10060 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 

7. Conduct a pilot study with some or 

all fishers from some or all island 

groups to evaluate the practicality of 

permits in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. 

The goal of these scoping meetings is 

to allow the public to comment on the 

options listed above and to provide 

alternative options not yet considered 

by the Council and NMFS. 

Copy of the Scoping Document to 

address the Development of Federal 

Permits in the U.S. Caribbean Exclusive 

Economic Zone can be found at http:// 

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_

fisheries/caribbean/index.html under 

Current Rule Making or and the 

Caribbean Council Web site at 

caribbeanfmc.com. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

For more information or request for sign 

language interpretation and other 

auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. 

Miguel A. Rolo ́n, Executive Director, 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 

270 Mun ̃oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918–1903, 

telephone (787) 766–5926, at least 5 

days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: February 20, 2015. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03892 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD444 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to San Francisco 

Bay Area Water Emergency 

Transportation Authority Central Bay 

Operations and Maintenance Facility 

Project in Alameda, California 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

take authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) regulations, notification is 

hereby given that NMFS has issued an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to the San Francisco Bay Area 

Water Emergency Transportation 

Authority (WETA) to take, by 

harassment, small numbers of two 

species of marine mammals incidental 

to pile driving and removal associated 

with the Central Bay Operations and 

Maintenance Facility Project in the City 

of Alameda, California, between 

December 1, 2015, through November 

30, 2016. 

DATES: Effective December 1, 2015, 

through November 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application 

containing a list of the references used 

in this document, NMFS’s 

Environmental Assessment (EA), 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), and the IHA may be obtained 

visiting the Internet at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental.htm#applications. 

Documents cited in this notice may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours, at 1315 East West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce 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 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

On April 9, 2014, NMFS received an 

application from WETA for the taking of 

marine mammals incidental to the 

construction of a Central Bay Operations 

and Maintenance Facility (Project). The 

purpose of the Project is to serve as the 

central San Francisco Bay (Bay) base for 

WETA’s ferry fleet. After NMFS 

provided comments on the draft IHA 

application, WETA submitted a revised 

IHA application on May 15, 2014. 

NMFS determined that the application 

was adequate and complete on July 31, 

2014. No changes was made for the 

proposed WETA’s construction Project 

as described in the proposed IHA except 

the Project duration was changed to 

December 1, 2015, through November 

30, 2016, from the original June 15 

through October 15, 2014, due to 

funding and other constraints. Please 

refer to Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA for a detailed description 

of the project activities. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to WETA was published in the 

Federal Register on September 17, 2014 

(79 FR 55479). That notice described, in 

detail, WETA’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission), the Sierra 

Club, the San Francisco Bay 

Conservation and Development 

Commission (BCDC), and 40 private 

citizens. 

All comments specific to WETA’s 

application that address the statutory 

and regulatory requirements or findings 

NMFS must make to issue an IHA are 

addressed in this section of the Federal 

Register notice. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends NMFS issue the IHA to 

WETA, subject to inclusion of the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures described in the proposed 

IHA. In addition, the Commission 

recommends that NMFS only authorize 

in-season adjustments in the sizes of the 

exclusion and/or disturbance zones 

(zones of influence) if the size(s) of the 

estimated zones are determined to be 

too small. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 10061 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission’s recommendation and has 

issued the IHA with mitigation and 

monitoring measures described below in 

this document, with the requirement 

that the exclusion and/or zones of 

influence be adjusted only of the size(s) 

of the estimated zones are determined to 

be too small. 

Comment 2: Citing WETA’s permit 

application to BCDC to construct the 

Central Bay Operations and 

Maintenance Facility Project, BCDC 

points out that an abandoned small craft 

floating dock located at the proposed 

project site that harbor seals use as a 

haul-out site, would be removed for the 

construction. BCDC states that there are 

relatively few haul-out locations in the 

Bay for harbor seals, and BCDC is 

concerned that removal of a haul-out 

location may result in harmful impacts 

to wildlife. The Sierra Club and 40 

private citizens also have concerns 

about the loss of a harbor seal haul-out 

due to the removal of the floating dock. 

BSDC recommends that NMFS review 

the potential habitat impacts associated 

with removal of these harbor seal haulout locations, including suggestions for 

mitigation and monitoring, where 

appropriate, as part of the IHA 

application for the project. 

Response: NMFS was not aware this 

issue during its initial analysis of 

potential impacts to the loss of one 

harbor seal haul-out site as a result of 

the proposed WETA construction 

project in the Bay. Therefore, the 

potential impact of marine mammal 

habitat did not address this in the 

Federal Register (79 FR 55479; 

September 17, 2014) for the proposed 

IHA. Subsequently, NMFS conducted 

further investigation and worked with 

NMFS West Coast Regional Office to 

assess the potential impacts to harbor 

seal haul-out and habitat in general in 

the Bay. 

The harbor seal haul-out site that 

would be affected is a small craft dock 

located at the project site and was 

abandoned by the Navy when it vacated 

the Naval Air Station-Alameda in 1997. 

The unmaintained dock has been 

deteriorating slowly over the last 17 

years and the deterioration has appeared 

to be accelerating in the last five years. 

In 2010, the portion connecting the 

floating dock to land broke off and sank, 

leaving remnant parts of the floating 

dock isolated from land. Since 2010, 

additional remnant parts of the marina 

have also been lost. During this period 

of time harbor seals have been 

opportunistically using the dock for 

haul-out purposes. At present, seals 

have been observed by local residents 

hauling out on the portion of the dock 

that is furthest from shore. 

It is observed that on an average, 

about 10 to 20 harbor seals use the 

floating dock as haul-out periodically. 

Although during the spring of 2014, one 

pup was observed reared at the floating 

dock, the site is not a known breeding 

area for harbor seal. Because the dock 

has been in a gradual state of decay 

since the closure of the naval base and 

will likely continue to fall apart, the 

haul-out area on the dock provided for 

harbor seals is expected to decrease and 

eventually disappear. 

Finally, several nearby haul-out sites 

are available in the Bay that are 

available to resident harbor seals in the 

area. These areas include the tip of 

Breakwater Island (1 mile from the 

WETA project site) and the haul-out at 

Yerba Buena Island (4 to 5 miles from 

the WETA project site) which is 

identified as one of the five major haulout sites for harbor seals in the San 

Francisco Bay (Gibble 2011). 

Therefore, the removal of the remnant 

abandoned dock would have negligible 

impact to harbor seal habitat in the 

proposed WETA construction site. 

NMFS has thoroughly reviewed 

WETA’s IHA application, including the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures to reduce potential impacts 

from the construction activities. These 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

include using noise attenuation devices 

for impact pile driving, power down/

shutdown of pile driving hammer if a 

marine mammal is observed 

approaching the exclusion zone, and 

monitoring the exclusion zones and 

zones of influence. Detailed description 

of these monitoring and mitigation 

measures and NMFS analysis is 

provided in the Federal Register (79 FR 

55479; September 17, 2014) for the 

proposed IHA, therefore, it is not 

repeated here. 

Comment 3: The Sierra Club and 

several private citizens recommend that 

NMFS requires WETA to construct a 

new haul-out dock nearby to 

compensate and mitigate the loss of 

harbor seal haul-out, if the current old 

floating dock is to be removed. 

Response: NMFS does not consider 

building an artificial harbor seal haulout is a good conservation measure to 

compensate for the loss of the old 

floating dock that is being used as a 

haul-out by 10–20 harbor seals. As the 

Sierra Club also stated in its comment, 

‘‘[i]n the case of the WETA ferry facility 

project, it is not a traditional natural 

shoreline that will be disturbed or 

destroyed.’’ The floating dock proposed 

to be removed is a manmade structure 

that is bound to disappear as it 

deteriorates and falls apart. To build 

another new structure without 

maintenance will likely have the same 

issue in the near future. Therefore, 

NMFS considers it better conservation 

practice not to construct a new structure 

just to replace the current deteriorating 

artificial one. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

The marine mammal species under 

NMFS jurisdiction most likely to occur 

in the proposed construction area 

include Pacific harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina richardsi) and California sea 

lion (Zalophus californianus). Although 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 

killer whale (Orcinus orca), and gray 

whale (Eschrichtius robustus) have been 

sighted near the vicinity of the proposed 

construction area, their presence at the 

activity area is considered unlikely, 

because the proposed construction area 

is not typical habitat for these species. 

The southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris) 

also may occur in the proposed 

construction area, but that species is 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and is not considered further in 

this proposed IHA notice. A list of the 

marine mammal species under NMFS 

jurisdiction and their abundance and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) status is 

provided in Table 1. 

