Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41215 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on 

the Draft PEA, please send comments 

via email to Joe Swaykos, NDBC Chief 

Scientist, at joe.swaykos@noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Swaykos, National Data Buoy Center, 

Bldg 3205, Stennis Space Center, MS 

39529; phone (228) 688–4766; fax 

(228)688–1364; email joe.swaykos@

noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) National Data 

Buoy Center (NDBC), a part of the 

National Weather Service (NWS), 

designs, develops, operates, and 

maintains a network of moored buoys 

and coastal stations throughout the 

world’s oceans, seas, and lakes for the 

purpose of civil earth marine 

observations. NDBC has prepared a 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment (PEA) to analyze the 

continued operational activities of its 

network of moored buoys and coastal 

stations. 

NDBC provides high quality ocean 

and coastal observations for public 

safety use in direct support of short 

range and extended range NWS 

forecasts, warnings, and watches. NDBC 

provides essential real-time 

oceanographic and meteorological 

observation data to stakeholders in key 

U.S. Economic Sectors, such as, Trade 

and Retail (i.e., maritime transportation) 

and Commercial sectors (i.e., energy, 

fishing, and agriculture). This valuable 

data provides users with up to the 

minute decision-making observations 

needed for safe commercial and marine 

recreation activities. 

NDBC operates a network composed 

of four formal NOAA Observing 

Systems of Record: (1) Coastal Weather 

Buoys (CWB); (2) the land-based 

Coastal-Marine Automated Network (C– 

MAN); (3) Tropical Atmosphere Ocean 

Array (TAO) and (4) Deep-ocean 

Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis 

(DART). Currently, NDBC’s network 

consists of 200 buoys and 46 C–MAN 

stations that transmit observations and 

data (i.e., wind speed and direction, 

barometric pressure, air temperature; 

sea surface temperatures, wave height 

and period, water currents, and 

conductivity) via satellite that are 

processed and quality-controlled, and 

then disseminated for public release in 

near real-time. 

In-situ real-time oceanographic and 

meteorological observations are critical 

to a wide variety of users such as 

federal, state, academic, and private 

industry stakeholders. These 

observations add value to a diverse 

spectrum of civil use applications 

including severe and routine weather 

forecasting; improved coastal ocean 

circulation models; commercial and 

recreational marine transportation and 

fishing; and environmental monitoring 

and research. The societal benefits of 

ocean observations are interconnected at 

local, regional, national, and 

international scales. The National Plan 

for Civil Earth Observations and the 

National Strategy for Sustained Network 

of Coastal Moorings identify the Societal 

Benefit Areas (SBAs) supported by 

NDBC ocean observations. These SBAs 

include scientific research, economic 

activities, and environmental and social 

domains. Many involve critical 

government functions, such as the 

protection of life and property (NSTC 

2014). The nine SBAs that are 

applicable to NDBC are: Climate; 

Coastal and Marine Hazards and 

Disasters; Ocean and Coastal Energy and 

Mineral Resources; Human Health; 

Ocean and Coastal Resources and 

Ecosystems; Marine Transportation; 

Water Resources; Coastal and Marine 

Weather; and Reference Measurements. 

Ocean observations are an 

indispensable component to measure 

and monitor our progress towards 

addressing societal challenges. Among 

the diverse sources of ocean 

observations, data buoys provide unique 

and invaluable information to support 

critical government functions, such as 

the protection of life and property. 

NDBC data are accessed on a daily basis, 

by millions of national and international 

stakeholders and assimilated into a 

myriad products and services. 

Dated: August 22, 2017. 

David Holst, 

Acting Chief Financial Officer/CAO, Office 

of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18415 Filed 8–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–KD–P 

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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41216 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 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 Nin ̃ 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

Species Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR 3

Relative occurrence in San 

Francisco Bay; season of 

occurrence 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena).

San Francisco-Russian 

River.

-; N 9,886 (0.51; 6,625; 2011) .... 66 Common. 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae (dolphins) 

Bottlenose dolphin 4

(Tursiops truncatus).

California coastal ................. -; N 453 (0.06; 346; 2011) .......... 2.4 Rare. 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Eschrichtiidae 

Gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus).

Eastern N. Pacific ................ -; N 20,990 (0.05; 20,125; 2011) 624 Rare. 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae 

Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

California/Oregon/Washington stock..

5T; S 1,918 (0.05; 1,876; 2014) .... 11 Unlikely. 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus).

U.S. ...................................... -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 

2011).

9,200 Common. 

Guadalupe fur seal 5

(Arctocephalus philippii 

townsendi).

Mexico to California ............. T; S 20,000 (n/a; 15,830; 2010) .. 91 Unlikely. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41218 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF ALAMEDA POINT—Continued 

Species Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, 

most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR 3

Relative occurrence in San 

Francisco Bay; season of 

occurrence 

Northern fur seal (Callorhinus 

ursinus).

California stock .................... -;N 14,050 (n/a; 7,524; 2013) .... 451 Unlikely. 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) California .............................. -; N 30,968 (n/a; 27,348; 2012) .. 1,641 Common; Year-round resident. 

Northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris).

California breeding stock ..... -; N 179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 2010) 4,882 Rare. 

1ESA 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. 3Potential 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). 4Abundance 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. 5The 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 (mPa) (root mean square 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41219 

(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory 

pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (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 mPa (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 nonimpulsive). 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

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-frequency cetaceans ............................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .................. Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-frequency cetaceans ............................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ................. Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-frequency cetaceans .............................................. Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ................. Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (underwaters) .................................... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ................ Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (underwater) ....................................... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ................ Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 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 * log10(R1/R2), where 

R1 = the distance of the modeled sound 

pressure level (SPL) from the driven pile, 

and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (freefield) environment not limited by depth 

or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source 

(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

source (10*log[range]). A practical 

spreading value of 15 is often used 

under conditions, 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). 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41220 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 3—EXPECTED PILE-DRIVING NOISE LEVELS AND DISTANCES OF LEVEL A THRESHOLD EXCEEDANCE WITH IMPACT

AND VIBRATORY DRIVER

Project element requiring pile installation 

Source levels at 10 meters (dB) Distance to Level A threshold in meters 

Peak SEL RMS Phocids Otariids LF * 

cetaceans 

MF * 

cetaceans 

HF * 

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. 

1Bubble 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

Project element requiring pile installation 

Source levels 

at 10 m 

(dB rms) 

Distance to 

Level B 

threshold, in 

meters 

Area of 

potential 

Level B 

threshold 

exceedance 

in square 

kilometers) 1

160/120 dB 

RMS 

(Level B) 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 

1For underwater noise, the Level B harassment (disturbance) threshold is 160 dB for impulsive noise and 120 dB for continuous noise. 2Bubble curtain attenuation (BCA). A bubble curtain will be used for impact driving and is expected to reduce the source level by 10 dB. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 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 FranciscoOakland 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: 

• 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. 

• Exposures were based on an 

estimated total of 22 work days. Each 

activity ranges in amount of days 

needed to be completed. 

• In the absence of site specific 

underwater acoustic propagation 

modeling, the practical spreading loss 

model was used to determine the ZOI. 

• All marine mammal individuals 

potentially available are assumed to be 

present within the relevant area, and 

thus incidentally taken; 

• An individual can only be taken 

once during a 24-hour period; and, 

• 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 

Nin ̃ 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

Activity Pile type Density Area 

(km2) 

Number of 

days of 

activity 

Take 

estimate 

Vibratory driving .................... 36-in and 42-in steel pile ...... 0.83 animal/km2 .................... 12.97 3; 8 77; 206 

Vibratory driving .................... 24-in steel pile ...................... 0.83 animal/km2 .................... 4.92 3 57 

Vibratory driving and removal 14-in steel H piles ................. 0.83 animal/km2 .................... 1.01 8 127 

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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41222 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

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

Activity Pile type Density Area 

(km2) 

Number of 

days of 

activity 

Take 

estimate∧ 

Vibratory driving .................... 36-in and 42-in steel pile ...... 0.09 animal/km2 .................... 12.97 3; 8 35; 93 

Vibratory driving .................... 24-in steel pile ...................... 0.09 animal/km2 .................... 4.92 3 13 

Vibratory driving .................... 14-in steel H piles ................. 0.09 animal/km2 .................... 1.01 8 7 

* All California sea lion estimates were multiplied by 10 to account for the increased occurrence of this species due to El Nin ̃o. 

∧ 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 Nin ̃ 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 Nin ̃ o events, for 

example, during the 2006 El Nin ̃ 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 Nin ̃ 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 Nin ̃ 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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 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 Nin ̃ 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

Pile type 

Piledriver 

type 

Number of 

driving 

days 

Estimated take by Level B harassment 

Harbor 

seal 

CA 

sea lion 1

Northern 

elephant 

seal 2

Harbor 

porpoise 2

Gray 

whale 2

Northern 

fur seal 2

Bottlenose 

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 ∧ 149 218 210 22 210 * 52 

1To account for potential El Nin ̃o conditions, take calculated from at-sea densities for California sea lion has been increased by a factor of 10. 2Take is not calculated by activity type for these species with a low potential to occur, only a yearly total is given. 

3Piles 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. 

∧ 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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41224 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

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

Hearing group 

Impact pile 

driving shutdown 

distance 

(meters) 

Vibratory pile 

driving 

shutdown distance 

(meters) 

Phocid (Harbor seal) 1 ................................................................................................................................. 1 30 30 

Phocid (Northern elephant seal) .................................................................................................................. 130 30 

Otariids and MFC * ...................................................................................................................................... 30 30 

LFC and HFC * ............................................................................................................................................ 300 30 

1A 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 finescale 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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 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 piledriving: Bubble curtains and pile 

cushions. WETA will employ the use of 

a bubble curtain during impact piledriving, 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: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species in action area (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41226 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) population, 

species, or stock; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

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: 

• 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; 

• During all observation periods, 

observers will use binoculars and the 

naked eye to search continuously for 

marine mammals; 

• If the shutdown zones are obscured 

by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile 

driving 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 

• 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 piledriving 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: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state); 

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

• Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of 

travel, and if possible, the correlation to 

SPLs; 

• Distance from pile driving or 

removal activities to marine mammals 

and distance from the marine mammals 

to the observation point; 

• Description of implementation of 

mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown or 

delay); 

• Locations of all marine mammal 

observations; and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

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: 

• Establish the distance to the 206-dB 

peak sound pressure criteria; 

• Verify the extent of Level A 

harassment zones for marine mammals; 

• Verify the attenuation provided by 

bubble curtains; and 

• Provide all monitoring data to 

NMFS. The reports will be submitted biweekly, 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- 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 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 longdistance 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 mPa. 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., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving 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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41228 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

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: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Level B harassment may consist of, 

at worst, temporary modifications in 

behavior (e.g., temporary avoidance of 

habitat or changes in behavior); 

• Mitigation is expected to minimize 

the likelihood and severity of the level 

of harassment; 

• The lack of important feeding, 

pupping, or other areas in the action 

area; and 

• 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-today, 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

Species 

Authorized 

Level B 

takes 

Authorized 

Level A 

takes 

Stock(s) 

abundance 

estimate 1

Percentage of 

total stock 

Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) California stock .................................................. 467 18 30,968 1.56 

California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) U.S. Stock .................................. 149 0 296,750 0.05 

Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) California breeding stock .. 18 0 179,000 0.010 

Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) California stock .................................. 10 0 14,050 0.071 

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) San Francisco-Russian River Stock 10 0 9,886 0.101 

Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Eastern North Pacific stock .................... 2 0 20,990 0.009 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) California coastal stock ................... 52 0 453 11.479 

1All 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. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF540 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Biorka 

Island Dock Replacement Project 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) for authorization 

to take marine mammals incidental to 

construction activities as part of its 

Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting public comment on its 

proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

FAA to incidentally take marine 

mammals, by Level A and Level B 

harassment, during the specified 

activity. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than September 29, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal 

should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, 

Chief, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Physical comments should be sent to 

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910, and electronic comments 

should be sent to ITP.mccue@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

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

incidental/construction.html without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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 Incidental Take Authorization 

(ITA) shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 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 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On March 31, 2017, NMFS received a 

request from the FAA for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving and removal and down the hole 

(DTH) drilling in association with the 

Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project 

(Project) in Symonds Bay, Alaska. The 

FAA’s request is for take of five species 

by Level A and Level B harassment. 

Neither the FAA nor NMFS expect 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

In-water work associated with the inwater construction is expected to be 

completed within 70 days. This 

proposed IHA is for the 2018 

construction window (May 1, 2018 

through September 30, 2018). This IHA 

would be valid from May 1, 2018, 

through April 30, 2019. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The FAA is constructing a 

replacement dock on Biorka Island in 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES