[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41215-41229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF457


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Central Bay Operations and 
Maintenance Facility Project

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

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
the San Francisco Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) to 
incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment, marine mammals 
during in-water construction activities associated with the Central Bay 
Operations and Maintenance Facility Project in Alameda, CA.

DATES: This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2017 through July 31, 
2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura McCue, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 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.
    The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, 
capture, kill or

[[Page 41216]]

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering (Level B harassment).

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to environmental 
consequences on the human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, 
which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for 
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for 
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would 
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined 
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review and signed a Categorical Exclusion memo in 
August 2017.

Summary of Request

    On May 3, 2017, NMFS received a request from WETA for an IHA to 
take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal in 
association with the Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility 
Project (Project) in Alameda, California. WETA's request is for take of 
seven species by Level A and Level B harassment. Neither WETA nor NMFS 
expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 
appropriate.
    This is the second year of a 2-year project. In-water work 
associated with the second year of construction is expected to be 
completed within 22 days. This proposed IHA is for the second phase of 
construction activities (August 1, 2017 through November 30, 2017). 
WETA received authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to 
these same activities for the first phase of construction in 2016 (80 
FR 10060; February 25, 2015). In addition, similar construction and 
pile driving activities in San Francisco Bay have been authorized by 
NMFS in the past. These projects include construction activities at the 
San Francisco Ferry Terminal (81 FR 43993, July 6, 2016); Exploratorium 
(75 FR 66065, October 27, 2010); Pier 36 (77 FR 20361, April 4, 2012); 
and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (71 FR 26750, May 8, 2006; 72 
FR 25748, August 9, 2007; 74 FR 41684, August 18, 2009; 76 FR 7156, 
February 9, 2011; 78 FR 2371, January 11, 2013; 79 FR 2421, January 14, 
2014; and 80 FR 43710, July 23, 2015). This IHA is valid from August 1, 
2017, through July 31, 2018.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    WETA is constructing a Central Bay Operations and Maintenance 
Facility to serve as the central San Francisco Bay base for WETA's 
ferry fleet, Operations Control Center (OCC), and Emergency Operations 
Center (EOC). The Project will provide maintenance services such as 
fueling, engine oil changes, concession supply, and light repair work 
for WETA ferry boats operating in the central San Francisco Bay. In 
addition, the project will be the location for operational activities 
of WETA, including day-to-day management and oversight of services, 
crew, and facilities. In the event of a regional disaster, the facility 
will also function as an EOC, serving passengers and sustaining water 
transit service for emergency response and recovery. A detailed 
description of the planned construction project is provided in the 
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 29486; June 29, 
2017). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned 
activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. 
Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the 
specific activity.
Comments and Responses
    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to WETA was published 
in the Federal Register on 82 FR 29486; June 29, 2017). 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 a 
letter from the Marine Mammal Commission and a group of private 
citizens. The Marine Mammal Commission noted they look forward to 
working with NMFS regarding rounding in take estimation.
    Comment 1: The group of private citizens recommend reviewing the 
construction process to ensure the maximum number of pilings is 
installed each day.
    Response: NMFS has reviewed the number of pilings that were 
proposed by WETA and while the goal is to install as many piles per day 
as possible, it was determined that the duration and number of piles 
were the most realistic scenario for this project. A total of 22 days 
of construction is expected, which NMFS considers to be short and will 
not have excessive impacts to marine mammals.
    Comment 2: The group of private citizens recommend that NMFS 
conduct more primary research on TTS and PTS thresholds in marine 
mammals using a study design that NMFS finds appropriate.
    Response: As required, NMFS used the best available science 
available when determining acoustic impacts to marine mammals from 
WETA's construction project. Any new research on marine mammal TTS and 
PTS thresholds will be considered in future authorizations.
    Comment 3: The group of private citizens recommend that NMFS 
require enhanced and continued monitoring even after pier construction 
and into ferry operations and further recommend that NMFS encourage 
WETA to install a second floating platform for harbor seals.
    Response: NMFS believes that the monitoring proposed by WETA is 
sufficient to not only document take, but to also increase our 
knowledge of the species during project activities. Additional research 
on harbor seal use of the haul out or associated harbor seal 
activities, or construction of a second is not required for the WETA 
Central Bay project.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
    There are seven marine mammal species that may inhabit or may 
likely transit through the waters nearby the project area, and are 
expected to potentially be taken by the specified activity. These 
include the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion 
(Zalophus californianus), northern elephant seal (Mirounga 
angustirostris), northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), harbor 
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and 
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Multiple additional marine 
mammal species may occasionally enter the activity area in San 
Francisco Bay but would not be expected to occur in shallow nearshore

[[Page 41217]]

waters of the action area. Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus philippii 
townsendi) generally do not occur in San Francisco Bay, however, there 
have been recent sightings of this species due to an El Ni[ntilde]o 
event. Only single individuals of this species have occasionally been 
sighted inside San Francisco Bay, and their presence near the action 
area is considered unlikely. No takes are requested for this species, 
and a shutdown zone will be in effect for this species if observed 
approaching the Level B harassment zone. Although it is possible that a 
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) may enter San Francisco Bay and 
find its way into the project area during construction activities, 
their occurrence is unlikely, since humpback whales very rarely enter 
the San Francisco Bay area. No takes are requested for this species, 
and a delay and shutdown procedure will be in effect for this species 
if observed approaching the Level B harassment zone.
    Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
San Francisco Bay near Alameda Point and summarizes information related 
to the population or stock, including potential biological removal 
(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy 
(2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, 
not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine 
mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum 
sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no 
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious 
injury and mortality are included here as gross indicators of the 
status of the species and other threats.
    A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected 
by WETA's project, including brief introductions to the species and 
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population 
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were 
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 
29486; June 29, 2017); since that time, we are not aware of any changes 
in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed 
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal 
Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' Web 
site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species 
accounts.
    Species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas, 
but are not expected to have reasonable potential to be harassed by in-
water construction, include extralimital species, which are species 
that do not normally occur in a given area but for which there are one 
or more occurrence records that are considered beyond the normal range 
of the species (e.g., humpback whales and Guadalupe fur seal). All 
other species in Table 1 may occur in the project area and we therefore 
have authorized take for them.