Additional information on the marine 

mammal species found in California 

waters can be found in Caretta et al. 

(2013), which is available at the 

following URL: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/

po2012.pdf, and in the Federal Register 

notice (79 FR 55479) for the proposed 

IHA. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10062 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE 1—LIST OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION THAT OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE WETA 

CENTRAL BAY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock ESA Status Abundance 

California sea lion ................................... Zalophus californianus ........................... U.S. ........................ Not listed ................ 296,750 

Harbor seal ............................................. Phoca vitulina richardsi .......................... California ................ Not listed ................ 30,196 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and 

Marine Mammal Habitat 

The primary potential impacts to 

marine mammals and marine mammal 

habitat are associated with elevated 

sound levels, but the project may also 

result in additional effects to marine 

mammal prey species and short-term, 

local water turbidity caused by in-water 

construction due to pile removal and 

pile driving. These potential effects are 

discussed in detail in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA 

and are not repeated here. The potential 

affected habitat on harbor seal haul-out 

was not discussed in the proposed IHA 

because NMFS was not aware of that 

issue at the time. An analysis of the 

potential effect on the removal of a 

harbor seal haul-out is provided below. 

The harbor seal haul-out site that 

would be affected is a small craft dock 

located at the project site and was 

abandoned by the Navy when it vacated 

the Naval Air Station-Alameda in 1997. 

The unmaintained dock has been 

deteriorating slowly over the last 17 

years and the deterioration has appeared 

to be accelerating in the last five years. 

Later in 2010, the portion connecting 

the floating dock to land broke off and 

sank, leaving remnant parts of the 

floating dock isolated from land. Since 

2010, additional remnant parts of the 

marina have also been lost. During this 

period of time harbor seals have been 

opportunistically using the dock for 

haul-out purposes. At present, seals 

have been observed by local residents 

hauling out on the portion of the dock 

that is furthest from shore. 

It is observed that on an average, 

about 10 to 20 harbor seals use the 

floating dock as haul-out periodically. 

Although during the spring of 2014, one 

pup was observed reared at the floating 

dock, the site is not a known breeding 

area for harbor seal. Because the dock 

has been in a gradual state of decay 

since the closure of the naval base and 

will likely continue to fall apart, the 

haul-out area on the dock provided for 

harbor seals is expected to decrease and 

eventually disappear. 

Finally, several nearby haul-out sites 

are available in the Bay that are 

available to resident harbor seals in the 

area. These areas include the tip of 

Breakwater Island (1 mile from the 

WETA project site) and the haul-out at 

Yerba Buena Island (4 to 5 miles from 

the WETA project site) which is 

identified as one of the five major haulout sites for harbor seals in the San 

Francisco Bay (Gibble 2011). 

Therefore, the removal of the remnant 

abandoned dock would have negligible 

impact to harbor seal habitat in the 

proposed WETA construction site. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) 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 

(where relevant). 

For WETA’s proposed Central Bay 

Operations and Maintenance Facility 

Project, NMFS required the following 

mitigation measures to minimize the 

potential impacts to marine mammals in 

the Project vicinity. The primary 

purposes of these mitigation measures 

are to minimize sound levels from the 

activities, to monitor marine mammals 

within designated zones of influence 

corresponding to NMFS’ current Level B 

harassment thresholds and, if marine 

mammals with the ZOI appear disturbed 

by the work activity, to initiate 

immediate shutdown or power down of 

the piling hammer, making it very 

unlikely potential injury or hearing 

impairment to marine mammals would 

occur and ensuring that Level B 

behavioral harassment of marine 

mammals would be reduced to the 

lowest level practicable. 

Use of Noise Attenuation Devices 

Noise attenuation systems (i.e., bubble 

curtains) will be used during all impact 

pile driving of steel piles to dampen the 

acoustic pressure and reduce the impact 

on marine mammals. By reducing 

underwater sound pressure levels at the 

source, bubble curtains would reduce 

the area over which Level B harassment 

would occur, thereby potentially 

reducing the numbers of marine 

mammals affected. In addition, the 

bubble curtain system would reduce 

sound levels below the threshold for 

injury (Level A harassment), and thus 

eliminate the need for an exclusion zone 

for Level A harassment. 

Time Restrictions 

Work would occur only during 

daylight hours, when visual monitoring 

of marine mammals can be conducted. 

In addition, all in-water construction 

will be limited to the period between 

August 1 and November 30, 2016. 

Establishment of Harassment Zones of 

Influence 

Before the commencement of in-water 

pile driving activities, WETA shall 

establish Level B behavioral harassment 

zones of influence (ZOIs) where 

received underwater sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) are higher than 160 dB 

(rms) and 120 dB (rms) re 1 mPa for 

impulse noise sources (impact pile 

driving) and non-impulses noise sources 

(vibratory pile driving and mechanic 

dismantling), respectively. The ZOIs 

delineate where Level B harassment 

would occur. Because of the relatively 

low source levels from vibratory pile 

driving and from impact pile driving 

with air bubble curtains, there will be 

no area where the noise level would 

exceed the threshold for Level A 

harassment for pinnipeds, which is 190 

dB (rms) re 1 mPa. The modeled 

maximum isopleths for ZOIs are listed 

in Table 2. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 10063 

TABLE 2—MODELED LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES OF INFLUENCE FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES

Pile driving methods Pile material and size 

Distance to 120 

dB re 1 

μPa (rms) (m) 

Distance to 160 

dB re 1 

μPa (rms) (m) 

Impact pile driving with air bubble curtain .............. 30′′ epoxy coated steel piles ..................................

24′′ epoxy coated steel piles ..................................

18′′ epoxy coated steel piles ..................................

NA 

NA 

NA 

250 

185 

93 

Vibratory pile driving ............................................... 18′′ plastic fender piles ........................................... 2,154 NA 

In addition, although Level A 

harassment and injury by noise are not 

expected to occur due to 

implementation of noise attenuation 

devices and vibratory pile driving, a 

minimum shutdown zone of 10 m will 

be established during all pile driving 

and removal activities, regardless of the 

estimated zone. These precautionary 

measures are intended to prevent the 

already unlikely possibility of physical 

interaction with construction equipment 

and to establish a precautionary 

minimum zone with regard to acoustic 

effects. 

Once the underwater acoustic 

measurements are conducted during 

initial test pile driving, WETA shall 

adjust the sizes of the exclusion zones 

and ZOIs only if the measured exclusion 

zones and ZOIs are larger than modeled 

zones. These zones will be monitored as 

described under the Proposed 

Monitoring section below. 

Soft Start 

A ‘‘soft-start’’ technique is intended to 

allow marine mammals to vacate the 

area before the pile driver reaches full 

power. Whenever there has been 

downtime of 30 minutes or more 

without pile driving, the contractor will 

initiate the driving with ramp-up 

procedures described below. 

For vibratory hammers, the contractor 

will initiate the driving for 15 seconds 

at reduced energy, followed by a 1- 

minute waiting period. This procedure 

shall be repeated two additional times 

before continuous driving is started. 

This procedure would also apply to 

vibratory pile extraction. 

For impact driving, an initial set of 

three strikes would be made by the 

hammer at 40 percent energy, followed 

by a 1-minute waiting period, then two 

subsequent three-strike sets at 40 

percent energy, with 1-minute waiting 

periods, before initiating continuous 

driving. 

Shutdown Measures 

WETA shall implement shutdown 

measures for pile driving or pile 

removal activities if a marine mammal 

is sighted within or is about to enter the 

10 m exclusion zone. 

In addition, WETA shall discontinue 

pile driving or pile removal activities if 

a marine mammal within a ZOI appears 

disturbed by the work activity. Work 

may not resume until the animal is seen 

to leave the ZOI or 30 minutes have 

passed since the disturbed animal was 

last sighted. 

Furthermore, for in-water heavy 

machinery work with the potential to 

affect marine mammals (other than pile 

driving), if a marine mammal comes 

within 10 m, operations shall cease 

until the animal has left the shutdown 

zone or 15 minutes has passed. Heavy 

machinery work could include setting 

the pile and removal of the pile from the 

water column/substrate via a crane (i.e., 

dead pull). 

Finally, if any marine mammal 

species not authorized for take are 

encountered during pile driving or 

removal and are likely to be exposed to 

sound pressure levels (SPLs) greater 

than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for impact pile driving or greater than or 

equal to 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

vibratory driving or removal, then the 

Holder of this IHA must cease those 

activities prior to the animal entering 

the applicable Level B zone to avoid 

take. Activities cannot commence until 

the animal has left the Level B zone. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

mitigation measures and considered a 

range of other measures in the context 

of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species and stocks and their habitat. Our 

evaluation of potential measures 

included consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals. 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned. 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 

by NMFS should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(1) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

(2) A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to received levels 

of pile driving and pile removal or other 

activities expected to result in the take 

of marine mammals (this goal may 

contribute to 1, above, or to reducing 

harassment takes only). 

