[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29521-29535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF318


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the San Francisco Ferry Terminal 
Expansion Project, South Basin Improvements Project

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

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS received a request from the San Francisco Bay Area Water 
Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) for authorization to take 
marine mammals incidental to construction activities as part of a ferry 
terminal expansion and improvements project. Pursuant to the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to WETA to incidentally take 
marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, during the specified 
activity.

DATES: This Authorization is effective from June 1, 2017 through May 
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 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 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 with respect to environmental 
consequences on the human environment.
    NMFS published an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2016 on WETA's 
ferry terminal construction activities. NMFS found that there would be 
no significant impacts to the human environment and signed a finding of 
no significant impact (FONSI) on June 28, 2016. Because the activities 
and analysis are the same as WETA's 2016 activities, NMFS used the 
existing EA and signed a FONSI in May 2017 for WETA's 2017 activities.

Summary of Request

    NMFS received a request from WETA for an IHA to take marine mammals 
incidental to pile driving and removal in association with the San 
Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project, South Basin Improvements 
Project (Project) in San Francisco Bay, California. In-water work 
associated with the project is expected to be completed within 23 
months. This IHA is for the first phase of construction activities 
(June 1, 2017-May 31, 2018).
    The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving and removal is 
expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential 
to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Seven species of 
marine mammals have the potential to be affected by the specified 
activities: 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). These species may occur year round in the action 
area.
    WETA received authorization for take of marine mammals incidental 
to these same activities in 2016 (81 FR 43993; July 6, 2016); however 
construction activities did not occur. Therefore, the specified 
activities described in the previous IHA are identical to the 
activities described here. 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 
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).

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    The WETA is expanding berthing capacity at the Downtown San 
Francisco Ferry Terminal (Ferry Terminal), located at the San Francisco 
Ferry Building (Ferry Building), to support existing and future planned 
water transit services operated on San Francisco Bay by WETA and WETA's 
emergency operations. A detailed description of the planned 
construction project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the 
proposed IHA (82 FR 17799; April 13, 2017). Since that time, no changes 
have been made to the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed 
description is not provided here. Please

[[Page 29522]]

refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the 
specific activity.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to WETA was published 
in the Federal Register on April 13, 2017 (82 FR 17799). That notice 
described, in detail, WETA's activity, the marine mammal species that 
may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine 
mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received 
comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and one private 
citizen.
    Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS consult with both 
internal and external scientists and acousticians to determine the 
appropriate accumulation time that action proponents should use to 
determine the extent of the Level A harassment zones based on the 
associated Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) cumulative sound exposure 
level (SELcum) thresholds for stationary sound sources.
    Response: NMFS will take the Commission's recommendation into 
consideration and will consult with internal scientists on this issue 
in the future; however it does not change our isopleths or the number 
of takes for this specific action. We also welcome the Commission and 
its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals to provide 
guidance on this issue.
    Comment 2: One private citizen requested clarification on Level B 
harassment.
    Response: NMFS defines Level B harassment in the Background and 
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment sections. Level B harassment is 
defined, under the MMPA, as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 
which 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.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    We have reviewed WETA's species information--which summarizes 
available information regarding status and trends, distribution and 
habitat preferences, behavior and life history, and auditory 
capabilities of the potentially affected species--for accuracy and 
completeness and refer the reader to Sections 4 and 5 of the 
applications, as well as to NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of reprinting all of the 
information here. Additional general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's Web 
site www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/. Table 1 lists all species 
with expected potential for occurrence in San Francisco Bay and 
summarizes information related to the population or stock, including 
potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). 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 17799; April 13, 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.

           Table 1--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of San Francisco Ferry Terminal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Stock abundance                 Relative
                                                      ESA/MMPA      (CV, Nmin, most               occurrence in
            Species                   Stock           status;      recent abundance   PBR \3\     San Francisco
                                                  strategic (Y/N)     survey) \2\                Bay; season of
                                                        \1\                                        occurrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena       San Francisco-    -; N             9,886 (0.51;             66  Common
 phocoena).                      Russian River.                     6,625; 2011).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Family Delphinidae (dolphins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin \4\          California        -; N             453 (0.06; 346;         2.4  Rare
 (Tursiops truncatus).           coastal.                           2011).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Family Eschrichtiidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale (Eschrichtius        Eastern N.        -; N             20,990 (0.05;           624  Rare
 robustus).                      Pacific.                           20,125; 2011).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Family Balaenopteridae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale (Megaptera       California/       T \5\; S         1,918 (0.05;             11  Unlikely
 novaeangliae).                  Oregon/.                           1,876; 2014).
                                Washington stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 29523]]