                  Table 1--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of Alameda Point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Stock abundance                 Relative
                                                     ESA/  MMPA     (CV, Nmin,  most           occurrence in San
            Species                   Stock            status;     recent  abundance  PBR \3\    Francisco Bay;
                                                   strategic  (Y/     survey) \2\                  season of
                                                       N) \1\                                      occurrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena       San Francisco-     -; N            9,886 (0.51;            66  Common.
 phocoena).                      Russian River.                     6,625; 2011).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Family Delphinidae (dolphins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin \4\          California         -; N            453 (0.06; 346;        2.4  Rare.
 (Tursiops truncatus).           coastal.                           2011).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Family Eschrichtiidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale (Eschrichtius        Eastern N.         -; N            20,990 (0.05;          624  Rare.
 robustus).                      Pacific.                           20,125; 2011).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Family Balaenopteridae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale (Megaptera       California/Oregon/ \5\ T; S        1,918 (0.05;            11  Unlikely.
 novaeangliae).                  Washington                         1,876; 2014).
                                 stock..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (Zalophus   U.S..............  -; N            296,750 (n/a;        9,200  Common.
 californianus).                                                    153,337; 2011).
Guadalupe fur seal \5\          Mexico to          T; S            20,000 (n/a;            91  Unlikely.
 (Arctocephalus philippii        California.                        15,830; 2010).
 townsendi).

[[Page 41218]]

 
Northern fur seal (Callorhinus  California stock.  -;N             14,050 (n/a;           451  Unlikely.
 ursinus).                                                          7,524; 2013).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Family Phocidae (earless seals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)..  California.......  -; N            30,968 (n/a;         1,641  Common; Year-
                                                                    27,348; 2012).              round resident.
Northern elephant seal          California         -; N            179,000 (n/a;        4,882  Rare.
 (Mirounga angustirostris).      breeding stock.                    81,368; 2010).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 (see footnote 3) 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\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not
  applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated
  CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be
  more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate.
\3\ Potential biological removal, 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 size (OSP).
\4\ Abundance estimates for these stocks are greater than eight years old and are, therefore, not considered
  current. PBR is considered undetermined for these stocks, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate
  for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates and PBR values, as these
  represent the best available information for use in this document.
\5\ The humpback whales considered under the MMPA to be part of this stock could be from any of three different
  DPSs. In CA, it would be expected to primarily be whales from the Mexico DPS but could also be whales from the
  Central America DPS.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat
    The effects of underwater noise from WETA's pile driving and 
removal activities for the Central Bay Operations and Maintenance 
Project have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine 
mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The Federal Register notice 
for the proposed IHA (82 FR 29486; June 29, 2017) included a discussion 
of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, therefore that 
information is not repeated here; please refer to that Federal Register 
notice for that information.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized through this IHA, which informed both NMFS' consideration of 
whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes are by Level A and Level B harassment, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to vibratory and impact pile driving and 
removal, and potential permanent threshold shift (PTS) for harbor seals 
that may transit through the Level A zone to their haulout. Based on 
the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the 
mitigation measures (i.e., bubble curtain, soft start, etc.--discussed 
in detail below in Mitigation section), Level A harassment is neither 
anticipated nor proposed to be authorized for all other species.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized 
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: 
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available 
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur 
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of 
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the 
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; 
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these 
components in more detail and present the 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., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 decibels (dB) re 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa) (root 
mean square

[[Page 41219]]

(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 
above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., 
seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
    WETA's proposed activities include the use of continuous (vibratory 
pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and 
therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance 2016) identifies dual criteria to 
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine 
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to 
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). 
WETA's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile 
driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.
    These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the 
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both 
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are 
provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology 
used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 
Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

                     Table 2--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    PTS onset acoustic thresholds *  (received level)
             Hearing group             -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Impulsive                          Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency cetaceans...............  Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;  Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                         LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-frequency cetaceans...............  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;  Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                         LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-frequency cetaceans..............  Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB;  Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                         LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (underwaters)........  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;  Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                         LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (underwater)........  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;  Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                         LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NMFS 2016.

Ensonified Area
    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds.
    Pile driving and removal 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 * log<INF>10</INF>(R<INF>1</INF>/R<INF>2</INF>), where
R<INF>1</INF> = the distance of the modeled sound pressure level 
(SPL) from the driven pile, and
R<INF>2</INF> = the distance from the driven pile of the initial 
measurement.

This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is 
assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound 
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of 
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of 
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and 
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed 
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, 
resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of 
distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs 
in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water 
surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level 
for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A 
practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions, such as 
at the Central Bay operations and maintenance facility, 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. Practical 
spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of 
distance) is assumed here.
    Underwater Sound--The intensity of pile driving and removal sounds 
is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, 
and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. A 
number of studies, primarily on the west coast, have measured sound 
produced during underwater pile driving projects. These data are 
largely for impact driving of steel pipe piles and concrete piles as 
well as vibratory driving of steel pipe piles.
    In order to determine reasonable source levels and their associated 
effects on marine mammals that are likely to result from vibratory or 
impact pile driving or removal at the Project area, we considered 
existing measurements from similar physical environments (e.g., 
substrate of bay mud and water depths ranging from 14 to 38 feet).
Level A Isopleths (Table 3)
    The values used to calculate distances at which sound would be 
expected to exceed the Level A thresholds for impact driving of and 36-
inch (in) and 42-in piles include peak values of 210 dB and anticipated 
SELs for unattenuated impact pile-driving of 183 dB, and peak values of 
203 dB and SEL values of 177 for 24-in piles (Caltrans 2015a). Bubble 
curtains will be used during the installation of these piles, which is 
expected to reduce noise levels by about 10 dB rms (Caltrans 2015a), 
which are the values used in Table 3. Vibratory driving source levels 
include 175 dB RMS for 42-in piles, 170 dB RMS for 36-in piles, 160 dB 
RMS for 24-in piles, and 150 dB RMS for 14-in H piles (Caltrans 2015a). 
The inputs for the user spreadsheet from NMFS' Guidance are as follows: 
For impact driving, 450 strikes per pile with 3 piles per day for 24-in 
piles, and 600 strikes per pile with 2 piles per day for 36-in and 42-
in piles. The total duration for vibratory driving of 14-in, 24-in, 36-
in, and 42-in piles were all approximately 10 minutes (0.166666, 
0.1708333 hours, 0.16666 hours, and 0.177777 hours, respectively).

[[Page 41220]]



               Table 3--Expected Pile-Driving Noise Levels and Distances of Level A Threshold Exceedance With Impact and Vibratory Driver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Source levels at 10 meters (dB)             Distance to Level A threshold in meters
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Project element requiring pile installation                                                                       LF *        MF *        HF *
                                                             Peak         SEL         RMS       Phocids    Otariids    cetaceans   cetaceans   cetaceans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in steel piles--Vibratory Driver.....................           -           -         175        11.3         0.8        18.5         1.6        27.4
42-in steel piles--Impact Driver (BCA)\1\...............         200         173           -         130         9.5         243         8.6       289.4
36-in Steel Piles--Vibratory Driver.....................           -           -         170           5         0.4         8.2         0.7        12.2
36-in Steel Piles--Impact Driver (BCA)\1\...............         200         173  ..........         130         9.5         243         8.6       289.4
24-in Steel Piles--Vibratory Driver.....................           -           -         160         1.1         0.1         1.8         0.2         2.7
24-in Steel Piles--Impact Driver (BCA)\ 1\..............         193         167           -          56         4.1       104.6         3.7       124.6
14-in H-piles--Vibratory Driver.........................           -           -         150         0.2           0         0.4           0         0.6
14-in H-piles--Vibratory Extraction.....................           -           -         150         0.2           0         0.4           0         0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Low frequency (LF) cetaceans, Mid frequency (MF) cetaceans, High frequency (HF) cetaceans.
\1\Bubble curtain attenuation (BCA). A bubble curtain will be used for impact driving and is assumed to reduce the source level by 10 dB. Therefore,
  source levels were reduced by this amount for take calculations.

Level B Isopleths (Table 4)
    Approximately 15 steel piles, 42-in in diameter, will be installed, 
with approximately 2 installed per day over 8 days. The source level 
for this pile size during impact driving came from the Caltrans summary 
table (Caltrans 2015a) for ``loudest'' values for 36 in piles at 
approximately 10 m depth.
    Approximately 6 steel piles, 36-in in diameter, will be installed, 
with approximately 2 installed per day over 3 days. The source level 
for this pile size during impact driving came from the Caltrans summary 
table (Caltrans 2015a) for ``typical'' values for 36 in piles at 
approximately 10 m depth.
    Approximately 8 steel piles, 24-in in diameter, will be installed, 
with approximately 3 installed per day over 3 days. The source level 
for this pile size during impact driving came from the Caltrans summary 
table (Caltrans 2015a) for 24 in piles at approximately 5 meter depth. 
The source level for this pile size during vibratory driving came from 
the Caltrans table for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction project 
(Caltrans 2015a).
    Approximately 20 14-in H piles (10 temporary and 10 permanent), 
with approximately 5 installed or removed per day over 8 days. The 
source level for this pile size during impact and vibratory driving 
came from the Caltrans summary table (Caltrans 2015a) for 10 in H 
piles.
    Tables 3 and 4 show the expected underwater sound levels for pile 
driving activities and the estimated distances to the Level A (Table 3) 
and Level B (Table 4) thresholds.
    When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition 
of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically 
challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new 
thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine 
mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going 
to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of 
overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way 
to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D-modeling 
methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to 
quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the 
output where appropriate. For stationary sources (such as WETA's 
Project), NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, 
if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the 
activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, 
and the resulting isopleths are reported below.

    Table 4--Expected Pile-Driving Noise Levels and Distances of Level B Threshold Exceedance With Impact and
                                                Vibratory Driver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Distance to       Area of
                                                                                      Level B        potential
                                                                                   threshold, in      Level B
                                                                   Source levels      meters         threshold
           Project element requiring pile installation             at 10 m  (dB  ---------------- exceedance  in
                                                                       rms)                           square
                                                                                  160/120 dB RMS    kilometers)
                                                                                   (Level B) \1\        \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in steel piles--Vibratory Driver.............................             175          46,416           12.97
42-in steel piles--Impact Driver (BCA) \1\......................         \2\ 183             341            0.27
36-in Steel Piles--Vibratory Driver.............................             170          21,544           12.97
36-in Steel Piles--Impact Driver (BCA) \2\......................         \2\ 183             341            0.27
24-in Steel Piles--Vibratory Driver.............................             160           4,642            4.92
24-in Steel Piles--Impact Driver (BCA) \2\......................         \2\ 180             215            0.13
14-in H Piles--Vibratory Driver.................................             150           1,000            1.01
14-in H Piles--Vibratory Extraction.............................             150           1,000            1.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For underwater noise, the Level B harassment (disturbance) threshold is 160 dB for impulsive noise and 120
  dB for continuous noise.
\2\ Bubble curtain attenuation (BCA). A bubble curtain will be used for impact driving and is expected to reduce
  the source level by 10 dB.


[[Page 41221]]

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.
    At-sea densities for marine mammal species have been determined for 
harbor seals and California sea lions in San Francisco Bay based on 
marine mammal monitoring by Caltrans for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay 
Bridge Project from 2000 to 2015 (Caltrans 2016); all other estimates 
here are determined by using observational data taken during marine 
mammal monitoring associated with the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 
retrofit project, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB), which 
has been ongoing for the past 15 years, and anecdotal observational 
reports from local entities.
Take Calculation and Estimation
    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    All estimates are conservative and include the following 
assumptions:
    <bullet> All pilings installed at each site would have an 
underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the 
greatest noise disturbance (i.e., the piling farthest from shore) 
installed with the method that has the largest zone of influence (ZOI). 
The largest underwater disturbance (Level B) ZOI would be produced by 
vibratory driving steel piles; therefore take estimates were calculated 
using the vibratory pile-driving ZOIs. The ZOIs for each threshold are 
not spherical and are truncated by land masses on either side of the 
project area, which would dissipate sound pressure waves.
    <bullet> Exposures were based on an estimated total of 22 work 
days. Each activity ranges in amount of days needed to be completed.
    <bullet> In the absence of site specific underwater acoustic 
propagation modeling, the practical spreading loss model was used to 
determine the ZOI.
    <bullet> All marine mammal individuals potentially available are 
assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally 
taken;
    <bullet> An individual can only be taken once during a 24-hour 
period; and,
    <bullet> Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant 
thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
    The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following 
calculation:
    For California sea lions: Level B exposure estimate = D (density) * 
Area of ensonification * Number of days of noise generating activities.
    For harbor seals: Level B exposure estimate = ((D * area of 
ensonification) + 15) * number of days of noise generating activities.
    For all other marine mammal species: Level B exposure estimate = N 
(number of animals) in the area * Number of days of noise generating 
activities.
    To account for the increase in California sea lion density due to 
El Ni[ntilde]o, the daily take estimated from the observed density has 
been increased by a factor of 10 for each day that pile driving or 
removal occurs.
    There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential instances 
of take may be overestimates of the number of individuals taken, 
assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated 
ZOI areas are accurate. We assume, in the absence of information 
supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the 
calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by 
the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary 
activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may 
be present, this number represents the number of instances of take that 
may accrue to a smaller number of individuals, with some number of 
animals being exposed more than once per individual. While pile driving 
and removal can occur any day throughout the in-water work window, and 
the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that 
time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent 
pile driving/removal. The potential effectiveness of mitigation 
measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in 
the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates 
may be conservative, especially if each take is considered a separate 
individual animal, and especially for pinnipeds.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
Harbor Seals
    Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been 
ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced at-sea 
density estimates for Pacific harbor seal of 0.83 animals per square 
kilometer for the fall season (Caltrans 2016). Since the construction 
of the new pier that is currently being used as a haul out for harbor 
seals, there are additional seals that need to be taken into account 
for the take calculation. The average number of seals that use the 
haulout at any given time is 15 animals; therefore, we would add an 
additional 15 seals per day. Using this density and the additional 15 
animals per day, the potential average daily take for the areas over 
which the Level B harassment thresholds may be exceeded are estimated 
in Table 5.

                                    Table 5--Take Calculation for Harbor Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Number of
           Activity                Pile type         Density       Area (km\2\)       days of     Take  estimate
                                                                                     activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving............  36-in and 42-in   0.83 animal/              12.97            3; 8         77; 206
                                steel pile.       km\2\.
Vibratory driving............  24-in steel pile  0.83 animal/               4.92               3              57
                                                  km\2\.
Vibratory driving and removal  14-in steel H     0.83 animal/               1.01               8             127
                                piles.            km\2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A total of 467 harbor seal takes are estimated for 2017 (Table 7). 
Because seals may traverse the Level A zone when going to and from the 
haul out that is approximately 300 m from the project area, it would 
not be practicable to shutdown every time. Therefore 18 Level A takes 
are requested for this species by assuming 1.6 harbor seals per day 
over 11 days of impact driving of 36-in and 42-in piles may enter the 
zone (see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the 
Specified Activity for information on seal occurrence per day). If the 
18 Level A takes have been met, WETA will then shutdown for all harbor 
seals within the Level A zones (Table 8). There will be two marine 
mammal observers (MMO) monitoring the zone in the most advantageous 
locations to spot marine mammals to initiate a shutdown to avoid take 
by Level A harassment.
California Sea Lion
    Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been 
ongoing

[[Page 41222]]

for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced at-sea density 
estimates for California sea lion of 0.09 animal per square kilometer 
for the post-breeding season (Caltrans 2016). Using this density, the 
potential average daily take for the areas over which the Level B 
harassment thresholds may be exceeded is estimated in Table 6.

                                Table 6--Take Calculation for California Sea Lion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Number of
           Activity               Pile type         Density       Area  (km\2\)      days of           Take
                                                                                    activity     estimate[caret]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving............  36-in and 42-in  0.09 animal/              12.97            3; 8           35; 93
                                steel pile.      km\2\.
Vibratory driving............  24-in steel      0.09 animal/               4.92               3               13
                                pile.            km\2\.
Vibratory driving............  14-in steel H    0.09 animal/               1.01               8                7
                                piles.           km\2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All California sea lion estimates were multiplied by 10 to account for the increased occurrence of this
  species due to El Ni[ntilde]o.
[caret] Total take number is 149, not 148 because we round at the end, whereas here, it shows rounding per day.

    All California sea lion estimates were multiplied by 10 to account 
for the increased occurrence of this species due to El Ni[ntilde]o. A 
total of 149 California sea lion takes is estimated for 2017 (Table 7). 
Level A take is not expected for California sea lion based on area of 
ensonification and density of the animals in that area.
Northern Elephant Seal
    Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been 
ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced an 
estimated at-sea density for northern elephant seal of 0.03 animal per 
square kilometer (Caltrans 2016). Most sightings of northern elephant 
seal in San Francisco Bay occur in spring or early summer, and are less 
likely to occur during the periods of in-water work for this project 
(June through November). As a result, densities during pile driving and 
removal for the proposed action would be much lower. Therefore, we 
estimate that it is possible that a lone northern elephant seal may 
enter the Level B harassment area once per week during pile driving or 
removal, for a total of 18 takes in 2017 (Table 7). Level A take of 
Northern elephant seal is not requested, nor is it authorized because 
although one animal may approach the large Level B zones, it is not 
expected that it will continue in the area of ensonification into the 
Level A zone. Further, if the animal does approach the Level A zone, 
construction will be shut down.
Northern Fur Seal
    During the breeding season, the majority of the worldwide 
population is found on the Pribilof Islands in the southern Bering Sea, 
with the remaining animals spread throughout the North Pacific Ocean. 
On the coast of California, small breeding colonies are present at San 
Miguel Island off southern California, and the Farallon Islands off 
central California (Carretta et al., 2014). Northern fur seal are a 
pelagic species and are rarely seen near the shore away from breeding 
areas. Juveniles of this species occasionally strand in San Francisco 
Bay, particularly during El Ni[ntilde]o events, for example, during the 
2006 El Ni[ntilde]o event, 33 fur seals were admitted to the Marine 
Mammal Center (TMMC 2016). Some of these stranded animals were 
collected from shorelines in San Francisco Bay. Due to the recent El 
Ni[ntilde]o event, northern fur seals were observed in San Francisco 
bay more frequently, as well as strandings all along the California 
coast and inside San Francisco Bay (TMMC, personal communication); a 
trend that may continue this summer through winter if El Ni[ntilde]o 
conditions occur. Because sightings are normally rare; instances 
recently have been observed, but are not common, and based on estimates 
from local observations (TMMC, personal communication), it is estimated 
that ten northern fur seals will be taken in 2017 (Table 7). Level A 
take is not requested or authorized for this species.
Harbor Porpoise
    In the last six decades, harbor porpoises were observed outside of 
San Francisco Bay. The few harbor porpoises that entered were not 
sighted past central Bay close to the Golden Gate Bridge. In recent 
years, however, there have been increasingly common observations of 
harbor porpoises in central, north, and south San Francisco Bay. 
Porpoise activity inside San Francisco Bay is thought to be related to 
foraging and mating behaviors (Keener 2011; Duffy 2015). According to 
observations by the Golden Gate Cetacean Research team as part of their 
multi-year assessment, over 100 porpoises may be seen at one time 
entering San Francisco Bay; and over 600 individual animals are 
documented in a photo-ID database. However, sightings are concentrated 
in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and Angel Island, north of 
the project area, with lesser numbers sighted south of Alcatraz and 
west of Treasure Island (Keener 2011). Harbor porpoise generally travel 
individually or in small groups of two or three (Sekiguchi 1995).
    Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been 
ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced an 
estimated at-sea density for harbor porpoise of 0.021 animal per square 
kilometer (Caltrans 2016). However, this estimate would be an 
overestimate of what would actually be seen in the project area since 
it is a smaller area than the monitoring area of SFOBB. In order to 
estimate a more realistic take number, we assume it is possible that a 
small group of individuals (five harbor porpoises) may enter the Level 
B harassment area on as many as two days of pile driving or removal, 
for a total of ten harbor porpoise takes per year (Table 7). It is 
possible that harbor porpoise may enter the Level A harassment zone for 
high frequency cetaceans; however, 2 MMOs will be monitoring the area 
and WETA would implement a shutdown for the entire zone if a harbor 
porpoise (or any other marine mammal) approaches the Level A zone; 
therefore Level A take is not being requested, nor authorized for this 
species.
Gray Whale
    Historically, gray whales were not common in San Francisco Bay. The 
Oceanic Society has tracked gray whale sightings since they began 
returning to San Francisco Bay regularly in the late 1990s. The Oceanic 
Society data show that all age classes of gray whales are entering San 
Francisco Bay, and that they enter as singles or in groups of up to 
five individuals. However, the data do not distinguish between 
sightings of gray whales and number of individual whales (Winning 
2008). 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

[[Page 41223]]

months of April and May. One gray whale was sighted in June, and one in 
October (the specific years were unreported). It is estimated that two 
to six gray whales enter San Francisco Bay in any given year. Because 
construction activities are only occurring during a maximum of 22 days 
in 2017, it is estimated that two gray whales may potentially enter the 
area during the construction period, for a total of 2 gray whale takes 
in 2017 (Table 7).
Bottlenose Dolphin
    Since the 1982-83 El Ni[ntilde]o, which increased water 
temperatures off California, bottlenose dolphins have been consistently 
sighted along the central California coast (Carretta et al., 2008). The 
northern limit of their regular range is currently the Pacific coast 
off San Francisco and Marin County, and they occasionally enter San 
Francisco Bay, sometimes foraging for fish in Fort Point Cove, just 
east of the Golden Gate Bridge. Members of this stock are transient and 
make movements up and down the coast, and into some estuaries, 
throughout the year. Bottlenose dolphins are being observed in San 
Francisco bay more frequently in recent years (TMMC, personal 
communication). Groups with an average group size of five animals enter 
the bay and occur near Yerba Buena Island once per week for a two week 
stint and then depart the bay (TMMC, personal communication). Assuming 
groups of five individuals may enter San Francisco Bay approximately 
three times during the construction activities, and may enter the 
ensonified area once per week over the two-week stint, for a total of 
30 takes of bottlenose dolphins. Additionally, in the summer of 2015, a 
lone bottlenose dolphin was seen swimming in the Oyster Point area of 
South San Francisco (GGCR 2016). We estimate that this lone bottlenose 
dolphin may be present in the project area each day of construction, an 
additional 22 takes. The 30 takes for a small group, and the 22 takes 
for the lone bottlenose dolphin equate to 52 bottlenose dolphin takes 
for 2017 (Table 7).

                                                  Table 7--Calculations for Incidental Take Estimation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Estimated take by Level B harassment
                                                          Number of ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pile type               Pile-  driver  type    driving                            Northern     Harbor                 Northern
                                                            days       Harbor      CA  sea    elephant    porpoise   Gray whale   fur seal    Bottlenose
                                                                        seal      lion \1\    seal \2\       \2\         \2\         \2\       dolphin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-in steel pile.................  Vibratory \3\.......           8          77          35          NA          NA          NA          NA            8
36-in steel......................  Vibratory \3\.......           3         206          93          NA          NA          NA          NA            3
24-in steel piles................  Vibratory \3\.......           3          57          13          NA          NA          NA          NA            3
14-in steel H pile...............  Vibratory...........           8         127           7          NA          NA          NA          NA            8
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Project Total (2017).........  ....................          22         467     [caret]       \2\18       \2\10        \2\2       \2\10         * 52
                                                                                        149
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To account for potential El Ni[ntilde]o conditions, take calculated from at-sea densities for California sea lion has been increased by a factor of
  10.
\2\ Take is not calculated by activity type for these species with a low potential to occur, only a yearly total is given.
\3\ Piles of this type may also be installed with an impact hammer, which would reduce the estimated take.
* Total take includes an additional 30 takes to account for a transitory group of dolphins that may occur in the project area over the course of the
  project.
[caret] Total take number is 149, not 148 because we round at the end, whereas here, it shows rounding per day.

Mitigation Measures

    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 balance 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--
which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that 
the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of 
effective implementation, and;
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with 
practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see 
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment); these values were used to 
develop mitigation measures for pile driving and removal activities at 
the Project area. The ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone 
that would be established around each pile to prevent Level A 
harassment to marine mammals, while providing estimates of the areas 
within which Level B harassment might occur. In addition to the 
specific measures described later in this section, WETA would conduct 
briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal 
monitoring team, and WETA staff prior to the start of all pile driving 
activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain 
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring 
protocol, and operational procedures.

Monitoring and Shutdown for Construction Activities

    The following measures would apply to WETA's mitigation through 
shutdown and disturbance zones:
    Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities, WETA will establish 
a shutdown zone intended to contain the area in which SPLs equal or 
exceed the auditory injury criteria for cetaceans and pinnipeds. The 
purpose of a shutdown zone is to define an area within which shutdown 
of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in 
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus

[[Page 41224]]

preventing injury of marine mammals (as described previously under 
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals, serious 
injury or death are unlikely outcomes even in the absence of mitigation 
measures). Modeled radial distances for shutdown zones are shown in 
Table 8. However, a minimum shutdown zone of 30 meters will be 
established during all pile driving activities, regardless of the 
estimated zone.

      Table 8--Shutdown Zones for Impact and Vibratory Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Impact pile       Vibratory pile
                                     driving shutdown  driving  shutdown
           Hearing group                 distance           distance
                                         (meters)           (meters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phocid (Harbor seal) \1\..........             \1\ 30                 30
Phocid (Northern elephant seal)...                130                 30
Otariids and MFC *................                 30                 30
LFC and HFC *.....................                300                 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A minimum shut down zone of 30 meters is established for Pacific
  harbor seal, in the event that all Level A take authorized for this
  species is used (18), an exclusion zone of 130 meters for 42- and 36-
  in piles, and an exclusion zone of 60 meters for 24-in piles will be
  used for the remainder of impact pile driving.
* MFC = Mid-frequency cetacean, LFC = Low-frequency cetacean, HFC = High-
  frequency cetacean.

    Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs 
equal or exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for impulse and continuous sound, 
respectively). Disturbance 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 greater detail later (see Monitoring and 
Reporting). Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are shown in 
Table 4.
    Given the size of the disturbance zone for vibratory pile driving, 
it is impossible to guarantee that all animals would be observed or to 
make comprehensive observations of fine-scale behavioral reactions to 
sound, and only a portion of the zone (e.g., what may be reasonably 
observed by visual observers stationed within the bay) would be 
observed. In order to document observed instances of harassment, 
monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. 
The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being 
driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as 
a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location 
from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed 
to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of 
predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of 
observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed 
incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to 
extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of 
actual total takes.
    Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring would be conducted before, during, 
and after pile driving and vibratory removal activities. In addition, 
observers shall record all instances of marine mammal occurrence, 
regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral 
reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven. 
Observations made outside the shutdown zone will not result in 
shutdown; that pile segment would be completed without cessation, 
unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which 
point all pile driving activities would be halted. Monitoring will take 
place from 30 minutes prior to initiation through thirty minutes post-
completion of pile driving and removal activities. Pile driving 
activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or 
series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile 
driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes. Please see the Monitoring 
Plan (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm), 
developed by WETA in agreement with NMFS, for full details of the 
monitoring protocols.
    The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
    (1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will 
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. A minimum of two 
observers will be required for all pile driving/removal activities. MMO 
requirements for construction actions are as follows:
    (a) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required;
    (b) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer;
    (c) Other observers (that do not have prior experience) may 
substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or 
related field) or training for experience;
    (d) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer; and
    (e) NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
    (2) Qualified MMOs are trained biologists, and need the following 
additional minimum qualifications:
    (a) 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;
    (b) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols;
    (c) Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
    (d) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
    (e) 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 and times when in-water construction activities were 
suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from

[[Page 41225]]

construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown 
zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
    (f) 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.
    (3) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone 
will be monitored for thirty minutes to ensure that it is clear of 
marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have 
declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be 
allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own 
volition) and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The 
shutdown zone may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, 
when the entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by 
dark, rain, fog, etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise 
during impact pile driving that is already underway, the activity would 
be halted.
    (4) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone 
during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted 
and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been 
visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have 
passed without re-detection of small cetaceans and pinnipeds, and 
thirty minutes for gray whales. Monitoring will be conducted throughout 
the time required to drive a pile.
    (5) Using delay and shut-down procedures, if a species for which 
authorization has not been granted (including but not limited to 
Guadalupe fur seals and humpback whales) or if a species for which 
authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, 
approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone, 
activities will shut down immediately and not restart until the animals 
have been confirmed to have left the area.

Soft Start

    The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional 
protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave 
the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically 
involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced 
energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two 
additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy 
for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for 
impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will 
vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in 
``bouncing'' of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in 
multiple ``strikes.'' For impact driving, we require an initial set of 
three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 
30-second waiting period, then 2 subsequent 3-strike sets. Soft start 
will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving 
work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of 30 
minutes or longer.

Sound Attenuation Devices

    Two types of sound attenuation devices will be used during impact 
pile-driving: Bubble curtains and pile cushions. WETA will employ the 
use of a bubble curtain during impact pile-driving, which is assumed to 
reduce the source level by 10 dB. WETA will also employ the use of 12-
in-thick wood cushion block on impact hammers to attenuate underwater 
sound levels.
    We have carefully evaluated WETA's planned mitigation measures and 
considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine 
whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the 
affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat.
    Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe 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 number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals 
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may 
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment 
only);
    (3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine 
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental 
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by 
behavioral harassment only);
    (4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to 
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only);
    (5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or 
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat 
during a biologically important time; and
    (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 WETA's planned measures, as well as any 
other potential measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that 
the planned mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the 
least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
action area. Effective reporting is critical to both compliance and 
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:
    <bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g., 
presence, abundance, distribution, density);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;

[[Page 41226]]

    <bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
population, species, or stock;
    <bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
    <bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    WETA's monitoring and reporting is also described in their Marine 
Mammal Monitoring Plan, online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.

Visual Marine Mammal Observations

    WETA will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to 
construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of 
activity during the period of activity. All MMOs will be trained in 
marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no 
other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. A minimum 
of two MMOs will be required for all pile driving/removal activities. 
WETA will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, 
during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best 
practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, WETA will 
implement the following procedures for pile driving and removal:
    <bullet> MMOs will be located at the best vantage point(s) in order 
to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance 
zone as possible;
    <bullet> During all observation periods, observers will use 
binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;
    <bullet> If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting 
conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until 
that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving 
is underway, the activity would be halted; and
    <bullet> The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be 
monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after 
any pile driving or removal activity.
    Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its 
effectiveness using an adaptive approach. The monitoring biologists 
will use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and 
seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any 
modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and WETA.
    In addition, the MMO(s) will survey the potential Level A and 
nearby Level B harassment zones (areas within approximately 2,000 feet 
of the pile-driving area observable from the shore) on 2 separate 
days--no earlier than 7 days before the first day of construction--to 
establish baseline observations. Special attention will be given to the 
harbor seal haul-out sites in proximity to the project (i.e., the 
harbor seal platform and Breakwater Island). Monitoring will be timed 
to occur during various tides (preferably low and high tides) during 
daylight hours from locations that provide the best vantage point 
available, including the pier, breakwater, and adjacent docks within 
the harbor. The information collected from baseline monitoring will be 
used for comparison with results of monitoring during pile-driving 
activities.

Data Collection

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

Hydroacousting Monitoring

    The monitoring will be done in accordance with the methodology 
outlined in this Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan (see Appendix B of 
WETA's application for more information on this Plan, including the 
methodology, equipment, and reporting information). The monitoring is 
based on dual metric criteria that will include the following:
    <bullet> Establish the distance to the 206-dB peak sound pressure 
criteria;
    <bullet> Verify the extent of Level A harassment zones for marine 
mammals;
    <bullet> Verify the attenuation provided by bubble curtains; and
    <bullet> Provide all monitoring data to NMFS. The reports will be 
submitted bi-weekly, unless WETA proposes to modify the zones based on 
the hydroacoustic measurement, in which case WETA would report those 
data before zone modification. The reports would include the following 
information:
    1. Size and type of piles;
    2. A detailed description of the noise attenuation device, 
including design specifications;
    3. The impact hammer energy rating used to drive the piles, and the 
make and model of the hammer and the output energy;
    4. The physical characteristics of the bottom substrate into which 
the piles were driven;
    5. The depth of water in which the pile was driven;
    6. The depth into the substrate that the pile was driven;
    7. A description of the sound monitoring equipment;
    8. The distance between hydrophones and pile;
    9. The depth of the hydrophones and depth of water at hydrophone 
locations;
    10. The distance from the pile to the water's edge;
    11. The total number of strikes to drive each pile and for all 
piles driven during a 24-hour period;
    12. The results of the hydroacoustic monitoring, as described under 
Signal Processing;
    13. The distance at which peak, cumulative SEL, and RMS values 
exceed the respective threshold values;
    14. The 30 second average for the duration of each pile;
    15. The spectra graphs for each pile type; and
    16. A description of any observable fish, marine mammal, or bird 
behavior in the immediate area and, if possible, correlation to 
underwater sound levels occurring at that time.
    A minimum of five piles of each size and type of piles to be impact 
driven will be monitored, including five of the 36-in-diameter donut 
piles, five of the 42-in-diameter guide piles; and five of the 24-in-
diameter dolphin piles; and two piles of the 42-in steel piles and 14-

[[Page 41227]]

in H piles to be vibratory driven will be monitored. Piles chosen to be 
monitored will be representative of the different sizes and range of 
typical water depths at the project location where piles will be driven 
with an impact or vibratory hammer.
    One hydrophone will be placed at mid-water depth at the nearest 
distance, approximately 10 meters, from each pile being monitored. An 
additional hydrophone will be placed at mid-water depth at a distance 
of 20 to 50 meters from the pile to provide two sound-level readings 
during ambient and pile driving conditions. A third hydrophone may be 
deployed at a greater distance (e.g., 100 meters or further) for the 
purpose of better defining the long-distance sound propagation. 
Underwater sound levels will be continuously monitored during the 
entire duration of each pile being driven. The peak, rms (impulse 
level), and SEL level of each strike will be monitored in real time. 
The cSEL will also be monitored live, assuming no contamination from 
other noise sources. Sound levels will be measured in dB re: 1 [mu]Pa. 
For more details on the methodology of WETA's hydroacoustic monitoring, 
please see Appendix B of their application.

Reporting

    A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the 
completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the 
requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same 
location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal 
observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during 
pile driving and removal days, and will also provide descriptions of 
any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals 
and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results 
of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the 
number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A 
final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of 
comments on the draft report.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determinations
    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    Pile driving and removal activities associated with the facility 
construction project, as outlined previously, have the potential to 
disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified 
activities may result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B 
harassment (PTS and behavioral disturbance, respectively), from 
underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential 
takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the 
ensonified zone when pile driving and removal occurs.
    No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the 
nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the 
possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these 
outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the 
implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, 
vibratory hammers will be the primary method of installation (impact 
driving is included only as a contingency). Impact pile driving 
produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper 
rise time to reach those peaks. If impact driving is necessary, 
implementation of soft start and shutdown zones significantly reduces 
any possibility of injury. Given sufficient ``notice'' through use of 
soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move 
away from a sound source that is annoying prior to it becoming 
potentially injurious. WETA will also employ the use of 12-in-thick 
wood cushion block on impact hammers, and a bubble curtain as sound 
attenuation devices. Environmental conditions at Alameda Point mean 
that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high, 
enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid 
injury.
    WETA's planned activities are localized and of relatively short 
duration (a maximum of 22 days for pile driving and removal). The 
entire project area is limited to the Central Bay operations and 
maintenance facility area and its immediate surroundings. These 
localized and short-term noise exposures may cause short-term 
behavioral modifications in harbor seals, northern fur seals, northern 
elephant seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, bottlenose 
dolphins, and gray whales. Moreover, the mitigation and monitoring 
measures are expected to reduce the likelihood of injury and behavior 
exposures. Additionally, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas 
for marine mammals are known to be within the ensonified area during 
the construction time frame.
    The project also is not expected to have significant adverse 
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities 
would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant 
amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of 
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging 
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range. However, 
because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively 
small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine 
mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term 
negative consequences.
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the 
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other 
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as 
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased 
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 
2006; Lerma 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from 
the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile 
driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only 
in association with impact pile driving. Thus, even repeated Level B 
harassment of some small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to 
result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for the affected

[[Page 41228]]

individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the 
stock as a whole. For harbor seals that may transit through the 
ensonified area to get to their haul out located approximately 300 m 
from the project area, Level A harassment may occur. However, harbor 
seals are not expected to be in the injurious ensonified area for long 
periods of time; therefore, the potential for those seals to actually 
have PTS is considered unlikely and any PTS they may incur would likely 
be of a low level.
    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:
    <bullet> No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or 
authorized;
    <bullet> Level B harassment may consist of, at worst, temporary 
modifications in behavior (e.g., temporary avoidance of habitat or 
changes in behavior);
    <bullet> Mitigation is expected to minimize the likelihood and 
severity of the level of harassment;
    <bullet> The lack of important feeding, pupping, or other areas in 
the action area; and
    <bullet> The small percentage of the stock that may be affected by 
project activities (<11.479 percent for all species).
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from WETA's 
construction activities will have a negligible impact on the affected 
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified 
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not 
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are 
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most 
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in 
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small 
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may 
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of 
the activities.
    Table 9 details the number of instances that animals could be 
exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B 
behavioral harassment for the proposed work at the project site 
relative to the total stock abundance. The numbers of animals 
authorized to be taken for all species would be considered small 
relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated 
instance of take occurred to a new individual--an extremely unlikely 
scenario. The total percent of the population (if each instance was a 
separate individual) for which take is requested is approximately 1.56 
percent for harbor seals, approximately 11 percent for bottlenose 
dolphins, and less than 1 percent for all other species (Table 9). For 
pinnipeds, especially harbor seals occurring in the vicinity of the 
project area, there will almost certainly be some overlap in 
individuals present day-to-day, and the number of individuals taken is 
expected to be notably lower.
    Based on 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.

                          Table 9--Estimated Numbers and Percentage of Stock That Taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Stock(s)
                     Species                        Authorized      Authorized       abundance     Percentage of
                                                   Level B takes   Level A takes   estimate \1\     total stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) California stock...             467              18          30,968            1.56
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)                 149               0         296,750            0.05
 U.S. Stock.....................................
Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris)              18               0         179,000           0.010
 California breeding stock......................
Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus)                       10               0          14,050           0.071
 California stock...............................
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) San                       10               0           9,886           0.101
 Francisco-Russian River Stock..................
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Eastern North               2               0          20,990           0.009
 Pacific stock..................................
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)                       52               0             453          11.479
 California coastal stock.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All stock abundance estimates presented here are from the 2015 Pacific Stock Assessment Report.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would 
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such 
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the West Coast regional 
Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize 
take for endangered or threatened species.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammal species is 
authorized or expected to result from these activities. Therefore, NMFS 
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is 
not required for this action.
Authorization
    NMFS has issued an IHA to WETA for the potential harassment of 
small numbers of seven species of marine mammals incidental to the 
Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility Project in Alameda, CA, 
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting.


[[Page 41229]]


    Dated: August 24, 2017.
Donna Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-18349 Filed 8-25-17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P