(3) A reduction in the number of 

times (total number or number at 

biologically important time or location) 

individuals would be exposed to 

received levels of pile driving and pile 

removal, or other activities expected to 

result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

(4) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to received levels of pile 

driving, or other activities expected to 

result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to a, above, or 

to reducing the severity of harassment 

takes only). 

(5) Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

(6) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10064 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 

practicable impact on marine mammals 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA 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 ITAs 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. WETA submitted a marine 

mammal monitoring plan as part of the 

IHA application. It can be found at 

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

incidental.htm. The plan may be 

modified or supplemented based on 

comments or new information received 

from the public during the public 

comment period. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

(1) An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the mitigation zone (thus allowing for 

more effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to generate 

more data to contribute to the analyses 

mentioned below; 

(2) An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of pile 

driving that we associate with specific 

adverse effects, such as behavioral 

harassment, TTS, or PTS; 

(3) An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

stimuli expected to result in take and 

how anticipated adverse effects on 

individuals (in different ways and to 

varying degrees) may impact the 

population, species, or stock 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival) through 

any of the following methods: 

D Behavioral observations in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); 

D Physiological measurements in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); 

D Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated stimuli versus times or 

areas without stimuli; 

(4) An increased knowledge of the 

affected species; and 

(5) An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

Monitoring Measures 

WETA shall employee NMFSapproved protected species observers 

(PSOs) to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring for its Central Bay 

Operations and Maintenance Facility 

Project. The PSOs will observe and 

collect data on marine mammals in and 

around the project area for 30 minutes 

before, during, and for 30 minutes after 

all pile removal and pile installation 

work. If a PSO observes a marine 

mammal within a ZOI that appears to be 

disturbed by the work activity, the PSO 

will notify the work crew to initiate 

shutdown measures. 

Monitoring of marine mammals 

around the construction site shall be 

conducted using high-quality binoculars 

(e.g., Zeiss, 10 × 42 power). Marine 

mammal visual monitoring shall be 

conducted from the best vantage point 

available, including the pier, 

breakwater, and adjacent docks within 

the harbor, to maintain an excellent 

view of the ZOIs and adjacent areas 

during the survey period. Monitors 

would be equipped with radios or cell 

phones for maintaining contact with 

work crews. 

Data collection during marine 

mammal monitoring will consist of a 

count of all marine mammals by 

species, a description of behavior (if 

possible), location, direction of 

movement, type of construction that is 

occurring, time that pile replacement 

work begins and ends, any acoustic or 

visual disturbance, and time of the 

observation. Environmental conditions 

such as weather, visibility, temperature, 

tide level, current, and sea state would 

also be recorded. 

Reporting Measures 

WETA would be required to submit 

weekly monitoring reports to NMFS that 

summarize the monitoring results, 

construction activities, and 

environmental conditions. 

A final monitoring report would be 

submitted to NMFS within 90 days after 

completion of the construction work. 

This report would detail the monitoring 

protocol, summarize the data recorded 

during monitoring, and estimate the 

number of marine mammals that may 

have been harassed. NMFS would have 

an opportunity to provide comments on 

the report, and if NMFS has comments, 

WETA would address the comments 

and submit a final report to NMFS 

within 30 days. 

In addition, NMFS would require 

WETA to notify NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources and NMFS’ 

Stranding Network within 48 hours of 

sighting an injured or dead marine 

mammal in the vicinity of the 

construction site. WETA shall provide 

NMFS with the species or description of 

the animal(s), the condition of the 

animal(s) (including carcass condition, 

if the animal is dead), location, time of 

first discovery, observed behaviors (if 

alive), and photo or video (if available). 

In the event that WETA finds an 

injured or dead marine mammal that is 

not in the vicinity of the construction 

area, WETA would report the same 

information as listed above to NMFS as 

soon as operationally feasible. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. 

As discussed above, in-water pile 

removal and pile driving (vibratory and 

impact) generate loud noises that could 

potentially harass marine mammals in 

the vicinity of WETA’s proposed Central 

Bay Operations and Maintenance 

Facility Project. 

Currently, NMFS uses 120 dB re 1 mPa 

and 160 dB re 1 mPa at the received 

levels for the onset of Level B 

harassment from non-impulse (vibratory 

pile driving and removal) and impulse 

sources (impact pile driving) 

underwater, respectively. Table 3 

summarizes the current NMFS marine 

mammal take criteria. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 10065 

TABLE 3—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE SOUND UNDERWATER

Criterion Criterion definition Threshold 

Level A Harassment (Injury) ........... Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) (Any level above that which is 

known to cause TTS).

180 dB re 1 μPa (cetaceans) 190 

dB re 1 μPa (pinnipeds) root 

mean square (rms). 

Level B Harassment ........................ Behavioral Disruption (for impulse noises) ............................................ 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

Level B Harassment ........................ Behavioral Disruption (for non-impulse noise) ...................................... 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

As explained above, ZOIs will be 

established that encompass the areas 

where received underwater SPLs exceed 

the applicable thresholds for Level B 

harassment. There will not be a zone for 

Level A harassment in this case, because 

the bubble curtain system will keep all 

underwater noise below the threshold 

for Level A harassment. 

Incidental take is estimated for each 

species by estimating the likelihood of 

a marine mammal being present within 

a ZOI during active pile removal or 

driving. Expected marine mammal 

presence is determined by past 

observations and general abundance 

near the project area during the 

construction window. Typically, 

potential take is estimated by 

multiplying the area of the ZOI by the 

local animal density. This provides an 

estimate of the number of animals that 

might occupy the ZOI at any given 

moment. However, this type of 

calculation is not applicable in this 

case, because the ZOI will be relatively 

small and there is no specific local 

animal density for harbor seals or 

California sea lions. Based on 

observational data, the maximum 

number of harbor seals observed along 

the closest breakwater near the project 

vicinity ranges from 10 to 20 

individuals. Observational data on 

California sea lions are not available, 

but they are generally less abundant 

than harbor seals; therefore, the number 

of harbor seals will be used to estimate 

impacts for both species. 

While it is unlikely that 10 to 20 

individuals would be present inside the 

ZOI at any one time, given the distance 

from the nearest haul-out site, as a 

worst-case, this analysis assumes that 

up to 20 individuals might be present. 

For the Project, the total number of 

pile removal hours is estimated to not 

exceed 18 hours over 3 days, and the 

total number of pile driving hours is 

estimated to not exceed 60 hours over 

10 days. Therefore, the estimated total 

number of days of activities that might 

impact marine mammals is 13 days. For 

the exposure estimate, it is assumed that 

the highest count of harbor seals 

observed, and the same number of 

California sea lions, will be foraging 

within the ZOI and be exposed multiple 

times during the Project. 

The calculation for marine mammal 

exposures for this Project is estimated 

by: 

Exposure estimate = N * (10 days of 

pile driving activity + 3 days of pile 

removal activity), where: 

N = # of animals potentially present 

= 20. 

This formula results in the following 

exposure estimate: 

Exposure estimate = 20 animals * 13 

days = 260 animals. 

Therefore, WETA is requesting 

authorization for Level B acoustical 

harassment of up to 260 harbor seals 

and up to 260 California sea lions due 

to pile removal and driving. A summary 

of the take estimates and the 

proportions of the stocks potentially 

affected is provided in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL MARINE MAMMAL TAKES AND PERCENTAGES OF STOCKS AFFECTED

Estimated density Estimated take by 

level B harassment Abundance of stock Percentage of stock potentially affected Population trend 

California sea lion ............................. NA ....................... 260 396,750 0.06% Stable. 

Harbor seal ....................................... NA ....................... 260 30,196 0.86% Stable. 

Analysis and Determinations 

Negligible Impact 

Negligible impact is ‘‘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 Level B harassment 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 behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, 

etc.), the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

migration, etc.), as well as the number 

and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, and effects on 

habitat. 

WETA’s proposed Central Bay 

Operations and Maintenance Facility 

Project would involve pile removal and 

pile driving activities. Elevated 

underwater noises are expected to be 

generated as a result of these activities; 

however, these noises are expected to 

result in no mortality or Level A 

harassment and limited, if any, Level B 

harassment of marine mammals. WETA 

would use noise attenuation devices 

(i.e., bubble curtains) during the impact 

pile driving, thus eliminating the 

potential for injury (including PTS) and 

TTS from impact driving. For vibratory 

pile removal and pile driving, noise 

levels are not expected to reach the level 

that may cause TTS, injury (including 

PTS), or mortality to marine mammals. 

