alaskan Leader Fisheries LLC, 

Lynden, WA; 

3. Alaskan Leader Seafoods LLC, 

Lynden, WA; 

4. Alaskan Leader Vessel LLC, Lynden, 

WA; 

5. Aleutian Spray Fisheries, Inc., 

Seattle, WA; 

6. Beauty Bay Washington, LLC, 

Edmonds, WA; 

7. Bering Leader Fisheries LLC, Lynden, 

WA; 

8. Blue North Fisheries, Inc., Seattle, 

WA; 

9. Blue North Trading Company, LLC, 

Seattle, WA; 

10. Bristol Leader Fisheries LLC, 

Lynden, WA; 

11. Clipper Group, Ltd., Seattle, WA; 

12. Clipper Seafoods, Ltd., Seattle, WA; 

13. Coastal Villages Longline LLC, 

Anchorage, AK; 

14. Deep Sea Fisheries, Inc., Everett, 

WA; 

15. Gulf Mist, Inc., Everett, WA; 

16. Liberator Fisheries LLC, Seattle, 

WA; 

17. Northern Leader Fisheries LLC, 

Lynden, WA; 

18. Prowler Fisheries, LLC, Seattle, WA; 

19. Romanzof Fishing Company, L.L.C., 

Seattle, WA; 

20. Shelford’s Boat, Ltd., Mill Creek, 

WA; 

21. Siberian Sea Fisheries LLC, Seattle, 

WA; 

22. Siu Alaska Corporation, Anchorage, 

AK; 

23. Tatoosh Seafoods, LLC, Edmonds, 

WA. 

Dated: August 16, 2018. 

Joseph Flynn, 

Director, Office of Trade and Economic 

Analysis, International Trade Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18051 Filed 8–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–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 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Port of San Francisco for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to the Mission Bay Ferry and 

Water Taxi Landing Project in San 

Francisco Bay, California. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS is 

also requesting comments on a possible 

one-year renewal that could be issued 

under certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than September 21, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.redding@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/ 

23111 without change. All personal 

identifying information (e.g., name, 

address) voluntarily submitted by the 

commenter may be publicly accessible. 

Do not submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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/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 a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable [adverse] impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42466 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

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 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On 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 is for take of seven 

species of marine mammals by Level B 

harassment only. 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 proposes to 

construct the Mission Bay Ferry 

Landing (MBFL) and Water Taxi 

Landing (WTL) on San Francisco Bay, 

within the Port of San Francisco’s 

Southern Waterfront in the Mission 

Bay/Central Waterfront area (see Figure 

1 of IHA Application). The project’s 

proposed activities that have the 

potential to take marine mammals 

include vibratory and impact pile 

driving, vibratory pile removal, and 

down the hole drilling. In addition, the 

project will include dredging, however 

authorization of take from this activity 

is neither requested nor proposed for 

authorization. 

The Mission Bay Ferry Landing, a 

single-float, two-berth ferry landing will 

provide critical regional ferry service to 

and from the Mission Bay 

neighborhood, one of the fastest growing 

neighborhoods in San Francisco, as well 

as the Dogpatch, Potrero Hill, Pier 70, 

and the Central Waterfront 

neighborhoods. The separate single 

float, two-berth Water Taxi Landing will 

provide local water taxi access to the 

Mission Bay area and surrounding 

neighborhoods. 

Dates and Duration 

The Port of San Francisco’s 

construction, including dredging, 

vibratory and impact pile driving, and 

drilling for installation of the pier and 

floating docks will occur from June 

through November of 2019 

(environment working windows for 

dredging in this region of the San 

Francisco Bay established by the San 

Francisco Bay Long Term Management 

Strategy (LTMS Agencies, 2001). The 

maximum number of construction days 

possible, including dredging and all 

other activities, is 55 days. The 

maximum total number of days for pile 

installation and removal are 15 days. 

Specific Geographic Region 

As stated, the project is located in San 

Francisco Bay within the Port of San 

Francisco’s Southern Waterfront in the 

Mission Bay/Central Waterfront area. 

The specific geographic location for the 

project is provided in Figures 1 and 2 

of the IHA Application. The project site 

is approximately three kilometers south 

of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay 

Bridge, on the western side of San 

Francisco Bay in the Central Basin. The 

nearby waterfront is an active 

recreational and commercial port and 

shipyard. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Demolition 

Based on preliminary bathymetric 

surveys and historic information, The 

Port anticipates that buried remnants of 

concrete and wood debris from Pier 64– 

66 apron may be encountered within the 

Ferry Landing dredge boundary. All 

debris encountered during dredging 

operations will be removed and 

disposed of at an approved upland 

location. 

In addition, existing piles will be 

pulled with a cable choker or removed 

with a vibratory hammer and every 

effort will be made to remove the entire 

pile length. If it is necessary to utilize 

vibratory hammer to remove a pile the 

process will consist of approximately 1– 

2 minutes of initial vibratory use while 

pulling the pile up to loosen it from the 

sediment. The barge/crane then moves 

to the next pile to loosen. The operator 

will do this for five to eight piles then 

remove the vibratory driver and go back 

to dead pull the loosened piles and 

place them on a debris barge for 

disposal at a permitted facility. The 

vibratory use is minimal to just loosen 

the pile. Noise generated from the 

operation of the vibratory hammer is 

expected to result in the behavioral 

disturbance of marine mammals and, 

therefore, take authorization is 

requested, and accounted for in the 

‘‘Take Calculation and Estimation’’ 

section below. 

Dredging 

Dredging of approximately 129,374 

cubic yards will be conducted to a 

depth of ¥15 feet (ft) MLLW +2 ft of 

overdepth within the Ferry Landing 

dredge boundary, and to a depth of ¥8ft 

MLLW +1 ft overdepth within the Water 

Taxi Landing dredge boundary. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

will be detailed in a Dredge Operations 

Plan (DOP) submitted to the regulatory 

agencies for approval before dredging 

begins, and implemented. Dredging will 

be performed from a barge-mounted 

crane with a clam shell bucket. 

Sediment will be transferred into 

adjacent barges for transport to 

permitted placement site(s). All debris 

encountered during dredging operations 

will be removed and disposed of at an 

approved upland location. Noise 

measurements of dredging activities are 

rare in the literature, but dredging is 

considered to be a low-impact activity 

for marine mammals, producing nonpulsed sound and being substantially 

quieter in terms of acoustic energy 

output than sources such as seismic 

airguns and impact pile driving. Noise 

produced by dredging operations has 

been compared to that produced by a 

commercial vessel travelling at modest 

speed (Robinson et al., 2011). Further 

discussion of dredging sound 

production may be found in the 

literature (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995, 

Nedwell et al., 2008, Parvin et al., 2008, 

Ainslie et al., 2009). Generally, the 

effects of dredging on marine mammals 

are not expected to rise to the level of 

a take. As stated, take is highly unlikely 

and is not proposed to be authorized for 

dredging activities. 

Pile Installation 

A total of 28 permanent piles will be 

installed as part of this project. Four 24- 

inch concrete piles will be installed on 

land above the mean highwater (MHW) 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42467 

line, and the remaining piles will all be 

installed in-water as outlined in Table 1. 

Concrete piles used for in-water 

construction of the pier structure for the 

Mission Bay Ferry Landing will involve 

the temporary installation of a steel 

caisson sleeve followed by drilling of 

the rock socket, with this installation 

and drilling process outlined below. 

Four 14-inch steel H piles will be driven 

with a vibratory driver to provide 

support for a 30-inch steel caisson 

sleeve, a large tubular steel pile. The 

steel sleeve will also be installed using 

a vibratory driver until refusal. Once the 

caisson is in place, sediment/soil/rock 

within the caisson will be drilled out 

using a Bauer BG18 drill or similar. All 

drilled sediment/soil/rock will be 

collected for disposal and transported to 

an appropriate permitted facility. The 

concrete piles are then inserted after the 

hole has been drilled. The 24-inch 

concrete piles will then be placed/ 

seated in bedrock for grouting then the 

outer caisson and four H-piles will be 

pulled. Figure 3 in the IHA Application 

provides a depiction of this process. 

This method of construction creates less 

overall noise and turbidity during 

installation than driven piles. Drilling 

also is beneficial as it reduces the stress 

and therefore chance of breakage or 

damage to the pile during installation. 

Overall, ten 24-inch octagonal concrete 

piles will be driven using these 

methods, including down the hole 

drilling. Authorization of take by Level 

B harassment was requested and is 

proposed for authorization by NMFS for 

drilling activities associated with 24- 

inch concrete piles. 

For the remaining piles, noise 

generated by vibratory and/or impact 

hammers is expected to result in the 

disturbance of marine mammals and, 

therefore, authorization of incidental 

take is proposed. Eight 36-inch steel 

piles for the MBFL guide piles and 

donut fenders and two 16-inch steel 

piles for the WTL platform will be 

installed with a combination of 

vibratory driver and/or impact hammer. 

The four remaining 20-inch square 

concrete piles to be installed in-water 

will be installed with an impact 

hammer. 

The Port estimates a production rate 

for pile driving of two to six piles per 

day, resulting in a 15 days of pile 

driving and removal as outlined in 

Table 1. Piles installed using an impact 

hammer will use a Delmag D36/D46/ 

D62 or similar diesel hammer. An 

overview of the sound source levels for 

this pile installation can be found in 

Table 3. It should be noted that the 

contractor will be instructed to 

implement vibratory installation as 

much as possible. 

All pile driving will be performed in 

compliance with the ‘‘U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Proposed Procedures for 

Permitting Projects that will Not 

Adversely Affect Selected Listed 

Species in California’’ and the 

associated USFWS and NMFS section 7 

consultation documents associated with 

these procedures. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IN WATER PILE INSTALLATION

Locations Project 

element 

Pile 

diameter 

(inch) 

Pile type Number 

of piles Method Piles/day Construction days 

Debris Removal ................ 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 

MBFL ..... Pier ............... 14 

30 

24 

H-pile steel ...

Steel caisson 

Octagonal 

concrete.

4 

1 

10 

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.

4 

1 

1 

10 

Float Guide 

Piles.

36 Steel ............. 6 Vibratory Driver 1200 sec/pile then Impact 

Hammer last 15 ft (150 strikes/pile ∼20 minutes); bubble curtain will be used during impact duration.

5 2 

Donut Fender 

Piles.

36 Steel ............. 2 Vibratory Driver 1200 sec/pile then Impact 

Hammer last 15 ft (150 strikes/pile ∼20 minutes); bubble curtain will be used during impact duration.

5 ....................

WTL ....... Platform ........ 16 Steel ............. 2 Vibratory Driver 600 sec/pile then Impact Hammer last 15 ft (500 strikes/pile ∼20 minutes); 

bubble curtain will be used during impact duration.

2 1 

Guide Piles .. 20 Square Concrete.4 Impact Hammer 500 strikes/pile (max 20 minutes); if necessary bubble curtain will be used 

during impact duration.

4 1 

Installation of Ferry Landing Structural 

Elements 

Installation of the pier deck, pier 

canopy, float, and gangway would be 

conducted from land and water-based 

vessels. This work would include the 

use of generators, cranes, and other 

heavy equipment but is not expected to 

result in any harassment of marine 

mammals. Therefore, no take is 

requested or proposed for authorization 

for these activities. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42468 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

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 SARs). 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 SARs (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 SARs (Carretta et al., 2017). 

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 

Eastern North Pacific ................ -/-; N 626,734 (n/a, 530,474, 

2014).

11,405 1.1 

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: 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. 3These values, found in NMFSs 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42469 

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 2017a). Because 

Guadalupe fur seals are highly 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. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are found from Baja 

California to the eastern Aleutian 

Islands of Alaska. The species primarily 

hauls out on remote mainland and 

island beaches and reefs, and estuary 

areas. Harbor seals tend to forage locally 

within 53 miles (mi) (85 kilometers 

(km)) of haul-out sites (Harvey and 

Goley 2011). Harbor seal is the most 

common marine mammal species 

observed in the Bay and individuals are 

commonly seen near the San FranciscoOakland Bay Bridge east span (CalTrans 

2013b, 2013c). Tagging studies have 

shown that most seals tagged in the Bay 

remain in the Bay (Harvey and Goley 

2011; Manugian 2013). Foraging often 

occurs in the Bay, as noted by 

observations of seals exhibiting foraging 

behavior (short dives less than five 

minutes, moving back and forth in an 

area, and sometimes tearing up prey at 

the surface). 

Gray Whale 

Gray whales are large baleen whales. 

They grow to approximately 50 ft in 

length and weigh up to 40 tons. They 

are one of the most frequently seen 

whales along the California coast, easily 

recognized by their mottled gray color 

and lack of dorsal fin. Adult whales 

carry heavy loads of attached barnacles, 

which add to their mottled appearance. 

Gray whales are divided into the Eastern 

North Pacific and Western North Pacific 

stocks. Both stocks migrate each year 

along the west coast of continental 

North America and Alaska. The Eastern 

North Pacific stock is much larger and 

is more likely to occur in the San 

Francisco Bay area. Western North 

Pacific Gray whales have summer and 

fall feeding grounds in the Okhotsk Sea 

off northeast Sakhalin Island, Russia, 

and off southeastern Kamchatka in the 

Bering Sea (NMFS 2017c), so they 

would not be expected to occur in San 

Francisco Bay during construction 

activity for this project. With the 

exception of an unusual mortality event 

in 1999 and 2000, the population of 

Eastern North Pacific stock has 

increased over the last 20 years and has 

been stable since the 1990s (NMFS 

2015c). 

Gray whales are the only baleen 

whale known to feed on the sea floor, 

where they scoop up bottom sediments 

to filter out benthic crustaceans, 

mollusks, and worms (NMFS 2015c). 

They feed in northern waters primarily 

off the Bering, Chukchi, and western 

Beaufort Seas during the summer. 

Between December and January, latestage pregnant females, adult males, and 

immature females and males migrate 

southward to breeding areas around 

Mexico. The northward migration 

occurs between February and March. 

Coastal waters just outside San 

Francisco Bay are considered a 

migratory Biologically Important Area 

for the northward progression of gray 

whales (Calambokidis et al., 2015). 

During this time, recently pregnant 

females, adult males, immature females, 

and females with calves move north to 

the feeding grounds (Calambokidis et 

al., 2014). A few individuals enter into 

the San Francisco Bay during their 

northward migration. 

Bottlenose Dolphins 

Bottlenose dolphins are distributed 

world-wide in tropical and warmtemperate waters. In many regions, 

including California, separate coastal 

and offshore populations are known 

(Walker 1981; Ross and Cockcroft 1990; 

Van Waerebeek et al. 1990). The 

California coastal stock of bottlenose 

dolphins is distinct from the offshore 

stock, based on significant differences in 

genetics and cranial morphology (Perrin 

et al. 2011, Lowther-Thielking et al. 

2015). California coastal bottlenose 

dolphins are found within about one km 

of shore (Hansen, 1990; Carretta et al. 

1998; Defran and Weller 1999) with the 

range extending north over the last 

several decades related to El Nin ̃ o 

events and increased ocean 

temperatures. As the range of bottlenose 

dolphins extended north, dolphins 

began entering the Bay in 2010 

(Szczepaniak 2013). Until 2016, most 

bottlenose dolphins in San Francisco 

Bay were observed in the western Bay, 

from the Golden Gate Bridge to Oyster 

Point and Redwood City (Perlman 

2017). 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoise are seldom found in 

waters warmer than 62.6 degrees 

Fahrenheit (17 degrees Celsius) (Read 

1990) or south of Point Conception, and 

occurs as far north as the Bering Sea 

(Barlow and Hanan 1995; Carretta et al., 

2017). The San Francisco-Russian River 

stock is found from Pescadero, 18 mi (30 

km) south of the Bay, to 99 mi (160 km) 

north of the Bay at Point Arena (Carretta 

et al., 2017). In most areas, harbor 

porpoise occurs in small groups, 

consisting of just a few individuals. 

Occasional sightings of harbor 

porpoises in the Bay, including near the 

Yerba Buena Island harbor seal haul-out 

site, were reported by the Caltrans 

marine mammal monitoring program 

beginning in 2008 (Caltrans 2018). 

Continued sightings from Caltrans and 

the Golden Gate Cetacean Research 

(GGCR) Organization suggests that the 

species is returning to San Francisco 

Bay after an absence of approximately 

65 years (GGCR 2010). This 

re-immergence is not unique to San 

Francisco Bay, but rather indicative of 

the harbor porpoise in general along the 

west coast. GGCR has been issued a 

scientific research permit from NMFS 

for a multi-year assessment to document 

the population abundance and 

distribution in the Bay (82 FR 60374). 

Recent observations of harbor porpoises 

have been reported by GGCR researchers 

off Cavallo Point, outside Raccoon Strait 

between Tiburon and Angel Island, off 

Fort Point and as far into the Bay as 

Carquinez Strait (Perlman 2010). Based 

on the Caltrans and GGCR monitoring, 

over 100 porpoises were seen at one 

time entering San Francisco Bay; and 

over 600 individual animals have been 

documented in a photo-ID database. 

Reported sightings are concentrated in 

the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge 

and Angel Island, with lesser numbers 

sighted south of Alcatraz and west of 

Treasure Island (AECOM 2017). 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions breed on the 

offshore islands of California from May 

through July (Heath and Perrin 2009). 

During the non-breeding season, adult 

and sub-adult males and juveniles 

migrate northward along the coast, to 

central and northern California, Oregon, 

Washington, and Vancouver Island 

(Jefferson et al., 1993). They return 

south the following spring (Lowry and 

Forney 2005; Heath and Perrin 2009). 

Females and some juveniles tend to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42470 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et 

al., 1990; Melin et al., 2008). 

In San Francisco Bay, California sea 

lions have been observed at Angel 

Island and occupying the docks near 

Pier 39 which is the largest California 

sea lion haul-out in San Francisco Bay. 

A maximum of 1,706 sea lions were 

counted at Pier 39 in 2009. However, 

since then the population has averaged 

at about 50–300 depending upon the 

season (TMMC 2017). This group of sea 

lions has decreased in size in recent 

years, coincident with a fluctuating 

decrease in the herring population in 

the Bay. There are no known breeding 

sites within San Francisco Bay. Their 

primary breeding site is in the Channel 

Islands (USACE 2011). The sea lions 

appear at Pier 39 after returning from 

the Channel Islands at the beginning of 

August (Bauer 1999). No other sea lion 

haul-out sites have been identified in 

the Bay and no pupping has been 

observed at the Pier 39 site or any other 

site in San Francisco Bay under normal 

conditions (USACE 2011). Although 

there has been documentation of 

pupping on docks in the Bay, this event 

was during a domoic acid event. The 

Port does not anticipate that any domoic 

events will occur during the project 

construction activities. 

The project site is approximately four 

miles away from Pier 39. Although there 

is little information regarding the 

foraging behavior of the California sea 

lion in southern San Francisco Bay, they 

have been observed foraging on a 

regular basis in the shipping channel 

south of Yerba Buena Island. 

Foraging grounds have also been 

identified for pinnipeds, including sea 

lions, between Yerba Buena Island and 

Treasure Island, as well as off the 

Tiburon Peninsula (Caltrans, 2006). The 

California sea lions that use the Pier 39 

haul-out site may be feeding on Pacific 

herring (Clupea harengus), northern 

anchovy, and other prey in the waters 

of San Francisco Bay (Caltrans, 2013a). 

In addition to the Pier 39 haul-out, 

California sea lions haul out on buoys 

and similar structures throughout San 

Francisco Bay. They mainly are seen 

swimming off the San Francisco and 

Marin shorelines within San Francisco 

Bay, but may occasionally enter the 

project area to forage. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seal is common on 

California coastal mainland and island 

sites, where the species pups, breeds, 

rests, and molts. The largest rookeries 

are on San Nicolas and San Miguel 

islands in the northern Channel Islands. 

Near the Bay, elephant seals breed, 

molt, and haul out at An ̃o Nuevo Island, 

the Farallon Islands, and Point Reyes 

National Seashore. 

Northern elephant seals haul out to 

give birth and breed from December 

through March. Pups remain onshore or 

in adjacent shallow water through May. 

Both sexes make two foraging 

migrations each year: One after breeding 

and the second after molting (Stewart 

1989; Stewart and DeLong 1995). Adult 

females migrate to the central North 

Pacific to forage, and males migrate to 

the Gulf of Alaska to forage (Robinson 

et al. 2012). Pup mortality is high when 

they make the first trip to sea in May, 

and this period correlates with the time 

of most strandings. Pups of the year 

return in the late summer and fall, to 

haul out at breeding rookery and small 

haul out sites, but occasionally they 

may make brief stops 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 (YBI) 

and Treasure Island (less than 10 

strandings per year). 

Northern Fur Seal 

Northern fur seal breeds on the 

offshore islands of California and in the 

Bering Sea from May through July. Two 

stocks of Northern fur seals may occur 

near the Bay, the California and Eastern 

Pacific stocks. The California stock 

breeds, pups, and forages off the 

California coast. The Eastern Pacific 

stock breeds and pups on islands in the 

Bering Sea, but females and juveniles 

move south to California waters to 

forage in the fall and winter months. 

Both the California and Eastern 

Pacific stocks forage in the offshore 

waters of California, but only sick, 

emaciated, or injured fur seals enter the 

Bay. The Marine Mammal Center 

(TMMC) occasionally picks up stranded 

fur seals around YBI and Treasure 

Island. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42471 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Seven marine 

mammal species (three cetacean and 

four pinniped (two otariid and two 

phocid) species) have the reasonable 

potential to co-occur with the proposed 

survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. 

Of the cetacean species that may be 

present, the gray whale is classified as 

a low-frequency cetacean, the bottlenose 

dolphin is classified as a mid-frequency 

cetacean, and the harbor porpoise is 

classified as a high-frequency cetacean. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take’’ section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

considers the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take’’ section, and the 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Description of Sound 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in Hz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks of a sound 

wave; lower frequency sounds have 

longer wavelengths than higher 

frequency sounds. Amplitude is the 

height of the sound pressure wave or the 

‘loudness’ of a sound and is typically 

measured using the dB scale. A dB is 

the ratio between a measured pressure 

(with sound) and a reference pressure 

(sound at a constant pressure, 

established by scientific standards). It is 

a logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude; therefore, 

relatively small changes in dB ratings 

correspond to large changes in sound 

pressure. When referring to sound 

pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force 

per unit area), sound is referenced in the 

context of underwater sound pressure to 

one microPascal (mPa). One pascal is the 

pressure resulting from a force of one 

newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter (m2). The source level (SL) 

represents the sound level at a distance 

of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 

mPa). The received level is the sound 

level at the listener’s position. Note that 

all underwater sound levels in this 

document are referenced to a pressure of 

1 mPa and all airborne sound levels in 

this document are referenced to a 

pressure of 20 mPa. 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Rms is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick 1983). Rms accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in all directions 

away from the source (similar to ripples 

on the surface of a pond), except in 

cases where the source is directional. 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the 

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric 

sound), biological (e.g., sounds 

produced by marine mammals, fish, and 

invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound 

(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, 

construction). A number of sources 

contribute to ambient sound, including 

the following (Richardson et al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient noise for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson 

1995). In general, ambient sound levels 

tend to increase with increasing wind 

speed and wave height. Surf noise 

becomes important near shore, with 

measurements collected at a distance of 

8.5 km from shore showing an increase 

of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 

during heavy surf conditions. 

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. 

• Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient noise 

levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. 

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

noise related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels and 

aircraft), dredging and construction, oil 

and gas drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Shipping noise 

typically dominates the total ambient 

noise for frequencies between 20 and 

300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from 

identifiable anthropogenic sources other 

than the activity of interest (e.g., a 

passing vessel) is sometimes termed 

background sound, as opposed to 

ambient sound. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

Description of Sound Sources 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact pile driving, vibratory 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42472 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and 

down the hole drilling. The sounds 

produced by these activities fall into 

one of two general sound types: 

Impulsive and non-impulsive (defined 

in the following). The distinction 

between these two sound types is 

important because they have differing 

potential to cause physical effects, 

particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., 

Ward 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). 

Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an 

in-depth discussion of these concepts. 

Impulsive sound sources (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI 1986; Harris 1998; 

NIOSH 1998; ISO 2003; ANSI 2005) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Impulsive 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (NIOSH 

1998). Some of these non-impulsive 

sounds can be transient signals of short 

duration but without the essential 

properties of impulses (e.g., rapid rise 

time). Examples of non-impulsive 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems. 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto 

a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. 

Sound generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper 

2005). Vibratory hammers install piles 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 

dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 

dB lower than SPLs generated during 

impact pile driving of the same-sized 

pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is 

slower, reducing the probability and 

severity of injury, and sound energy is 

distributed over a greater amount of 

time (Nedwell and Edwards 2002; 

Carlson et al., 2005). 

Acoustic Impacts 

Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad 

range of frequencies and sound levels 

and can have a range of highly variable 

impacts on marine life, from none or 

minor to potentially severe responses, 

depending on received levels, duration 

of exposure, behavioral context, and 

various other factors. The potential 

effects of underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can potentially result 

in one or more of the following direct 

impacts on marine mammals; temporary 

or permanent hearing impairment, nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, 

and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 

2007; Southall et al., 2007; Gotz et al., 

2009). The degree of effect is 

intrinsically related to the signal 

characteristics, received level, distance 

from the source, and duration of the 

sound exposure. In general, sudden, 

high level sounds can cause hearing 

loss, as can longer exposures to lower 

level sounds. Temporary or permanent 

loss of hearing will occur almost 

exclusively for noise within an animal’s 

hearing range. We first describe specific 

manifestations of acoustic effects before 

providing discussion specific to the Port 

of San Fancisco’s construction 

activities. 

Richardson et al. (1995) described 

zones of increasing intensity of effect 

that might be expected to occur, in 

relation to distance from a source and 

assuming that the signal is within an 

animal’s hearing range. First is the area 

within which the acoustic signal would 

be audible (potentially perceived) to the 

animal, but not strong enough to elicit 

any overt behavioral or physiological 

response. The next zone corresponds 

with the area where the signal is audible 

to the animal and of sufficient intensity 

to elicit behavioral or physiological 

responsiveness. Third is a zone within 

which, for signals of high intensity, the 

received level is sufficient to potentially 

cause discomfort or tissue damage to 

auditory or other systems. Overlaying 

these zones to a certain extent is the 

area within which masking (i.e., when a 

sound interferes with or masks the 

ability of an animal to detect a signal of 

interest that is above the absolute 

hearing threshold) may occur; the 

masking zone may be highly variable in 

size. 

We describe the more severe effects 

(i.e., permanent hearing impairment, 

certain non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects) only briefly as we 

do not expect that there is a reasonable 

likelihood that the Port of San 

Francisco’s activities may result in such 

effects (see below for further 

discussion). Marine mammals exposed 

to high-intensity sound, or to lowerintensity sound for prolonged periods, 

can experience hearing threshold shift 

(TS), which is the loss of hearing 

sensitivity at certain frequency ranges 

(Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 

2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS 

can be permanent (PTS), in which case 

the loss of hearing sensitivity is not 

fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in 

which case the animal’s hearing 

threshold would recover over time 

(Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound 

exposure that leads to TTS could cause 

PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can 

be total or partial deafness, while in 

most cases the animal has an impaired 

ability to hear sounds in specific 

frequency ranges (Kryter 1985). 

When PTS occurs, there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS 

represents primarily tissue fatigue and 

is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In 

addition, other investigators have 

suggested that TTS is within the normal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and does not represent 

physical injury (e.g., Ward 1997). 

Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS 

to constitute auditory injury. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals—PTS data exists only 

for a single harbor seal (Kastak et al., 

2008)—but are assumed to be similar to 

those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several dB above 

a 40-dB threshold shift approximates 

PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; 

Miller, 1974 found that inducing mild 

TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift) 

approximates TTS onset (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Based on data from 

terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 

assumption is that the PTS thresholds 

for impulsive sounds (such as impact 

pile driving sounds received close to the 

source) are at least 6 dB higher than the 

TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis 

and PTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher 

than TTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). 

Given the higher level of sound or 

longer exposure duration necessary to 

cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is 

considerably less likely that PTS could 

occur. 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to sound (Kryter 1985). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be at a higher 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42473 

level in order to be heard. In terrestrial 

and marine mammals, TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to days (in cases of 

strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. Few data 

on sound levels and durations necessary 

to elicit mild TTS have been obtained 

for marine mammals. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

occurs during a time where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 

porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis) and three 

species of pinnipeds (northern elephant 

seal, harbor seal, and California sea lion) 

exposed to a limited number of sound 

sources (i.e., mostly tones and octaveband noise) in laboratory settings (e.g., 

Finneran et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al., 

2004; Kastak et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 

2009; Popov et al., 2011). In general, 

harbor seals (Kastak et al., 2005; 

Kastelein et al., 2012a) and harbor 

porpoises (Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein 

et al., 2012b) have a lower TTS onset 

than other measured pinniped or 

cetacean species. Additionally, the 

existing marine mammal TTS data come 

from a limited number of individuals 

within these species. There are no data 

available on noise-induced hearing loss 

for mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Finneran (2015). 

In addition to PTS and TTS, there is 

a potential for non-auditory 

physiological effects or injuries that 

theoretically might occur in marine 

mammals exposed to high level 

underwater sound or as a secondary 

effect of extreme behavioral reactions 

(e.g., change in dive profile as a result 

of an avoidance reaction) caused by 

exposure to sound. These impacts can 

include neurological effects, bubble 

formation, resonance effects, and other 

types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et 

al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer 

and Tyack 2007). The Port of San 

Francisco’s activities do not involve the 

use of devices such as explosives or 

mid-frequency active sonar that are 

associated with these types of effects. 

These impacts are not anticipated to 

occur as a result of the Port’s work and 

are not discussed further. 

When a live or dead marine mammal 

swims or floats onto shore and is 

incapable of returning to sea, the event 

is termed a ‘‘stranding’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known 

to strand for a variety of reasons, such 

as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, 

starvation, fishery interaction, ship 

strike, unusual oceanographic or 

weather events, sound exposure, or 

combinations of these stressors 

sustained concurrently or in series (e.g., 

Geraci et al., 1999). However, the cause 

or causes of most strandings are 

unknown (e.g., Best 1982). 

Combinations of dissimilar stressors 

may combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 

though one exposure without the other 

would not be expected to produce the 

same outcome (e.g., Sih et al., 2004). For 

further description of stranding events 

see, e.g., Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et 

al., 2013; Wright et al., 2013. 

Behavioral Effects 

Behavioral disturbance may include a 

variety of effects, including subtle 

changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 

avoidance of an area or changes in 

vocalizations), more conspicuous 

changes in similar behavioral activities, 

and more sustained and/or potentially 

severe reactions, such as displacement 

from or abandonment of high-quality 

habitat. Behavioral responses to sound 

are highly variable and context-specific 

and any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et 

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; NRC 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud-impulsive 

sound sources (typically seismic airguns 

or acoustic harassment devices) have 

been varied but often consist of 

avoidance behavior or other behavioral 

changes suggesting discomfort (Morton 

and Symonds 2002; see also Richardson 

et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 

However, there are broad categories of 

potential response, which we describe 

in greater detail here, that include 

alteration of dive behavior, alteration of 

foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42474 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

interference with or alteration of 

vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely, and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung 2003; Nowacek et 

al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). 

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be 

of little biological significance. The 

impact of an alteration to dive behavior 

resulting from an acoustic exposure 

depends on what the animal is doing at 

the time of the exposure and the type 

and magnitude of the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.; 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

occur with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 

2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007). 

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; 

Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), 

while right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

have been observed to shift the 

frequency content of their calls upward 

while reducing the rate of calling in 

areas of increased anthropogenic noise 

(Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, 

animals may cease sound production 

during production of aversive signals 

(Bowles et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path because of the presence of a sound 

or other stressors, and is one of the most 

obvious manifestations of disturbance in 

marine mammals (Richardson et al., 

1995). For example, gray whales are 

known to change direction—deflecting 

from customary migratory paths—in 

order to avoid noise from seismic 

surveys (Malme et al., 1984). Avoidance 

may be short-term, with animals 

returning to the area once the noise has 

ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 

1996; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). 

Longer-term displacement is possible, 

however, which may lead to changes in 

abundance or distribution patterns of 

the affected species in the affected 

region if habituation to the presence of 

the sound does not occur (e.g., 

Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and England 

2001). However, it should be noted that 

response to a perceived predator does 

not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and 

Reeves 2008), and whether individuals 

are solitary or in groups may influence 

the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan 

et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). 

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that 

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

Behavioral Effects of the Port’s 

Activities (Pile Driving and Drilling) 

In the absence of mitigation, impacts 

to marine species could be expected to 

include physiological and behavioral 

responses to the acoustic signature 

(Viada et al., 2008). Potential effects 

from impulsive sound sources like pile 

driving can range in severity from 

effects such as behavioral disturbance to 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment (Yelverton et al., 1973). Due 

to the nature of the pile driving sounds 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42475 

in the project, behavioral disturbance is 

the most likely effect from the proposed 

activity. Marine mammals exposed to 

high intensity sound repeatedly or for 

prolonged periods can experience 

hearing threshold shifts. PTS constitutes 

injury, but TTS does not (Southall et al., 

2007). Based on the nature of the Port’s 

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 Proposed Mitigation 

section), PTS is not anticipated. 

Therefore, the Port is not requesting and 

NMFS is not proposing to authorize take 

by Level A harassment related to this 

project. 

The effects of sounds from pile 

driving, by impact or vibratory means, 

pile removal, and down the hole drilling 

might include one or more of the 

following: Temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment, non-auditory 

physical or physiological effects, 

behavioral disturbance, and masking 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 

2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 

al., 2007). The effects of pile driving and 

drilling on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including 

the type and depth of the animal; the 

pile size and type, and the intensity and 

duration of the pile driving sound; the 

substrate; the standoff distance between 

the pile and the animal; and the sound 

propagation properties of the 

environment. Impacts to marine 

mammals from pile driving and pile 

removal activities are expected to result 

primarily from acoustic pathways. As 

such, the degree of effect is intrinsically 

related to the frequency, received level, 

and duration of the sound exposure, 

which are in turn influenced by the 

distance between the animal and the 

source. The further away from the 

source, the less intense the exposure 

should be. The substrate and depth of 

the habitat affect the sound propagation 

properties of the environment. In 

addition, substrates that are soft (e.g., 

sand) would absorb or attenuate the 

sound more readily than hard substrates 

(e.g., rock), which may reflect the 

acoustic wave. 

Responses to continuous sound, such 

as vibratory pile installation or down 

the hole drilling, have not been 

documented as well as responses to 

impulsive sounds. With both types of 

pile driving, it is likely that the onset of 

pile driving could result in temporary, 

short-term changes in an animal’s 

typical behavior and/or avoidance of the 

affected area. These behavioral changes 

may include, based on more general 

observations of behavioral responses to 

sound exposure (Richardson et al., 

1995): Changing durations of surfacing 

and dives, number of blows per 

surfacing, or moving direction and/or 

speed; reduced/increased vocal 

activities; changing/cessation of certain 

behavioral activities (such as socializing 

or feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into water from haulouts or 

rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase their 

haul-out time, possibly to avoid inwater disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 

2006). If a marine mammal responds to 

a stimulus by changing its behavior 

(e.g., through relatively minor changes 

in locomotion direction/speed or 

vocalization behavior), the response 

may or may not constitute taking at the 

individual level, and is unlikely to 

affect the stock or the species as a 

whole. However, if a sound source 

displaces marine mammals from an 

important feeding or breeding area for a 

prolonged period, impacts on animals, 

and if so potentially on the stock or 

species, could potentially be significant 

(e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 

2007). 

Natural and artificial sounds can 

disrupt behavior by masking. The 

frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. Because sound generated from 

in-water pile driving and removal is 

mostly concentrated at low-frequency 

ranges, it may have less effect on high 

frequency echolocation sounds made by 

porpoises. The most intense underwater 

sounds in the Port’s proposed action are 

those produced by impact pile driving. 

Given that the energy distribution of 

pile driving covers a broad frequency 

spectrum, sound from these sources 

would likely be within the audible 

range of marine mammals present in the 

project area. Impact pile driving activity 

is relatively short-term, with rapid 

impulsive sounds occurring for 

approximately 20 minutes per pile in 

this project. The probability for impact 

pile driving resulting from this 

proposed action masking acoustic 

signals important to the behavior and 

survival of marine mammal species is 

low and if it occurred, it would be for 

a short duration. Vibratory pile driving 

is also relatively short-term, with rapid 

oscillations occurring for approximately 

20 minutes per pile in this project. It is 

possible that vibratory pile driving 

resulting from this proposed action may 

mask acoustic signals important to the 

behavior and survival of marine 

mammal species, but the short-term 

duration and limited affected area 

would result in insignificant impacts 

from masking. 

Pinnipeds that occur near the project 

site could be exposed to airborne 

sounds associated with pile driving and 

removal that have the potential to cause 

behavioral harassment, depending on 

their distance from pile driving 

activities. Cetaceans are not expected to 

be exposed to airborne sounds that 

would result in harassment as defined 

under the MMPA. 

Airborne noise will primarily be an 

issue for pinnipeds that are swimming 

or hauled out near the project site 

within the range of noise levels elevated 

above the acoustic criteria. We 

recognize that pinnipeds in the water 

could be exposed to airborne sound that 

may result in behavioral harassment 

when looking with their heads above 

water. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, these animals would likely 

previously have been ‘taken’ because of 

exposure to underwater sound above the 

behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are in all cases larger than those 

associated with airborne sound. Thus, 

the behavioral harassment of these 

animals by airborne sound is already 

accounted for in the estimates of 

potential take from underwater 

exposure to pile driving sounds. 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

authorization of additional incidental 

take resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further here. 

Stress Responses 

An animal’s perception of a threat 

may be sufficient to trigger stress 

responses consisting of some 

combination of behavioral responses, 

autonomic nervous system responses, 

neuroendocrine responses, or immune 

responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg 

2000). In many cases, an animal’s first 

and sometimes most economical (in 

terms of energetic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor. Autonomic nervous system 

responses to stress typically involve 

changes in heart rate, blood pressure, 

and gastrointestinal activity. These 

responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42476 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, 

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For 

example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003). 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

The proposed activities at the project 

area would not result in permanent 

negative impacts to habitats used 

directly by marine mammals, but may 

have potential short-term impacts to 

food sources such as forage fish and 

may affect acoustic habitat (see masking 

discussion above). There are no known 

foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom 

structure of significant biological 

importance to marine mammals present 

in the marine waters of the project area 

during the construction window. The 

project area is located in an industrial 

and commercial shipping port. 

Therefore, the main impact issue 

associated with the proposed activity 

would be temporarily elevated sound 

levels and the associated direct effects 

on marine mammals, as discussed 

previously in this document. The 

primary potential acoustic impacts to 

marine mammal habitat are associated 

with elevated sound levels produced by 

vibratory and impact pile driving, 

drilling, and sediment removal in the 

area. However, other potential impacts 

to the surrounding habitat from physical 

disturbance are also possible, although 

this will be minimal since construction 

is occurring in an already industrial and 

commercial shipping area. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey (Fish) 

Construction activities would produce 

continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving, 

drilling) and impulsive (i.e., impact 

driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds 

that are especially strong and/or 

intermittent low-frequency sounds. 

Short duration, sharp sounds can cause 

overt or subtle changes in fish behavior 

and local distribution. Hastings and 

Popper (2005) identified several studies 

that suggest fish may relocate to avoid 

certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan 2001, 

2002; Popper and Hastings 2009). Sound 

impulsive sounds at received levels of 

160 dB may cause subtle changes in fish 

behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause 

noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson 

et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs 

of sufficient strength have been known 

to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile driving and pile removal activities 

at the Port’s project area would be 

temporary behavioral avoidance of the 

area. The duration of fish avoidance of 

this area after pile driving stops is 

unknown, but a rapid return to normal 

recruitment, distribution and behavior 

is anticipated. In general, impacts to 

marine mammal prey species are 

expected to be minor and temporary due 

to the short timeframe (15 days) for the 

project. 

Pile Driving Effects on Potential 

Foraging Habitat 

The area likely impacted by the 

project is relatively small compared to 

the available habitat in the Mission Bay/ 

Central Waterfront area of San Francisco 

Bay. Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., 

fish) of the immediate area due to the 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat is 

also possible. The duration of fish 

avoidance of this area after pile driving 

stops is unknown, but a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral 

avoidance by fish of the disturbed area 

would still leave significantly large 

areas of fish and marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity of 

the MBFL and WTL on San Francisco 

Bay. 

The duration of the construction 

activities, including pile driving and 

dredging is relatively short, estimated at 

55 days. The construction window for 

pile driving and drilling is a maximum 

of 15 days and each day, activities 

would only occur for a few hours during 

the day. Impacts to habitat and prey are 

expected to be minimal based on the 

short duration of activities. 

In summary, given the short daily 

duration of sound associated with 

individual pile driving and removal 

events and the relatively small areas 

being affected, pile driving and pile 

removal activities associated with the 

proposed action are not likely to have a 

permanent, adverse effect on any fish 

habitat, or populations of fish species. 

Thus, any impacts to marine mammal 

habitat are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact 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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42477 

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 Proposed Mitigation section), Level 

A harassment is neither anticipated nor 

proposed to be authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the proposed 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 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g. vibratory piledriving, 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 proposed 

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 

proposed 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. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42478 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

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 SPLs 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1EN22AU18.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42479 

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 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 

(Joaquin River Project; Caltrans 2015, 

Table 1.2–3). 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

Activity 

Source level 

at 10 meters 

(dB) 

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal 

36-inch steel pile installation ...... 170 SPL 

30-inch steel pile installation 

(Caisson).

170 SPL 

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 

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 

meters for vibratory piling and drilling 

(36 and 30-inch steel piles; drilling for 

24-inch octagonal concrete pile). The 

maximum Level B harassment zone for 

this activity will therefore be set at 

21,544 meters. 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 meters (impact driving 

36-inch steel piles). At this radial 

distance, the entire Level B harassment 

zone for impact piling equaled 0.3699 

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

Source 

Calculated 

distance to 

Level B 

threshold 

(meters) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(square 

kilometers 

km2) 

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 ................................................................................................................................... 21,544 47.1608 

14-inch steel H pile installation ................................................................................................................................ 3,415 7.6431 

Removal of pre-existing concrete and wood piles .................................................................................................. 2,154 3.1511 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42480 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 5—LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES CALCULATED USING THE PRACTICAL SPREADING MODEL—Continued 

Source 

Calculated 

distance to 

Level B 

threshold 

(meters) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(square 

kilometers 

km2) 

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 ................................................................................................................................... 215 0.074044 

Down the Hole Drilling 

21,544 47.1608 

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 

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) 

Drilling 

(24-inch 

octagonal 

concrete 

pile) 

Spreadsheet Tab Used ............ Non-impulsive, 

continuous.

Non-impulsive, 

continuous.

Non-impulsive, 

continuous.

Non-impulsive, 

continuous.

Non-impulsive, 

continuous.

Impulsive, Noncontinuous.Impulsive, Noncontinuous.Impulsive, Noncontinuous.Non-impulsive, 

continuous. 

Source Level ............................ 155 SPL ......... 170 SPL ......... 170 SPL ......... 158 SPL ......... 158 SPL ......... 176 SEL ............ 160 SEL ............ 151 SEL ............ 168 SPL. 

Weighting Factor Adjustment 

(kHz).

2.5 .................. 2.5 .................. 2.5 .................. 2.5 .................. 2.5 .................. 2 ........................ 2 ........................ 2 ........................ 2. 

(a) Activity duration (hours) 

within 24 hours, (b) Number 

of strikes per pile, (c) Number of piles per day.

(a) 0.4 ............ (a) 0.33 .......... (a) 0.25 .......... (a) .33 ............ (a) 0.33 .......... (b) 150, (c) 4 .... (b) 500, (c) 4 .... (b) 500, (c) 2 .... (a) 6. 

Propagation (xLogR) ................ 15 ................... 15 ................... 15 ................... 15 ................... 15 ................... 15 ...................... 15 ...................... 15 ...................... 15. 

Distance of source level measurement (meters)+.10 ................... 10 ................... 10 ................... 10 ................... 10 ................... 10 ...................... 10 ...................... 10 ...................... 10. 

TABLE 7—LEVEL A HARASSMENT ZONE ISOPLETH AND ENSONIFIED AREA FOR PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING

Source type 

PTS isopleth 

(meters) 

Lowfrequency 

cetaceans 

Midfrequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal of concrete and wood piles) ............................ 1.5 0.1 2.2 0.9 0.1 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 36-inch steel piles) ................................... 13.1 1.2 19.3 7.9 0.6 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 30-inch steel piles) ................................... 10.8 1.0 16.0 6.6 0.5 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 14-inch steel H piles) ................................ 2.1 0.2 3.0 1.3 0.1 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 16-inch steel H piles) ................................ 2.1 0.2 3.0 1.3 0.1 

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) .......................................................... 6.3 0.4 5.5 3.4 0.2 

Daily ensonified area (m2) 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal of concrete and wood piles) ............................ 3.5 0.02 7.6 1.3 0.02 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 36-inch steel piles) ................................... 270 2.3 585 98 0.6 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 30-inch steel piles) ................................... 183 1.6 402 68 0.4 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42481 

TABLE 7—LEVEL A HARASSMENT ZONE ISOPLETH AND ENSONIFIED AREA FOR PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING—Continued 

Source type 

PTS isopleth 

(meters) 

Lowfrequency 

cetaceans 

Midfrequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 14-inch steel H piles) ................................ 6.9 0.06 14 2.7 0.02 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 16-inch steel H piles) ................................ 6.9 0.06 14 2.7 0.02 

Impact Pile Driver (36-inch steel piles) .............................................................. 92450 120 131100 26460 140 

Impact Pile Driver (20-inch concrete piles) ....................................................... 3380 4.5 4800 966 5.1 

Impact Pile Driver (16-inch steel piles) .............................................................. 84 0.1 120 24 0.1 

Drilling (24-inch octagonal concrete pile) .......................................................... 62 0.3 48 18 0.06 

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 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 

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 

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 

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 YBI 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 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. 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED IN-WATER DENSITY OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

[Caltrans 2017] 

Species observed 

Area of 

monitoring 

zone 

(km2) 

Days of 

monitoring 

Number of 

animals 

observed 

Density 

animals/km2

Harbor Seals 2000–2017 ................................ 2 257 1029 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42482 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED IN-WATER DENSITY OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA—Continued 

[Caltrans 2017] 

Species observed 

Area of 

monitoring 

zone 

(km2) 

Days of 

monitoring 

Number of 

animals 

observed 

Density 

animals/km2

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 (km2) times the number of 

construction days. Since density data 

was only available for harbor seals, 

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

Species Density 

animals/km2

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(km2) 1

Construction 

days 2

Proposed 

Level B 

take 

Percentage 

of stock 

Harbor Seal ..................... 3.957 .................................................................. 47.1608 15 2928 9.5 

California Sea Lions ........ 0.161 .................................................................. 47.1608 15 120 0.040 

Harbor Porpoise .............. 0.167 .................................................................. 47.1608 15 124 1.3 

Northern Elephant Seal .. Insufficient sighting data exists to estimate density.47.1608 15 1 0.0006 

Northern Fur Seal ........... Insufficient sighting data exists to estimate density.47.1608 15 1 0.0002 

Gray Whale ..................... Insufficient sighting data exists to estimate density.47.1608 15 3 0.014 

Bottlenose Dolphin .......... Insufficient sighting data exists to estimate density.47.1608 15 15 3.3 

1 Represents area of largest Level B zone during pile driving/removal and drilling activities. 

2Total 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 is proposing to authorize 

take of 15 bottlenose dolphins by level 

B harassment. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42483 

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 

proposes to authorize one level B take 

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 

proposed to authorize one level B take 

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 proposes no authorization of 

Level A harassment for harbor porpoise 

or any marine mammal. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to 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. 

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 will be 

implemented for the duration of impact 

pile driving to install 36-inch and 

16-inch steel and 20-inch concrete piles 

(i.e., cushion block, bubble curtain, 

sleeve etc.) and 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 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 

meters 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42484 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 10—SHUTDOWN ZONES

Source 

Shutdown zones 

(meters) 

Lowfrequency 

cetaceans 

(humpback 

whale, 

minke whale) 

Midfrequency 

cetaceans 

(Pacificwhite 

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 

Vibratory Pile Driving 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal of concrete and wood 

piles) ................................................................................. 10 10 10 10 10 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 14-inch steel H piles) .. 10 10 10 10 10 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 16-inch steel H piles) .. 10 10 10 10 10 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 30-inch steel piles) ..... 25 10 25 10 10 

Vibratory Pile Driver (Installation of 36-inch steel piles) ..... 25 10 25 10 10 

Impact Pile Driving 

Impact Pile Driver (16-inch steel piles) ................................ 125 10 150 75 10 

Impact Pile Driver (20-inch concrete piles) ......................... 75 10 75 30 10 

Impact Pile Driver (36-inch steel piles) ................................ 250 25 300 150 25 

Drilling 

24-inch concrete pile (1 pile) (3 hours per day on 1 day) ... 10 10 10 10 10 

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

Source 

Radial 

distance 

to Level B 

threshold 

(meters) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(km2) 

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 ................................................................................................................................... * 21,544 * 47.1608 

14-inch steel H pile installation ................................................................................................................................ * 3,415 * 7.6431 

Removal of pre-existing concrete and wood piles .................................................................................................. * 21,544 * 47.1608 

Impact Pile Driving 

36-inch steel pile installation ................................................................................................................................... 541.2 0.3699 

20-inch concrete pile installation ............................................................................................................................. 63.1 0.006650 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42485 

TABLE 11—MONITORING ZONES—Continued 

Source 

Radial 

distance 

to Level B 

threshold 

(meters) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(km2) 

16-inch steel pile installation ................................................................................................................................... 215 0.074044 

Down the Hole Drilling 

* 21,544 * 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 Level B take is 

present in the monitoring zone, pile 

driving, pile removal, and drilling 

activities may begin and Level B take 

will be recorded. As stated above, if the 

entire Level B 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 proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed 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. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42486 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

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 Protected Species 

Observers (PSOs). There will be at least 

two PSOs, but this number could be 

higher, depending on the type of pile 

driving/drilling and size of pile, which 

determines the size of the harassment 

zones. At least two land-based PSOs 

will monitor during all pile driving/ 

removal and drilling activities. 

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 

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 

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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42487 

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 Level A 

take 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 two PSOs to ensure 

all monitoring and shutdown zones are 

properly observed. 

Although the Mission Bay Ferry and 

Water Taxi Landing Project would have 

some permanent removal of habitat 

available to marine mammals, the area 

lost would 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 

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 preliminarily 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 preliminarily 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42488 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

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. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the Port of San Francisco for 

conducting pile driving/removal and 

drilling in San Francisco Bay from June 

1, 2019 to May 31, 2020, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. This section contains 

a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 

contained in this section is proposed for 

inclusion in the IHA (if issued). 

1. This Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) is valid from June 

1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. 

2. This IHA is valid only for impact 

pile driving, vibratory pile driving, 

vibratory pile removal, and drilling 

activities associated with the 

construction of the Mission Bay Ferry 

and Water Taxi Landing Project in San 

Francisco Bay, California 

3. General Conditions 

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the 

possession of the Port of San Francisco, 

its designees, and work crew personnel 

operating under the authority of this 

IHA; 

(b) The species authorized for taking 

are gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 

California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus), northern fur seal 

(Callorhinus ursinus), Pacific harbor 

seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), and 

northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris); 

(c) The taking, by Level B harassment 

only, is limited to the species listed in 

condition 3(b). See Table 9 for numbers 

of take authorized; 

(d) The taking by serious injury or 

death of any of the species listed in 

condition 3(b) of the Authorization or 

any taking of any other species of 

marine mammal is prohibited and may 

result in the modification, suspension, 

or revocation of this IHA; 

(e) The Port of San Francisco must 

conduct briefings between construction 

supervisors and crews and marine 

mammal monitoring team prior to the 

start of all pile driving, pile removal, 

and drilling, and when new personnel 

join the work, in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures; 

and 

(f) Pile driving and drilling activities 

authorized under this IHA may only 

occur during daylight hours. 

4. Mitigation Measures 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to implement the following 

mitigation measures: 

(a) For all pile driving/removal, 

drilling, and in-water heavy machinery 

work, the Port of San Francisco must 

implement a shutdown zone around the 

pile or work zone. If a marine mammal 

comes within or approaches the 

shutdown zone, such operations must 

cease. See Table 10 for minimum radial 

distances required for shutdown zones; 

(b) After a shutdown occurs, impact 

pile driving, vibratory piling driving/ 

removal, and/or drilling can only begin 

after the animal is observed leaving the 

shutdown zone or has not been 

observed for 15 minutes; 

(c) The Port of San Francisco must use 

sound attenuation devices (i.e. cushion 

block, and bubble curtain) during all 

impact pile driving and a caisson sleeve 

during drilling. The Port of San 

Francisco must implement the following 

bubble curtain performance standards: 

(1) The bubble curtain must distribute 

air bubbles around 100 percent of the 

piling perimeter for the full depth of the 

water column; 

(2) The lowest bubble ring must be in 

contact with the mudline for the full 

circumference of the ring, and the 

weights attached to the bottom ring 

must ensure 100 percent mudline 

contact. No parts of the ring or other 

objects shall prevent full mudline 

contact; and 

(3) The selected contractor must 

ensure that personnel are trained in the 

proper balancing of air flow to the 

bubblers and must require that 

construction contractors submit an 

inspection/performance report for 

approval by the Port within 72 hours 

following the performance test. 

Corrections to the attenuation device to 

meet the performance standards must 

occur prior to impact driving; 

(d) The Port of San Francisco must 

use a soft-start procedure for impact pile 

driving. During a soft start, The Port of 

San Francisco is required to provide an 

initial set of three strikes from the 

impact hammer at 40 percent energy, 

followed by a 30-second waiting period, 

then two subsequent 3-strike sets. This 

soft-start must be applied prior to 

beginning pile driving activities each 

day or when impact pile driving 

hammers have been idle for more than 

30 minutes; 

(e) 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 and removal activities must shut 

down immediately using delay and 

shut-down procedures; and 

(f) The Port of San Francisco must 

establish monitoring locations as 

described below. 

5. Monitoring 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring during all pile driving/ 

removal and drilling activities. 

Monitoring and reporting must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

Monitoring Plan as described below. 

(a) The Port of San Francisco must 

monitor the Level B harassment zones 

and shutdown zones shown in Tables 

10 and 11 during all pile driving/ 

removal and drilling activities. 

Monitoring efforts in the Level B 

harassment zone can be concentrated in 

a subset of the zone if it is not feasible 

to observe the entire zone. 

(b) If waters exceed a sea-state which 

restricts the observers’ ability to make 

observations within the marine mammal 

shutdown zone, pile installation/ 

removal and drilling must cease. Pile 

driving and/or drilling must not be 

initiated or continue until the entire 

largest shutdown zone for the activity is 

visible. 

(c) Prior to the start of daily in-water 

construction activity, or whenever a 

break in pile driving/removal and/or 

drilling of 30 minutes or longer occurs, 

the PSOs must observe the shutdown 

and monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes before construction activities 

can begin. 

(d) If the shutdown zones have been 

observed to be clear of marine mammals 

for 30 minutes, in-water construction 

can commence and work can continue 

even if visibility becomes impaired 

within the Level B harassment zone. 

(e) Monitoring must be conducted by 

qualified PSOs, with minimum 

qualifications as described previously in 

the Monitoring and Reporting section of 

the proposed Federal Notice. PSO 

requirements include: 

(i) At least two PSOs must be on site 

to actively observe the shutdown and 

disturbance zones during all pile 

driving, removal, and drilling; 

(ii) Observers must use their naked 

eye with the aid of binoculars, and/or a 

spotting scope during all pile driving 

and extraction activities; 

(iii) All PSOs must be positioned in 

the best vantage point to have an 

unobstructed view of all water within 

the shutdown zone and as much of the 

Level B harassment zone as possible for 

pile driving/removal and/or drilling; 

(iv) Observers must be independent 

(i.e., not construction personnel); 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 42489 

(v) At least one PSO must have prior 

experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction 

activities; 

(vi) (Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; 

(vii) 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; 

(viii) The Port of San Francisco shall 

submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS; 

(f) Marine mammal location must be 

determined using a rangefinder and a 

GPS or compass; 

(g) Post-construction monitoring must 

be conducted for 30 minutes beyond the 

cessation of piling and drilling activities 

at end of day. 

6. Reporting 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to: 

(a) Submit a draft report on all 

monitoring conducted under the IHA 

within 90 calendar days of the 

completion of marine mammal 

monitoring. This report must detail the 

monitoring protocol, summarize the 

data recorded during monitoring, and 

estimate the number of marine 

mammals that may have been harassed, 

including the total number extrapolated 

from observed animals across the 

entirety of relevant monitoring zones. 

Given that the entire Level B harassment 

zone may not be readily observable, 

takes must be recorded and extrapolated 

based upon the amount of total observed 

takes and the percentage of the Level B 

harassment zone that was not visible. 

A final report must be prepared and 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of comments on the draft 

report from NMFS. This report must 

contain the following: 

(i) Date and time a monitored activity 

begins or ends; 

(ii) Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

(iii) Record of 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; 

(iv) An estimated total take 

extrapolated from the number of marine 

mammals observed during the course of 

construction activities, if necessary. 

(v) Deviation from initial proposal in 

pile numbers, pile types, average 

driving times, etc.; 

(vi) Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

(vii) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

(viii) Species, numbers, and, if 

possible, sex and age class of marine 

mammals; 

(ix) Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

(x) Distance from pile driving 

activities to marine mammals and 

distance from the marine mammals to 

the observation point; 

(x) Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

(xi) Other human activity in the area. 

(b) Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

(i) In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this IHA, such as an 

injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury, or mortality, The Port of San 

Francisco must immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast 

Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

1. Time and date of the incident; 

2. Description of the incident; 

3. Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

4. Description of all marine mammal 

observations and active sound source 

use in the 24 hours preceding the 

incident; 

5. Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

6. Fate of the animal(s); and 

7. Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Activities must not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS will work with the Port of San 

Francisco to determine what measures 

are necessary to minimize the likelihood 

of further prohibited take and ensure 

MMPA compliance. The Port of San 

Francisco may not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS; 

(i) In the event that the Port of San 

Francisco discovers an injured or dead 

marine mammal, and the lead observer 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

relatively recent (e.g., in less than a 

moderate state of decomposition), the 

Port of San Francisco must immediately 

report the incident to the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

West Coast Stranding Coordinator, 

NMFS; 

(ii) The report must include the same 

information identified in 6(b)(i) of this 

IHA. Activities may continue while 

NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS will work with the Port 

of San Francisco to determine whether 

additional mitigation measures or 

modifications to the activities are 

appropriate; 

(iii) In the event that the Port of San 

Francisco discovers an injured or dead 

marine mammal, and the lead observer 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., 

previously wounded animal, carcass 

with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

the Port of San Francisco must report 

the incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast 

Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 

24 hours of the discovery. The Port of 

San Francisco must provide 

photographs or video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS; 

7. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein, or if 

NMFS determines the authorized taking 

is having more than a negligible impact 

on the species or stock of affected 

marine mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, the Port’s 

potential sound source verification 

efforts, and any other aspect of this 

Notice of Proposed IHA for the 

proposed action. We also request 

comment on the potential for renewal of 

this proposed IHA as described in the 

paragraph below. Please include with 

your comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform our 

final decision on the request for MMPA 

authorization. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a second one-year IHA without 

additional notice when (1) another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Specified Activities 

section is planned or (2) the activities 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a second IHA would 

allow for completion of the activities 

beyond that described in the Dates and 

Duration section, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to expiration of 

the current IHA; 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted beyond the initial dates 

either are identical to the previously 

analyzed activities or include changes 

so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 

that the changes do not affect the 

previous analyses, take estimates, or 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
42490 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Notices 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements; and 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized; 

• Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

remain the same and appropriate, and 

the original findings remain valid. 

Dated: August 16, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18056 Filed 8–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG432 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of telephonic meeting. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

Observer Advisory Committee Subgroup 

will meet September 5, 2018. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, September 5, 2018, from 

1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

telephonically. Teleconference line: 

(907) 271–2896. 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W 

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252; telephone: (907) 271–2809. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Figus, Council staff; 

telephone: (907) 271–2809. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The agenda will include: A discussion 

of the Observer Program Fee Analysis 

developments since June 2018, 

including an outline, alternatives, 

monitoring objectives, and discussion of 

analysis methods. 

Public Comment 

Public comment letters will be 

accepted and should be submitted either 

electronically to Elizabeth Figus, 

Council staff: Elizabeth.figus@noaa.gov 

or through the mail: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W 

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252. In-person oral public 

testimony will be accepted at the 

discretion of the chair. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Shannon Gleason at (907) 271–2809 at 

least 7 working days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Dated: August 17, 2018. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18118 Filed 8–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG003 

Pacific Island Fisheries; Marine 

Conservation Plan for American 

Samoa; Western Pacific Sustainable 

Fisheries Fund 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of agency decision. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces approval of 

a marine conservation plan (MCP) for 

American Samoa. 

DATES: This agency decision is effective 

from July 25, 2018, through July 24, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

the MCP, identified by NOAA–NMFS– 

2018–0014, from the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://

www.regulations.gov/#!

docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018- 

0014, or from the Western Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council), 

1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, 

HI 96813, tel 808–522–8200, http://

www.wpcouncil.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabriel Forrester, Sustainable Fisheries, 

NMFS Pacific Island Regional Office, 

808–725–5179. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the 

Secretary of State, with the concurrence 

of the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) and in consultation with the 

Council, to negotiate and enter into a 

Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement 

(PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign 

fishing within the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to 

American Samoa, Guam, or the 

Northern Mariana Islands. The Governor 

of the Pacific Insular Area to which the 

PIAFA applies must request the PIAFA. 

The Secretary of State may negotiate 

and enter the PIAFA after consultation 

with, and concurrence of, the applicable 

Governor. 

Before entering the PIAFA, the 

applicable Governor, with concurrence 

of the Council, must develop and 

submit to the Secretary a 3-year MCP 

providing details on uses for and funds 

collected by the Secretary for MCP 

review and approval. NMFS is the 

designee of the Secretary for MCP 

review and approval. The MagnusonStevens Act requires payments received 

under a PIAFA to be deposited into the 

United States Treasury and then 

conveyed to the Treasury of the Pacific 

Insular Area for which funds were 

collected. 

In the case of violations by foreign 

fishing vessels in the EEZ around any 

Pacific Insular Area, amounts received 

by the Secretary attributable to fines and 

penalties imposed under the MagnusonStevens Act, including sums collected 

from the forfeiture and disposition or 

sale of property seized subject to its 

authority, shall be deposited into the 

Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area 

adjacent to the EEZ in which the 

violation occurred, after direct costs of 

the enforcement action are subtracted. 

The Pacific Insular Area government 

may use funds deposited into the 

treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for 

fisheries enforcement and for 

implementation of an MCP. 

Federal regulations at 50 CFR 665.819 

authorize NMFS to specify catch limits 

of longline-caught bigeye tuna for U.S. 

territories. NMFS may also authorize 

each territory to allocate a portion of 

that limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels 

that are permitted to fish under the 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic 

Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). 

Payments collected under specified 

fishing agreements are deposited into 

the Western Pacific Sustainable 

Fisheries Fund, and any funds 

attributable to a particular Fisheries 

Fund, and any funds attributable to a 

particular territory may be used only for 

implementation of that territory’s MCP. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1