 
                                     Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (Zalophus   U.S.............  -; N             296,750 (n/a;         9,200  Common
 californianus).                                                    153,337; 2011).
Guadalupe fur seal \5\........  Mexico to         T; S             20,000 (n/a;             91  Unlikely
Arctocephalus philippii          California.                        15,830; 2010).
 townsendi).
Northern fur seal (Callorhinus  California stock  -; N             14,050 (n/a;            451  Unlikely
 ursinus).                                                          7,524; 2013).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Family Phocidae (earless seals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)..  California......  -; N             30,968 (n/a;          1,641  Common; Year-
                                                                    27,348; 2012).               round resident
Northern elephant seal          California        -; N             179,000 (n/a;         4,882  Rare
 (Mirounga angustirostris).      breeding stock.                    81,368; 2010).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species
  is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one
  for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be
  declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not
  applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated
  CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be
  more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate.
\3\ Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
  mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
  optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
\4\ Abundance estimates for these stocks are greater than eight years old and are, therefore, not considered
  current. PBR is considered undetermined for these stocks, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate
  for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates and PBR values, as these
  represent the best available information for use in this document.
\5\ The humpback whales considered under the MMPA to be part of this stock could be from any of three different
  DPSs. In CA, it would be expected to primarily be whales from the Mexico DPS but could also be whales from the
  Central America DPS.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    The effects of underwater noise from WETA's pile-driving and 
removal activities for the San Francisco Ferry Terminal, South Basin 
Improvements 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 17799; April 13, 
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 will be by Level B harassment only, in the form of 
disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to vibratory and impact pile driving and 
removal. 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 Measures section), 
Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized. The death of 
a marine mammal is also a type of incidental take. However, as 
described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for 
this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types 
of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to 
estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular 
distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of 
sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to 
characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected 
marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number 
of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when 
duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take 
estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In 
particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some 
smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of 
harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new 
individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of 
residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., 
because of foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence 
presented by the harassing activity.
    The area where the ferry terminal is located is not considered 
important habitat for marine mammals, as it is a highly industrial area 
with high levels

[[Page 29524]]

of vessel traffic and background noise. While there are harbor seal 
haul outs within 2 miles of the construction activity at Yerba Buena 
Island, and a California sea lion haul out approximately 1.5 miles away 
at Pier 39, behavioral disturbances that could result from 
anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are expected to 
affect only a relatively small number of individual marine mammals that 
may venture near the ferry terminal, although those effects could be 
recurring over the life of the project if the same individuals remain 
in the project vicinity. WETA has requested authorization for the 
incidental taking of small numbers of harbor seals, northern elephant 
seals, northern fur seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoise, 
bottlenose dolphin, and gray whales near the San Francisco Ferry 
Terminal that may result from construction activities associated with 
the project described previously in this document.
    In order to estimate the potential instances of take that may occur 
incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent 
of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then 
consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or 
abundance in the project area. We first provide information on 
applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals 
before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, 
the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the 
method of estimating instances of take.

Sound Thresholds

    We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an 
activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal 
such that a take by Level B harassment might occur. These thresholds 
(Table 2) are used to estimate when harassment may occur (i.e., when an 
animal is exposed to levels equal to or exceeding the relevant 
criterion) in specific contexts; however, useful contextual information 
that may inform our assessment of effects is typically lacking and we 
consider these thresholds as step functions.

               Table 2--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Criterion                Definition           Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment              Behavioral         160 dB (impulsive
 (underwater).                   disruption.        source)/120 dB
                                                    (continuous source)
                                                    (rms).
Level B harassment (airborne).  Behavioral         90 dB (harbor seals)/
                                 disruption.        100 dB (other
                                                    pinnipeds)
                                                    (unweighted).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for 
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing 
(Guidance) (NMFS 2016, 81 FR 51694). This new Guidance established new 
thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A 
harassment under the MMPA. WETA used this new Guidance to determine 
sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces 
sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by 
injury, in the form of permanent threshold shift (PTS), might occur. 
These acoustic thresholds are presented using dual metrics of 
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) and peak sound 
level (PK) (Table 3). The lower and/or upper frequencies for some of 
these functional hearing groups have been modified from those 
designated by Southall et al. (2007), and the revised generalized 
hearing ranges are presented in the new Guidance. The functional 
hearing groups and the associated frequencies are indicated in Table 3 
below.

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

Distance to Sound Thresholds

    Underwater Sound Propagation Formula--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

[[Page 29525]]

conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical 
spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment 
not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in 
sound level for each doubling of distance from the source 
(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in 
which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, 
resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of 
distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value 
of 15 is often used under conditions, such as at the San Francisco 
Ferry Terminal, 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 SPLs and their associated effects 
on marine mammals that are likely to result from vibratory or impact 
pile driving or removal at the ferry terminal, we considered existing 
measurements from similar physical environments (e.g. estuarine areas 
of soft substrate where water depths are less than 16 feet).

Level A Thresholds (Table 4)

    The values used to calculate distances at which sound would be 
expected to exceed the Level A thresholds for impact driving of 24-inch 
(in) and 36-in piles include peak values of 210 dB for 36-in piles and 
207 dB for 24-in piles (Caltrans 2015a). Anticipated SELs for 
unattenuated impact pile-driving would be 183 dB for 36-in pile driving 
and 178 dB 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). Vibratory 
driving source levels include 165 dB RMS for 24-in piles and 175 dB RMS 
for 36-in piles (Caltrans 2015a). In the user spreadsheet from NMFS' 
Guidance, 1800 strikes per pile with 2 piles per day was used for 
impact driving of 36-in piles, and 1800 strikes per pile with 3 piles 
per day was used for impact driving of 24-in piles. Total duration for 
vibratory driving of 24-in or 36-in piles is one hour. Both pile sizes 
are analyzed, but only 36-in piles are used to conservatively calculate 
take.
    The values used to calculate distances at which sound would be 
expected to exceed the Level A thresholds for impact driving of 14-in 
wood piles include a peak value of 180 dB and SEL value of 148 dB 
(Caltrans 2015a). Vibratory driving source level is assumed to be 150 
dB RMS (Caltrans 2015a). In the user spreadsheet from NMFS' Guidance, 
200 strikes per pile and 6 piles per day were used. Total duration for 
vibratory driving of 14-in wood piles is one hour.
    The most applicable noise values for 12- to 18- in wooden pile 
removal from which to base estimates for the terminal expansion project 
are derived from measurements taken at the Port Townsend dolphin pile 
removal in the State of Washington. During vibratory pile extraction 
associated with this project, measured peak noise levels were 
approximately 164 decibel (dB) at 16 m, and the root mean square (rms) 
was approximately 150 dB (WSDOT 2011). In the user spreadsheet from 
NMFS' Guidance, activity duration is estimated at 1.33 hours, pulse 
duration of 1 second, and 1/repetition rate of 1 second.

[[Page 29526]]



                                   Table 4--Expected Pile-Driving Noise Levels and Distances of Level A Threshold Exceedance With Impact and Vibratory Driver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Source levels at 10 meters (dB) \1\                           Distance to level A threshold in meters
           Project element requiring pile installation           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Peak \1\           SEL             RMS           Phocids        Otariids     LF * Cetaceans  MF * Cetaceans  HF * Cetaceans
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-In Wood Piles--Vibratory Extraction..........................  ..............  ..............         \1\ 150             1.5             0.1             2.4             0.2             3.6
18-In Concrete Piles--Vibratory Extraction......................  ..............  ..............         \1\ 150             1.5             0.1             2.4             0.2             3.6
24-In Steel Piles--Vibratory Driver \3\*........................  ..............  ..............           * 175            35.6             2.5            58.6             5.2            86.6
24-In Steel Piles--Impact Driver (BCA) \2\ \3\..................         \2\ 207         \2\ 178  ..............           164.5            12.0           307.4            10.9           366.1
36-In Steel Piles--Vibratory Extraction.........................  ..............  ..............             175            35.6             2.5            58.6             5.2            86.6
36-In Steel Piles--Vibratory Driver.............................  ..............  ..............             175            35.6             2.5            58.6             5.2            86.6
36-In Steel Piles--Impact Driver (BCA) \2\......................         \2\ 210         \2\ 183  ..............           270.4            19.7           505.4            18.0           602.0
14-In Wood Piles--Vibratory Driver..............................  ..............  ..............         \1\ 150             1.5             0.1             2.4             0.2             3.6
14-In Wood Piles--Impact Driver.................................             180             148  ..............             2.8             0.2             5.2             0.2             6.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Low frequency (LF) cetaceans, Mid frequency (MF) cetaceans, High frequency (HF) cetaceans.
\1\ All distances to the peak Level A thresholds are less than 33 feet (10 meters) except 18-in wood and concrete piles, which were measured at 16 feet.
\2\ Bubble curtain attenuation (BCA). A bubble curtain will be used for impact driving and is assumed to reduce the source level by 10dB. Therefore, source levels were reduced by this amount
  for take calculations.
\3\ Either 24-in or 36-in piles will be used for the Embarcadero Plaza and East Bayside Promenade, but not both. Source levels used for 36-in piles using a vibratory hammer are also
  conservatively used for 24 in piles using a vibratory hammer.


[[Page 29527]]

Level B Thresholds (Table 5)

Impact Pile Driving

    Measured source levels for 24- and 36-in steel piles using an 
impact hammer were found in a summary table for near-source 
unattenuated SPLs from Caltrans (2015). The average SPL for 24-in steel 
pipe piles was 178 dB SEL and peak at 207 dB (Caltrans 2015). The 
average SPL for 36-in steel pipe piles was 183 dB and peak at 210 dB 
(Caltrans 2015). Projects conducted under similar circumstances with 
similar piles were reviewed to approximate the noise effects of the 14-
in wood piles. The best match for estimated noise levels is from the 
impact driving of timber piles at the Port of Benicia. Noise levels 
produced during this installation were an average of 148 dB SEL and 180 
dB peak at 33 feet (10 meters) from the pile (Caltrans 2015).

Vibratory Pile-Driving

    Measured source levels for 36-in steel piles using an impact hammer 
were found in a summary table for near-source unattenuated SPLs from 
Caltrans (2015). Because there are no representative 24-in steel pipe 
piles installed with a vibratory hammer, the 36-in steel pipe piles 
were used as a proxy. The average SPL for 36-in steel pipe piles (and 
24-in steel pipe piles) was 175 dB rms (Caltrans 2015). This value was 
also used for 36-in steel pipe pile vibratory extraction.
    Approximately 350 wood and concrete piles, 12- to 18-in in 
diameter, will be removed using a vibratory pile-driver. With the 
vibratory hammer activated, an upward force would be applied to the 
pile to remove it from the sediment. On average, 12 of these piles will 
be extracted per work day. Extraction time needed for each pile may 
vary greatly, but could require approximately 400 seconds 
(approximately 7 minutes) from an APE 400B King Kong or similar driver. 
The most applicable noise values for wooden pile removal from which to 
base estimates for the terminal expansion project are derived from 
measurements taken at the Port Townsend dolphin pile removal in the 
State of Washington. During vibratory pile extraction associated with 
this project, measured peak noise levels were approximately 164 dB at 
16 m, and the rms was approximately 150 dB (WSDOT 2011). Applicable 
sound values for the removal of concrete piles could not be located, 
but they are expected to be similar to the levels produced by wooden 
piles described above, because they are similarly sized, nonmetallic, 
and will be removed using the same methods. These same values will be 
used as a proxy for the vibratory driving of 14-in wood piles. It is 
estimated that an average of four of these piles will be installed per 
day with a vibratory hammer.
    Tables 4 and 5 show the expected underwater sound levels for pile 
driving activities and the estimated distances to the Level A (Table 4) 
and Level B (Table 5) thresholds.

    Table 5--Expected Pile-Driving Noise Levels and Distances of Level B Threshold Exceedance With Impact and
                                                Vibratory Driver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Distance to       Area of
                                                                                      level B        potential
                                                                                   threshold, in      level B
                                                                   Source levels    meters \1\       threshold
           Project element requiring pile installation             at 10 meters  ----------------  exceedance in
                                                                     (dB rms)                         square
                                                                                  160/120 dB RMS   kilometers \
                                                                                   (level B) \2\        1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     South Basin Pile Demolition and Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-In Wood Piles--Vibratory Extraction..........................           * 150           1,600            2.98
18-In Concrete Piles--Vibratory Extraction......................           * 150           1,600            2.98
36-In Steel Piles--Vibratory Extraction.........................             175          46,416          115.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Embarcadero Plaza and East Bayside Promenade \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-In Steel Piles--Vibratory Driver.............................             175          46,416          115.27
36-In Steel Piles--Impact Driver (BCA)..........................         \4\ 193             341            0.18
24-In Steel Piles--Vibratory Driver.............................             175          46,416          115.27
24-In Steel Piles--Impact Driver (BCA)..........................         \4\ 194             398            0.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fender Piles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-In Wood Piles--Vibratory Driver..............................           * 150           1,600            2.98
14-In Wood Piles--Impact Driver.................................             165              22           0.002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This value was measured at 16m (not 10m).
\1\ Where noise will not be blocked by land masses or other solid structures.
\2\ For underwater noise, the Level B harassment (disturbance) threshold is 160 dB for impulsive noise and 120
  dB for continuous noise.
\3\ Either 24-in or 36-in piles will be used for the Embarcadero Plaza and East Bayside Promenade, but not both.
  To be conservative, 36-in piles were used in the take estimation.
\4\ Bubble curtain attenuation (BCA). A bubble curtain will be used for impact driving and is expected to reduce
  the source level by 10dB.

Marine Mammal Densities

    At-sea densities for marine mammal species have been determined for 
harbor seals and California sea lions in San Francisco Bay based on 
marine mammal monitoring by Caltrans for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay 
Bridge Project from 2000 to 2015 (Caltrans 2016); all other estimates 
here are determined by using observational data taken during marine 
mammal monitoring associated with the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 
retrofit project, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB), which 
has been ongoing for the past 15 years, and anecdotal observational 
reports from local entities.

Description of Take Calculation

    All estimates are conservative and include the following 
assumptions:
     All pilings installed at each site would have an 
underwater noise

[[Page 29528]]

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 
channel which would dissipate sound pressure waves.
     Exposures were based on estimated total of 106 work days. 
Each activity ranges in amount of days needed to be completed.
     In 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 harbor seals and California sea lions: Level B exposure 
estimate = D (density) * Area of ensonification) * Number of days of 
noise generating activities.
    For all other marine mammal species: Level B exposure estimate = N 
(number of animals) in the area * Number of days of noise generating 
activities.
    To account for the increase in California sea lion density due to 
El Ni[ntilde]o, the daily take estimated from the observed density has 
been increased by a factor of 10 for each day that pile driving or 
removal occurs.
    There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential instances 
of take may be overestimates of the number of individuals taken, 
assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated 
ZOI areas are accurate. We assume, in the absence of information 
supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the 
calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by 
the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary 
activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may 
be present, this number represents the number of instances of take that 
may accrue to a smaller number of individuals, with some number of 
animals being exposed more than once per individual. While pile driving 
and removal can occur any day throughout the in-water work window, and 
the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that 
time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent 
pile driving/removal. The potential effectiveness of mitigation 
measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in 
the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates 
may be conservative, especially if each take is considered a separate 
individual animal, and especially for pinnipeds.
    Table 6 lists the total estimated instances of expected take.

                                                                      Table 6--Calculations for Incidental Take Estimation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Authorized take by level B harassment
                                                        Number of ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pile type                Pile-driver type    driving     Harbor     CA sea    Northern elephant                                              Northern fur seal    Bottlenose dolphin
                                                           days       seal     lion \1\        seal \2\       Harbor porpoise \2\     Gray whale \2\            \2\                  \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood/concrete pile removal.......  Vibratory..........         30         74         80  NA.................  NA.................  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
36-in dolphin pile removal.......  Vibratory..........          1         96        100  NA.................  NA.................  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
Embarcadero Plaza 36-in steel      Vibratory \3\......         65      6,219      6,743  NA.................  NA.................  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
 piles.
14-in wood pile..................  Vibratory \3\......         10         25         27  NA.................  NA.................  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
                                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Project Total (2016) \4\.....  ...................        106      6,414      6,950  26.................  9..................  2..................  10.................  30.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To account for potential El Ni[ntilde]o conditions, take calculated from at-sea densities for California sea lion has been increased by a factor of 10.
\2\ Take is not calculated by activity type for these species with a low potential to occur, only a yearly total is given.
\3\ Piles of this type may also be installed with an impact hammer, which would reduce the estimated take.
\4\ This total assumes the more conservative use of 36-in steel piles used for the Embarcadero Plaza; however, an alternative would be to use 24-in steel piles, which would result in smaller
  take numbers.

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). Using this density, the 
potential average daily take for the areas over which the Level B 
harassment thresholds may be exceeded are estimated in Table 7.

                                    Table 7--Take Calculation for Harbor Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Number of days
           Activity                Pile type         Density       Area (km\2\)     of activity    Take estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving and          36-in steel pile  0.83 animal/             115.27           65; 1       6,219; 96
 extraction.                    \1\.              km\2\.
Vibratory extraction.........  18-in Wood and    0.83 animal/               2.98              30              74
                                concrete piles.   km\2\.

[[Page 29529]]

 
Vibratory driving............  14-in Wood piles  0.83 animal/               2.98              10              25
                                                  km\2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The more conservative use of 36-in steel piles for the Embarcadero Plaza was used here; however, an
  alternative would be to use 24-in steel piles, which would result in smaller take numbers (2,054 vs 4,668).

    A total of 6,414 harbor seal takes are estimated for 2017 (Table 
6). This take number changed from the proposed rule based on changes to 
the source levels used for equipment type. Level A take is not expected 
for harbor seal based on area of ensonification and density of the 
animals in that area. While the Level A zone is relatively large for 
this hearing group (approximately 270 m), there will be 2 MMOs 
monitoring the zone in the most advantageous locations to spot marine 
mammals. If a harbor seal (or any other marine mammal) is seen 
approaching the Level A zone, a shutdown will be in place. We do not 
anticipate that Level A harassment will occur.

California Sea Lion

    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 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 8.

                                Table 8--Take Calculation for California Sea Lion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Number of days
           Activity                Pile type         Density       Area (km\2\)     of activity    Take estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving and          36-in steel pile  0. 09 animal/            115.27           65; 1   *6,743 ; *100
 extraction.                    \1\.              km\2\.
Vibratory extraction.........  18-in Wood and    0.09 animal/               2.98              30             *80
                                concrete piles.   km\2\.
Vibratory driving............  14-in Wood piles  0.09 animal/               2.98              10            *27
                                                  km\2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All California sea lion estimates were multiplied by 10 to account for the increased occurrence of this
  species due to El Ni[ntilde]o.
\1\ The more conservative use of 36-in steel piles for the Embarcadero Plaza was used here; however, an
  alternative would be to use 24 in steel piles, which would result in smaller take numbers (2,230 vs 5,060).

    All California sea lion estimates were multiplied by 10 to account 
for the increased occurrence of this species due to El Ni[ntilde]o. A 
total of 6,950 California sea lion takes is estimated for 2017 (Table 
6). This take number changed from the proposed rule based on changes to 
the source levels used for equipment type. 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 planned 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 26 takes in 2017 (Table 6). 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. We do not anticipate that Level A 
harassment will occur.

Northern Fur Seal

    During the breeding season, the majority of the worldwide 
population is found on the Pribilof Islands in the southern Bering Sea, 
with the remaining animals spread throughout the North Pacific Ocean. 
On the coast of California, small breeding colonies are present at San 
Miguel Island off southern California, and the Farallon Islands off 
central California (Carretta et al., 2014). Northern fur seal are a 
pelagic species and are rarely seen near the shore away from breeding 
areas. Juveniles of this species occasionally strand in San Francisco 
Bay, particularly during El Ni[ntilde]o events, for example, during the 
2006 El Ni[ntilde]o event, 33 fur seals were admitted to the Marine 
Mammal Center (TMMC 2016). Some of these stranded animals were 
collected from shorelines in San Francisco Bay. Due to the recent El 
Ni[ntilde]o event, northern fur seals were observed in San Francisco 
bay more frequently, as well as strandings all along the California 
coast and inside San Francisco Bay (TMMC, personal communication); a 
trend that may continue this summer through winter if El Ni[ntilde]o 
conditions occur. Because sightings are normally rare; instances 
recently have been observed, but are not common, and based on estimates 
from local observations (TMMC, personal communication), it is estimated 
that ten northern fur seals will be taken in 2017 (Table 6). 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

[[Page 29530]]

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. In 
order to estimate a more realistic take number, we assume it is 
possible that a small group of individuals (three harbor porpoises) may 
enter the Level B harassment area on as many as three days of pile 
driving or removal, for a total of nine harbor porpoise takes per year 
(Table 6). It is possible that harbor porpoise may enter the Level A 
harassment zone for high frequency cetaceans. However, two MMOs will be 
monitoring the area and WETA will 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 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 106 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 
6).

Bottlenose Dolphin

    Since the 1982-83 El Ni[ntilde]o, which increased water 
temperatures off California, bottlenose dolphins have been consistently 
sighted along the central California coast (Carretta et al., 2008). The 
northern limit of their regular range is currently the Pacific coast 
off San Francisco and Marin County, and they occasionally enter San 
Francisco Bay, sometimes foraging for fish in Fort Point Cove, just 
east of the Golden Gate Bridge. In the summer of 2015, a lone 
bottlenose dolphin was seen swimming in the Oyster Point area of South 
San Francisco (GGCR 2016). 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, we estimate 30 takes of 
bottlenose dolphins for 2017 (Table 6).

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 ferry terminal. The ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone 
that will 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 will 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 will 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

[[Page 29531]]

shutdown zone is to define an area within which shutdown of activity 
will occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an 
animal entering the defined area), thus 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 4. However, a 
minimum shutdown zone of 10 m will be established during all pile 
driving activities, regardless of the estimated zone.
    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 5.
    Given the size of the disturbance zone for vibratory pile driving, 
it is impossible to guarantee that all animals will be observed or to 
make comprehensive observations of fine-scale behavioral reactions to 
sound, and only a portion of the zone (e.g., what may be reasonably 
observed by visual observers stationed within the turning basin) may 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 will 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 will be halted. Monitoring will take 
place from 15 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. 
Marine Mammal Observer (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.
    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 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.
    (2) 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 will 
be halted.
    (3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone 
during the course of pile driving operations, the 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.
    (4) 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

[[Page 29532]]

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 
thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. 
Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile 
driving work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile 
driving of thirty minutes or longer.

Sound Attenuation Devices

    Two types of sound attenuation devices will be used during impact 
pile-driving: Bubble curtains and pile cushions. WETA will employ the 
use of a bubble curtain during impact pile-driving, which is assumed to 
reduce the source level by 10 dB. Bubble curtains will not be used 
during impact driving of wood piles because the sound levels produced 
would be significantly less than those from steel piles. 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 that may be relevant to the specified 
activity, we have determined that the 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 both to compliance as well 
as to ensure 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;
     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 measures are also described in 
their Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.

Hydroacousting Monitoring

    Hydroacoustic monitoring will be conducted in consultation with the 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) during a minimum of 
ten percent of all pile driving activities. The monitoring will be done 
in accordance with the methodology outlined in this Hydroacoustic 
Monitoring Plan (see WETA's Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan online at 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm for more 
information on this plan, including the methodology, equipment, and 
reporting information). The monitoring will be conducted based on the 
following:
     Be based on the dual metric criteria (Popper et al., 2006) 
and the accumulated SEL;

[[Page 29533]]

     Establish field locations that will be used to document 
the extent of the area experiencing 187 dB SEL accumulated;
     Establish the distance to the Marine Mammal Level A and 
Level B shutdown and Harassment zones;
     Describe the methods necessary to continuously measure 
underwater noise on a real-time basis, including details on the number, 
location, distance and depth of hydrophones, and associated monitoring 
equipment;
     Provide a means of recording the time and number of pile 
strikes, the peak sound energy per strike, and interval between 
strikes; and
     Provide all monitoring data to the CDFW and NMFS.

Visual Marine Mammal Observations

    WETA will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to 
construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of 
activity during the period of activity. All marine mammal observers 
(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 will 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 additions, the MMO(s) will survey the potential Level A and 
nearby Level B harassment zones (areas within approximately 2,000 feet 
of the pile-driving area observable from the shore) on 2 separate 
days--no earlier than 7 days before the first day of construction--to 
establish baseline observations. Monitoring will be timed to occur 
during various tides (preferably low and high tides) during daylight 
hours from locations that are publicly accessible (e.g., Pier 14 or the 
Ferry Plaza). The information collected from baseline monitoring will 
be used for comparison with results of monitoring during pile-driving 
activities.

Data Collection

    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

    Hydroacoustic monitoring will be conducted in consultation with the 
CDFW during a minimum of ten percent of all pile driving activities 
(i.e., the first two piles of the 24-in and 36-in piles). The 
monitoring will be done in accordance with the methodology outlined in 
this Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan. The monitoring will be conducted 
based on the following:
     Be based on the dual metric criteria (Popper et al., 2006) 
and the accumulated SEL;
     Establish field locations that will be used to document 
the extent of the area experiencing 187 dB SEL accumulated;
     Establish the distance to the Marine Mammal Level A and 
Level B shutdown and Harassment zones;
     Describe the methods necessary to continuously measure 
underwater noise on a real-time basis, including details on the number, 
location, distance and depth of hydrophones, and associated monitoring 
equipment;
     Provide a means of recording the time and number of pile 
strikes, the peak sound energy per strike, and interval between 
strikes; and
     Provide all monitoring data to the CDFW and NMFS.

Reporting

    A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the 
completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the 
requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same 
location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal 
observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during 
pile driving and removal days, and will also provide descriptions of 
any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals 
and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results 
of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the 
number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A 
final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of 
comments on the draft report.

Analyses and Determinations

Negligible Impact Analysis

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers

[[Page 29534]]

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 ferry 
terminal construction project, as outlined previously, have the 
potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the 
specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B 
harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, 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 in San Francisco Ferry 
Terminal mean that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers 
is high, enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns 
to avoid injury.
    WETA's activities are localized and of relatively short duration (a 
maximum of 106 days for pile driving and removal in the first year). 
The entire project area is limited to the San Francisco ferry terminal 
area and its immediate surroundings. These localized and short-term 
noise exposures may cause short-term behavioral modifications in harbor 
seals, northern fur seals, northern elephant seals, California sea 
lions, harbor porpoises, bottlenose dolphins, and gray whales. 
Moreover, the planned mitigation and monitoring measures are expected 
to reduce the likelihood of injury and behavior exposures. 
Additionally, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine 
mammals are known to be within the ensonified area during the 
construction time frame.
    The project also is not expected to have significant adverse 
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities 
will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount 
of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of 
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging 
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because 
of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area 
of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal 
habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative 
consequences.
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the 
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other 
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as 
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased 
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 
2006; Lerma 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from 
the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile 
driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only 
in association with impact pile driving. Thus, even repeated Level B 
harassment of some small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to 
result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for the affected 
individuals, and thus will not result in any adverse impact to the 
stock as a whole.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity 
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or 
authorized;
     Injurious takes are not expected due to the presumed 
efficacy of the planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of 
the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact;
     Level B harassment may consist of, at worst, temporary 
modifications in behavior (e.g., temporary avoidance of habitat or 
changes in behavior);
     The lack of important feeding, pupping, or other areas in 
the action area;
     The high level of ambient noise already in the ferry 
terminal area; and
     The small percentage of the stock that may be affected by 
project activities (<21 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 planned monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from 
WETA's ferry terminal construction activities will have a negligible 
impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers Analysis

    Table 9 details the number of instances that animals could be 
exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B behavioral 
harassment for the planned work at the ferry terminal project site 
relative to the total stock abundance. The numbers of animals 
authorized to be taken for all species are 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 21 percent for 
harbor seals, approximately 7 percent for bottlenose dolphins, less 
than 3 percent for California sea lions, and less than 1 percent for 
all other species (Table 9). For pinnipeds, especially harbor seals 
occurring in the vicinity of the ferry terminal, there will almost 
certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and the 
number of individuals taken is expected to be notably lower. We find 
that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the 
populations of the affected species or stocks.

[[Page 29535]]



          Table 9--Estimated Numbers and Percentage of Stock That May Be Exposed to Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Stock(s)      Percentage of
                             Species                                Authorized       abundance      total stock
                                                                       takes        estimate 1          (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) California stock...................           6,414          30,968            20.7
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) U.S. Stock.........           6,950         296,750            2.34
Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) California                   26         179,000           0.015
 breeding stock.................................................
Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) California stock........              10          14,050            0.07
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) San Francisco-Russian River                9           9,886            0.09
 Stock..........................................................
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Eastern North Pacific stock..               2          20,990            0.01
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) California coastal stock              30             453             6.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 All stock abundance estimates presented here are from the 2015 Pacific Stock Assessment Report.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks will not 
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species 
or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    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.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS published an EA in 2016 on WETA's ferry terminal construction 
activities. NMFS found that there would be no significant impacts to 
the human environment and signed a finding of no significant impact 
(FONSI) on June 28, 2016. Because the activities and analysis are the 
same as WETA's 2016 activities, NMFS determined that a new or 
supplemental EA is not required for WETA's 2017 activities.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to WETA for the potential harassment of 
small numbers of seven species of marine mammals incidental to the San 
Francisco Ferry Terminal, South Basin Improvements Project in San 
Francisco, CA, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting.

    Dated: June 26, 2017.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-13626 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P