Therefore, NMFS does not expect that 

any animals would experience Level A 

harassment (including injury or PTS) or 

Level B harassment in the form of TTS 

from being exposed to in-water pile 

removal and pile driving associated 

with WETA’s construction project. 

In addition, WETA’s proposed 

activities are localized and of short 

duration. The entire project area is 

limited to WETA’s Central Bay 

Operations and Maintenance Facility 

near Pier 3 in the City of Alameda. The 

entire Project would involve the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10066 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices 

removal of 35 existing concrete piles 

and installation of a total of 61 steel 

piles ranging from 18 inches to 30 

inches in diameter and 24 plastic piles 

of 18-inch diameter. The duration for 

pile removal is expected to be fewer 

than three days and the duration for pile 

driving is expected to be fewer than 10 

days, for a total of 13 days of activity. 

The duration for removing each pile 

would be about 30 minutes, and the 

duration for driving each pile would be 

about 10 to 30 minutes for impact steel 

pile driving and about 10 to 20 minutes 

for plastic vibratory pile driving. These 

low-intensity, localized, and short-term 

noise exposures may cause brief startle 

reactions or short-term behavioral 

modification by the animals. These 

reactions and behavioral changes are 

expected to subside quickly when the 

exposures cease. Moreover, the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to reduce 

potential exposures and behavioral 

modifications even further. 

Additionally, no important feeding and/ 

or reproductive areas for marine 

mammals are known to be near the 

proposed action area. Therefore, the 

take resulting from the proposed Central 

Bay Operations and Maintenance 

Project is not reasonably expected to, 

and is not reasonably likely to, 

adversely affect the marine mammal 

species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The Project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat, as 

analyzed in detail in the ‘‘Anticipated 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat’’ 

section in the Federal Register notice 

(79 FR 55479; September 17, 2014). The 

project activities would not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range, but because of the short 

duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from WETA’s 

Central Bay Operations and 

Maintenance Facility Project will have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Number 

Based on analyses provided above, it 

is estimated that approximately 260 

California sea lions and 260 Pacific 

harbor seals could be exposed to 

received noise levels that could cause 

Level B behavioral harassment from the 

proposed construction work at the 

WETA Central Bay Operations and 

Maintenance Facility in Alameda, CA. 

These numbers represent approximately 

0.06% and 0.86% of the stocks and 

populations of these species that could 

be affected by Level B behavioral 

harassment, respectively (see Table 4 

above), which are small percentages 

relative to the total populations of the 

affected species or stocks. 

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 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

which are expected to reduce the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

affected by the proposed action, NMFS 

finds that small numbers of marine 

mammals will be taken relative to the 

populations of the affected species or 

stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no subsistence uses of 

marine mammals in the proposed 

project area, and thus no subsistence 

uses impacted by this action. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that the total 

taking of affected species or stocks 

would not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

No species listed under the ESA are 

expected to be affected by these 

activities. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that a section 7 consultation 

under the ESA is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NMFS prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and analyzed the 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

that would result from WETA’s Central 

Bay Operations and Maintenance 

Facility project in Alameda, California. 

Therefore, A Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) was issued for this 

action. A copy of the EA and FONSI is 

available upon request. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to USCG for 

the potential harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammal species 

incidental to its waterfront repair 

project at Station Monterey in 

California, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: February 19, 2015. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03850 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD660 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Seabird Research 

Activities in Central California, 2015– 

2016 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) regulations, we hereby give 

notification that the National Marine 

Fisheries Service has issued an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to Point Blue Conservation 

Science (Point Blue), to take marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment, 

incidental to conducting seabird and 

pinniped research activities in central 

California, January 2015 through 

January 2016. 

DATES: Effective January 31, 2015, 

through January 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The public may obtain an 

electronic copy of the Point Blue’s 

application, supporting documentation, 

the authorization, and a list of the 

references cited in this document by 

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

permits/incidental/research.htm. In the 

case of problems accessing these 

documents, please call the contact listed 

here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

The Environmental Assessment and 

associated Finding of No Significant 

Impact, prepared pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, are also available at the same site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES