[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44043-44058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15706]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XA285]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Treasure Island Ferry Dock Project, 
San Francisco, California

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
the City and County of San Francisco, CA (San Francisco) to 
incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment only, marine 
mammals during construction activities associated with the Treasure 
Island Ferry Dock Project in San Francisco, California.

DATES: This Authorization is effective for one year from the date of 
issuance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the 
application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the 
references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public 
for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
    The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above 
are included in the relevant sections below.

Summary of Request

    On February 6, 2020, NMFS received an application from San 
Francisco requesting an IHA to take small numbers of seven species of 
marine mammals incidental to pile driving associated with the Treasure 
Island Ferry Dock Project. The application was deemed adequate and 
complete on May 13, 2020. San Francisco's request is for take of a 
small number of seven species of marine mammals by Level B harassment 
and Level A harassment. Neither San Francisco nor NMFS expects serious 
injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA 
is appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    The project consists of the construction of a ferry terminal, 
breakwater, and removal of an old pier on Treasure Island in the middle 
of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco would install and then remove two 
temporary 36-inch-diameter steel piles for moorings and 196 temporary 
14-inch by 89 foot steel H piles as templates. Final construction 
requires installation of eight 36-inch-diameter steel piles, five 48-
inch-diameter steel piles, 52 24-inch octagonal concrete breakwater 
piles, and 120 14-inch by 48-inch concrete sheet piles for the 
breakwater. Removing the old pier requires removal of 198 12-inch 
diameter timber piles. The work for this project began on June 8, 2020. 
From that date until July 7, 2020, San Francisco completed pile driving 
for 38 piles (two 48-inch steel pipe piles, six 36-inch steel pipe 
piles, and 30 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-piles) associated with the 
ferry pier. San Francisco has also informed us that the fireboat access 
pier

[[Page 44044]]

will not be built at this time, so the 37 pile associated with that 
aspect of the project are also being removed from this authorization. 
The revised summary of pile driving activities covered by this IHA is 
in Table 1. Therefore in this final authorization we adjust our 
analysis and take estimates based on the work still to be completed as 
described below. Pile driving/removal for the remaining work is 
expected to take no more than 1,820 hours over 182 days. Pile driving 
would be by vibratory pile driving until resistance is too great and 
driving would switch to an impact hammer. Removal of temporary piles 
would use vibratory methods only. A detailed description of the planned 
project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA 
(85 FR 35271; June 9, 2020). Since that time, no other changes have 
been made to the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description 
is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for 
the description of the specific activity.

                                   Table 1--Summary of Pile Driving Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Piles
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                Activity                                                  Number
                                                   Location              (maximum)               Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install Piles for Ferry Pier (impact and/ Ferry Pier................              0*  36-inch steel pipe
 or vibratory).                                                                        (mooring piles)/
                                                                                       vibratory.
                                          Ferry Pier................              0*  48-inch steel pipe
                                                                                       vibratory & impact.
                                          Ferry Pier................              0*  36-inch steel pipe (fender
                                                                                       piles)/vibratory.
Install Temporary Steel Template Piles    Ferry Pier................               4  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 (Vibratory).                                                                          piles.
Remove Temporary Steel Template Piles     Ferry Pier................              12  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 (Vibratory).                                                                          piles.
Install Octagonal Piles for North         North Breakwater..........              52  24-inch octagonal
 Breakwater (Impact).                                                                  concrete.
Install Sheetpiles for North Breakwater   North Breakwater..........             120  14 x 48-inch concrete
 (Impact).                                                                             sheetpiles.
Install Temporary Steel Template Piles    North Breakwater..........             105  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 (Vibratory).                                                                          piles.
Remove Temporary Steel Template Piles     North Breakwater..........             105  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 (Vibratory).                                                                          piles.
Install Temporary Steel Template Batter   North Breakwater..........              46  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 Piles (Vibratory).                                                                    piles.
Remove Temporary Steel Template Batter    North Breakwater..........              46  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 Piles (Vibratory).                                                                    piles.
Install Temporary Mooring Piles           Mooring...................               2  36-inch steel pipe.
 (Vibratory).
Remove Temporary Mooring Piles            Mooring...................               2  36-inch steel pipe.
 (Vibratory).
Install Temporary Mooring Batter Piles    Mooring...................               4  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 (Vibratory).                                                                          piles.
Remove Temporary Mooring Batter Piles     Mooring...................               4  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 (Vibratory).                                                                          piles.
Install Crew Access Piles (Vibratory)...  Mooring...................               2  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
                                                                                       piles.
Remove Crew Access Piles (Vibratory)....  Mooring...................               2  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
                                                                                       piles.
Install Fireboat Access Pier (Vibratory   North Breakwater..........             0**  48-inch steel pipe.
 & Impact).
Install Fireboat Access Pier (Vibratory)  North Breakwater..........             0**  36-inch steel pipe.
Install Temporary Fireboat Steel          North Breakwater..........             0**  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 Template Piles (Vibratory).                                                           piles.
Remove Temporary Fireboat Steel Template  North Breakwater..........             0**  14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
 Piles (Vibratory).                                                                    piles.
Remove Existing Pier (vibratory or crane  Pier......................             198  12-inch timber.
 cable).
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ..........................             704  N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Work on these piles completed before issuance of IHA.
** Work on the fireboat access pier will no longer occur under this authorization.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to San Francisco was 
published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2020 (85 FR 35271). That 
notice described, in detail, San Francisco'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 public comment from one commenter. The U.S. 
Geological Survey noted they have ``no comment to offer at this time''. 
A comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) was 
received pursuant to the Commission's authority to recommend steps it 
deems necessary or desirable to protect and conserve marine mammals (16 
U.S. C. 1402.202(a)). We are obligated to respond to the Commission's 
recommendations within 120 days, and we do so below.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from issuing 
renewals for any authorization and instead use its abbreviated Federal 
Register notice process.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission and, therefore, 
does not adopt the Commission's recommendation. NMFS has explained the 
rationale for this decision in multiple Federal Register notices (e.g., 
84 FR 52464; October 02, 2019); nonetheless, NMFS will also provide a 
separate detailed explanation of its

[[Page 44045]]

decision within 120 days, as required by section 202(d) of the MMPA.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS ensure that San 
Francisco keep a running tally of the total takes, based on observed 
and extrapolated takes, for Level B harassment consistent with 
condition 4(h) of the IHA.
    Response: NMFS agrees that San Francisco must ensure they do not 
exceed authorized takes.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS revise its standard 
condition for ceasing in-water heavy machinery activities to include, 
as examples, movement of the barge to the pile location, positioning of 
the pile on the substrate, use of barge-mounted excavators, and 
dredging in all draft and final incidental take authorizations 
involving pile driving and removal.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the recommendation but disagrees that a 
comprehensive listing of potential activities for which the measure is 
appropriate is necessary, and does not adopt the recommendation.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) require San 
Francisco to have at least two Protected Species Observers (PSO) 
monitoring during all activities, with at least one PSO monitoring the 
shut-down zones at each pile-driving or removal site, one PSO near Pier 
33 during vibratory installation of 36- and 48-inch steel piles, and 
one PSO stationed south toward Yerba Buena Island during all other 
pile-driving and removal activities and (2) specify the number and 
location of PSOs for each of the various activities in condition 5(iv) 
in the final authorization.
    Response: We disagree with the Commission. For the less noisy 
scenarios with smaller harassment zones we believe the current 
provisions are sufficient to ensure we obtain adequate information on 
take, especially given the abundant anthropogenic effects, loud ambient 
noise environment in which the activities occur, and small sliver of 
area in which sound can propagate long distances. For the possibility 
of vibratory driving of 36-inch piles alone (without the second hammer 
operating simultaneously) we have clarified that a second PSO near Pier 
33 is also required. Therefore, two PSOs are required for 36 inch piles 
(alone or simultaneous), and 1 PSO for all other scenarios. The second 
PSO will be located near Pier 33 for driving 36 inch piles and at the 
best vantage point practicable to monitor the shutdown zones when 
removing timer piles at the old pier is combined with vibratory driving 
of 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-pile elsewhere in the project area.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) have its experts 
in underwater acoustics and bioacoustics review and finalize as soon as 
possible, its recommended proxy source levels for impact pile driving 
of the various pile types and sizes, and (2) compile and analyze the 
source level data for vibratory pile driving of the various pile types 
and sizes in the near term.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's interest in this issue 
and, as we have indicated previously, we are working on developing such 
products within the context of available resources and staff.
    Comment: The Commission recommends NMFS ensure action proponents 
use consistent and appropriate proxy source levels in all future 
rulemakings and proposed IHAs.
    Response: We agree with the Commission that applicants should use 
appropriate source levels and will continue to work to ensure that they 
do through our review of applications.
    Comment: The Commission recommends NMFS use a source level of 166 
decibels (dB) re 1 [micro]Pa2-sec (micro Pascals) at 10 meters (m) 
(Caltrans 2015) for impact installation of 24-inch concrete piles.
    Response: We disagree. The source level used by San Francisco is 
based on recent nearby data. The Caltrans (2015) data the Commission 
cites is 16 years-old and comes from deeper locations. Caltrans (2015) 
provided a second source level for 24-inch concrete piles at shallow 
depths more similar to those of this project, and that source level is 
quieter than the source level we use. The Commission provides no 
rationale for this recommendation, and thus given the above 
information, we retain the original source level that is more 
conservative than the most comparable Caltrans (2015) source.
    Comment: The Commission recommends NMFS (1) use 164 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa2-sec at 10 m and a 250-millisecond (msec) pulse duration 
rather than 170 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (root mean square (rms)) at 10 m and 
a 100-msec pulse duration to re-estimate the Level A harassment zones 
during impact installation of 24-inch concrete piles, (2) revise the 
Level A harassment zones accordingly, (3) revise the shut-down zone to 
be 100 m rather than 80 m for LF cetaceans and at least 75 m rather 
than 40 m for phocids, and (4) ensure all tables in the notice for 
final authorization issuance and the final authorization include those 
revisions.
    Response: We disagree. The Commission fails to acknowledge that the 
source level data is not measured perfectly and are medians. The 164 dB 
SEL (Sound Exposure Level)/170dB rms measurements from Illingworth and 
Rodkin (2019a) are medians from a small number of estimates. That means 
they are estimates and are not perfectly precise or accurate, and are 
medians, not means. In fact, from Illingworth and Rodkin (2019a) we 
know that the SEL measurements ranged from 146 to 171, and the rms 
measurements ranged from 157 to 178. Thus the Commission's 
unacknowledged assumption that the SEL and RMS numbers are exactly 
correct leads them to come to the improper conclusion that the pulse 
duration must be 250-msec, apparently also without error bars in the 
Commission's view.
    Thus the disagreement stems from a debate about what is the most 
appropriate assumption for pulse duration and the various source 
levels. A 250-msec pulse duration near the source is unrealistically 
long based on our experience. Given the data are medians from a small 
number of samples with large variation, it is not surprising that they 
are not perfect estimators of source levels. Illingworth and Rodkin 
(2019a) do not provide means of their measurements, making assessment 
of the skewness of the data impossible. We do note that the RMS data 
range over 21 dB while the range for the SEL data is larger at 25dB.
    The Commission failed to reference additional data on source levels 
for 24-inch concrete piles in Caltrans (2015), a source the Commission 
normally trusts (see e.g., above comment). Caltrans (2015) provides two 
source level estimates for 24-inch concrete piles. Both of those source 
levels reflect a 100-msec pulse duration. Moreover, the shallow water 
source level estimate for 24-inch piles that is most relevant to this 
project has an rms source level of 170dB, exactly what we and San 
Francisco used. Therefore, we decline to change the source level for 
24-inch concrete piles and thus there is no need to change the Level A 
harassment or shutdown zones or revise any other tables.
    Comment: The Commission recommends that, for all incidental take 
authorizations involving impact pile driving, NMFS (1) use the SELs-s 
(single strike) source levels, when available, to estimate the Level A 
harassment zones consistent with NMFS (2018), (2) if an SELs-s source 
level is not available, use the pulse duration that accompanies the 
SPL(Sound Pressure Level) rms source level, and (3) if neither an SELs-
s source

[[Page 44046]]

level nor a specified pulse duration based on the SPLrms source level 
is available, then and only then use the 100-msec pulse duration 
default. NMFS should consult with its experts in underwater acoustics 
and bioacoustics on this matter.
    Response: We disagree with the Commission. We have consulted with 
our acoustics experts. As the example from the prior comment shows, the 
source level data we use is often imprecise and based on field 
estimates of a small number of piles with large variation. In some 
cases, as we also see in the prior comment, the variation in SEL 
measurements is larger and less precise than that for RMS measurements. 
Moreover, as the above example shows, knowledge of expected values for 
pulse duration and other inputs may be available from prior experience 
so that a strict adherence to formulas that assume the data have no 
variation is not wise or effective. In addition, the Commission fails 
to acknowledge or discuss potential challenges and pitfalls in using 
median values to estimate pulse duration when means are unavailable and 
we do not know the underlying distribution of the data points, and 
where that distribution might differ for RMS and SEL. Therefore, we 
will continue to recommend SEL as the preferred source, when data are 
relatively complete and robust, but allow consideration of RMS data 
when conditions warrant.

Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA

    We corrected discrepancies between the proposed table and text in 
pile numbers and types and we revised the number of piles to be 
completed based on work already completed and/or cancelled (see Table 1 
above). Not all of the work planned for completion in the ``June'' work 
scenario was completed so we changed the name of the scenario to 
``July'' as needed. We used more appropriate source levels for the 14 x 
48-inch concrete sheet piles (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2019b). We 
revised our guidance in Table 6 for combining sound levels generated 
during simultaneous pile installation to require Level B zones for a 
combination of vibratory and impact hammering to be the largest of the 
zones for either source; impact pile driving can produce a louder 
source when the impact driven pile is much larger in diameter than the 
vibratory driven pile. We also clarified that sound sources from 
multiple simultaneous hammers are combined when their Level B 
harassment zones overlap. We clarified the scenario involving 12-inch 
timber pile removal and corrected the Level B harassment zone size for 
this scenario.
    These changes in source levels and pile numbers alter the Level A 
and Level B harassment zones sizes and expected take for California sea 
lion, harbor seals, and harbor porpoises (see Estimated Take section 
below). Specifically, the Level B harassment zone for simultaneous 
vibratory driving of 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-piles and vibratory 
removal of 12-inch timber piles increased from 1585 to 2512 m and the 
Level A harassment zones for 14 x 48-inch concrete sheet piles increase 
by no more than 1 m. Total take for California sea lion, harbor seals, 
and harbor porpoises increases by 7, 192, and 8 individuals, 
respectively. The shutdown zone for 14 x 48-inch concrete sheet piles 
increases to 20 m (66 feet) (see Mitigation section below).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
the project area near Treasure Island and summarizes information 
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under 
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological 
removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on 
Taxonomy (2019). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of 
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a 
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its 
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no 
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious 
injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as 
gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS's U.S. Pacific SARs and draft SARs (e.g., Caretta et al. 2019).

                    Table 2--Species That Spatially Co-Occur With the Activity to the Degree That Take Is Reasonably Likely To Occur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    ESA/MMPA status;
          Common name            Scientific name        Stock        strategic (Y/N)    Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most         PBR         Annual M/SI
                                                                           \1\           recent abundance survey) \2\                           \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray Whale................  Eschrichtius      Eastern North     -, -, N.........         26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016)             801             138
                                 robustus.         Pacific.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 44047]]

 
                            Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Bottlenose Dolphin........  Tursiops          California        -, -, N.........               453 (0.06, 346, 2011)             2.7            >2.0
                                 truncatus.        Coastal.
Family Phocoenidae
 (porpoises):
    Harbor porpoise...........  Phocoena          San Francisco/    -, -, N.........                  9,886 (0.51, 2019)              66               0
                                 phocoena.         Russian River.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals
 and sea lions):
    California Sea Lion.......  Zalophus          United States...  -, -, N.........        257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 2014)          14,011            >321
                                 californianus.
    Northern fur seal.........  Callorhinus       California......  -, D, N.........           14,050 (N/A, 7,524, 2013)             451             1.8
                                 ursinus.
                                ................  Eastern North     -, D, N.........        620,660 (0.2, 525,333, 2016)          11,295             399
                                                   Pacific.
Family Phocidae (earless
 seals):
    Northern elephant seal....  Mirounga          California        -, -, N.........         179,000 (N/A, 81,368, 2010)           4,882             8.8
                                 angustirostris.   Breeding.
    Harbor seal...............  Phoca vitulina..  California......  -, -, N.........          30,968 (N/A, 27,348, 2012)           1,641              43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2--NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance.
3--These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
  fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated
  with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

    Harbor seal, California sea lion, bottlenose dolphin and Harbor 
porpoise spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take 
is reasonably likely to occur, and we are authorizing take of these 
species. For gray whale, northern fur seal and northern elephant seal, 
occurrence is such that take is possible, and we are also authorizing 
take of these species. All species that could potentially occur in the 
proposed survey areas are included in San Francisco's IHA application 
(see application, Table 2). Humpback whales could potentially occur in 
the area. However the spatial and temporal occurrence of this species 
is very rare, the species is readily observed, and the applicant would 
shut down pie driving if humpback whales enter the project area. Thus 
take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further.
    A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected 
by the 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 (85 FR 
25271; June 9, 2020); 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' 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized 
species accounts.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    The effects of underwater noise from San Francisco's construction 
activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of 
marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey area. The notice of 
proposed IHA (85 FR 35271; June 9, 2020) included a discussion of the 
effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential 
effects of underwater noise from San Francisco's survey activities on 
marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is 
incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination and is not 
repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 35271; 
June 9, 2020).

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration 
of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance,

[[Page 44048]]

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 would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use 
of the acoustic source (i.e., vibratory or impact pile driving) has the 
potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual 
marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level 
A harassment) to result for pinnipeds and harbor porpoise because 
predicted auditory injury zones are larger. The mitigation and 
monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking 
to the extent practicable.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized 
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Due to the lack of marine 
mammal density for some species, NMFS relied on local occurrence data 
and group size to estimate take. Below, we describe the factors 
considered here in more detail and present the take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur 
permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A 
harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g., 
vibratory pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-
explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) or intermittent (e.g., 
scientific sonar) sources.
    San Francisco's proposed activity includes the use of continuous 
(vibratory pile-driving) and impulsive (impact pile-driving) sources, 
and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) thresholds are 
applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual 
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five 
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a 
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources 
(impulsive or non-impulsive). San Francisco's activity includes the use 
of impulsive (impact pile-driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile 
driving/removal) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 3. The references, analysis, 
and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described 
in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

 Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            PTS Onset acoustic thresholds *  (received level)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Hearing group                Impulsive         Non-impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans....  Cell 1: Lpk,flat:   Cell 2: LE,LF,24h:
                                   219 dB;             199 dB.
                                   LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans....  Cell 3: Lpk,flat:   Cell 4: LE,MF,24h:
                                   230 dB;             198 dB.
                                   LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans...  Cell 5: Lpk,flat:   Cell 6: LE,HF,24h:
                                   202 dB;             173 dB.
                                   LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)             Cell 7: Lpk,flat:   Cell 8: LE,PW,24h:
 (Underwater).                     218 dB;             201 dB.
                                   LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)            Cell 9: Lpk,flat:   Cell 10:
 (Underwater).                     232 dB;             LE,OW,24h: 219
                                   LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.  dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever
  results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-
  impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure
  level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds
  should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa,
  and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of
  1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect
  American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However,
  peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency
  weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence,
  the subscript ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound
  pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure
  level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory
  weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
  and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The
  cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a
  multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty
  cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to
  indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.


[[Page 44049]]

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    The sound field in the project area is the existing background 
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. 
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the 
primary components of the project (i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory 
pile driving, vibratory pile removal).
    Vibratory hammers produce constant sound when operating, and 
produce vibrations that liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile, 
allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth. An impact 
hammer would then generally be used to place the pile at its intended 
depth through rock or harder substrates. The actual durations of each 
installation method vary depending on the type and size of the pile. An 
impact hammer is a steel device that works like a piston, producing a 
series of independent strikes to drive the pile. Impact hammering 
typically generates the loudest noise associated with pile 
installation.
    In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level 
B harassment sound thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in 
this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations 
to develop source levels or the various pile types, sizes and methods 
(see Table 4).

                                      Table 4--Project Sound Source Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Pile driving activity                    Estimated sound source level at
----------------------------------------------------------   10 meters without attenuation
                                                          ---------------------------------      Data source
            Hammer type                   Pile type          dB RMS     dB SEL    dB peak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact............................  36-inch steel pipe...        193        183        210  Compendium pg. 131
                                                                                             (Buehler et al.
                                                                                             2015) Humboldt.
                                    24-inch octagonal            170        164        189  Measurements at Pile
                                     concrete.                                               3B, 9/10/2019 at
                                                                                             Alameda Seaplane
                                                                                             Lagoon Project
                                                                                             (Illingworth and
                                                                                             Rodkin, Inc.,
                                                                                             2019a).
                                    14-inch x 48-inch            157        147        168  Treasure Island
                                     concrete sheetpile                                      (Illingworth and
                                     (measured at 32m).                                      Rodkin, Inc.,
                                                                                             2019b).
Vibratory.........................  36-inch steel pipe...        170                        Compendium pg. 129
                                                                                             (Buehler et al.
                                                                                             2015).
                                    14-inch x 89-foot            150                        Compendium pg. 129
                                     steel H-piles.                                          (Buehler et al.
                                                                                             2015).
Vibratory Removal.................  12-inch timber piles         150                        Port Townsend
                                     (measured at 15.8m).                                    Dolphin Timber Pile
                                                                                             Removal (WSDOT
                                                                                             2011).*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: It is assumed that noise levels during pile installation and removal are similar. Use of an impact
  hammer will be limited to 5-10 minutes per pile, if necessary. SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB
  peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean square.
NMFS typically uses Greenbusch Group (2018) data for source levels for timber pile removal, but the applicant
  chose the more conservative WSDOT (2011). The source level from Greenbush Group (2018) is 152 dB at 10m, the
  equivalent source level for WSDOT (2011) at 10m is 153 dB.

    During pile driving installation activities, there may be times 
when multiple hammers are used simultaneously. For impact hammering, it 
is unlikely that the two hammers would strike at the same exact 
instant, and therefore, the sound source levels will not be adjusted 
regardless of the distance between the hammers. For this reason, 
multiple impact hammering is not discussed further. For simultaneous 
vibratory hammering, the likelihood of such an occurrence is 
anticipated to be infrequent and would be for short durations on that 
day. In-water pile installation is an intermittent activity, and it is 
common for installation to start and stop multiple times as each pile 
is adjusted and its progress is measured. When two continuous noise 
sources, such as vibratory hammers, have overlapping sound fields, 
there is potential for higher sound levels than for non-overlapping 
sources. When two or more vibratory hammers are used simultaneously, 
and the Level B harassment sound field of one source encompasses the 
Level B harassment sound field of another source, the sources are 
considered additive and combined using the following rules (see Table 
5): For addition of two simultaneous vibratory hammers, the difference 
between the two sound source levels (SSLs) is calculated, and if that 
difference is between 0 and 1 dB, 3 dB are added to the higher SSL; if 
difference is between 2 or 3 dB, 2 dB are added to the highest SSL; if 
the difference is between 4 to 9 dB, 1 dB is added to the highest SSL; 
and with differences of 10 or more dB, there is no addition.

                  Table 5--Rules for Combining Sound Levels Generated During Pile Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Hammer types                 Difference in SSL          Level A zones            Level B zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory, Impact....................  Any....................  Use impact zones.......  Use largest zone.
Impact, Impact.......................  Any....................  Use zones for each pile  Use zone for each pile
                                                                 size and number of       size.
                                                                 strikes.
Vibratory, Vibratory.................  0 or 1 dB..............  Add 3 dB to the higher   Add 3 dB to the higher
                                                                 source level.            source level.
                                       2 or 3 dB..............  Add 2 dB to the higher   Add 2 dB to the higher
                                                                 source level.            source level.
                                       4 to 9 dB..............  Add 1 dB to the higher   Add 1 dB to the higher
                                                                 source level.            source level.
                                       10 dB or more..........  Add 0 dB to the higher   Add 0 dB to the higher
                                                                 source level.            source level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Modified from USDOT 1995, WSDOT 2018, and NMFS 2018b.
Note: dB = decibels; SSL = sound source level.


[[Page 44050]]

    For simultaneous usage of three or more continuous sound sources, 
such as vibratory hammers, the three overlapping sources with the 
highest SSLs are identified. Of the three highest SSLs, the lower two 
are combined using the above rules, then the combination of the lower 
two is combined with the highest of the three. For example, with 
overlapping isopleths from 24-, 36-, and 42-inch diameter steel pipe 
piles with SSLs of 161, 167, and 168 dB rms respectively, the 24- and 
36-inch would be added together; given that 167-161 = 6 dB, then 1 dB 
is added to the highest of the two SSLs (167 dB), for a combined noise 
level of 168 dB. Next, the newly calculated 168 dB is added to the 42-
inch steel pile with SSL of 168 dB. Since 168-168 = 0 dB, 3 dB is added 
to the highest value, or 171 dB in total for the combination of 24-, 
36-, and 42-inch steel pipe piles (NMFS 2018b; WSDOT 2018). As 
described in Table 5, dB addition calculations were carried out for all 
possible combinations of vibratory installation.
    When calculating Level B harassment zones for simultaneous use of 
an impact hammer and a vibratory hammer, the Level B zones are 
calculated using the largest zone for either the impact pile driving or 
the vibratory pile driving.
    In consideration of the various pile types and sizes and the 
construction work plan for the different structures and components of 
the project, San Francisco developed a set of likely worst case 
scenarios for the activities that would be carried out over the course 
of individual days (Table 6). These scenarios encompass the worst 
possible combinations of simultaneous pile driving over the worst 
possible number of days it might take to complete those tasks. There 
are four basic scenarios plus the short-term addition of pile removal 
of the timber piles from the old pier. The course of the project is 
broken up into work windows for the first month of the project versus 
the remaining months. Within each of these temporal work windows there 
are some days with driving of larger and louder piles (called the 
maximum exposure days) and some days where driving will be of smaller 
piles (called average exposure days). The table shows what pile driving 
source is used to calculate the Level A and level B zones under each 
scenario.
    The applicant discusses how they will follow the California 
Environmental Quality Act requirement that a bubble curtain be used 
during operation of an impact hammer if sound pressures exceeded 160 dB 
at 500 meters from the source. Because San Francisco will not use a 
bubble curtain for all impact hammering of any pile size, we do not 
include a source level reduction for bubble curtain use or isopleth 
calculation for this project.

                       Table 6--Work Scenarios With Simultaneous Pile Driving Sources Used To Calculate Level A and Level B Zones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Loudest potential sound  source
                                                                  Piles driven  during 24                                          combination
            Date                  Location         Total days              hours           Drive type     Pile type    ---------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Level A          Level B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Maximum exposure days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July to January 15..........  North                           50                        4  Impact....  24-inch          Impact 24-inch   2 vibratory 14-
                               Breakwater.                                                              octagonal        octagonal        inch x 89-foot
                                                                                                        concrete or 14   concrete.        steel H-pile.
                                                                                                        x 48-inch
                                                                                                        concrete
                                                                                                        sheetpiles.
                                                                                        4  Vibratory.  14-inch x 89-
                                                                                                        foot steel H-
                                                                                                        piles..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average exposure days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July........................  Ferry Pier.....                 20                        1  Vibratory.  36-inch steel    2 vibratory (36- 2 vibratory (36-
                                                                                                        pipe (fender     inch) steel      inch) steel
                                                                                                        and/or mooring   pipes.           pipes.
                                                                                                        piles).
                                                                                        2  Vibratory.  14-inch x 89-
                                                                                                        foot steel H-
                                                                                                        piles..
July to January 15..........  North                          112                        1  Impact....  14 x 48-inch     Impact 14 x 48-  2 vibratory 14-
                               Breakwater.                                              2  Vibratory.   concrete         inch.            inch x 89-foot
                                                                                                        sheetpiles.                       steel H-pile.
                                                                                                       14-inch x 89-
                                                                                                        foot steel H-
                                                                                                        piles.
July to December 31.........  Existing Timber               * 14                       15  Vibratory.  12-inch Timber   Same as above..  12-inch timber
                               Pier Removal.                                                            Piles.                            pile plus 14-
                                                                                                                                          inch x 89-foot
                                                                                                                                          steel H-pile.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pier removal will overlap with work days in July to December 2020, but is kept separate as it is short duration and will have different zone sizes.

Level B Harassment Zones

    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
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement

    The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is 
the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected 
propagation environment that would lie between spherical and 
cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate 
assumption for San Francisco's proposed activity.
    Using the practical spreading model, San Francisco determined 
underwater noise would fall below the behavioral effects threshold of 
120 dB rms for marine mammals at distances of 1,585 to 34,164 m 
depending on the pile type(s) and number of simultaneous vibratory 
hammers (Table 7). The distance determines the maximum Level B 
harassment zones for the project. Other activities have smaller Level B 
harassment zones. It should be noted that based on the geography of 
Treasure Island, sound will not reach the full distance of the largest 
Level B

[[Page 44051]]

harassment isopleth, except a potential sliver that would exit San 
Francisco Bay. We do not expect significant sound to exit San Francisco 
Bay however because the entrance to the bay is 13 kilometer (km) from 
the project location, there is extensive anthropogenic ambient noise 
from vessels and development in San Francisco that would mask the 
project sounds, and the geography and bathymetry of the bay is not 
conducive to sounds originating from Treasure Island escaping San 
Francisco Bay.

                                Table 7--Level B Isopleths for Each Work Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Maximum exposure                      Average exposure day
                                          day        -----------------------------------------------------------
                                 --------------------
                                     July-January            July            July-January        July-December
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loudest Pile Type or Combination  2 vibratory 14-     2 vibratory (36-    2 vibratory 14-     vibratory 14-inch
                                   inch x 89-foot      inch) steel pipes.  inch x 89-foot      x 89-foot steel H-
                                   steel H-pile.                           steel H-pile.       pile and
                                                                                               vibratory removal
                                                                                               of 12-inch timber
                                                                                               pile.
Level B Isolpleth (meters)......  1585..............  34,164............  1585..............  2512.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level A Harassment Zones

    When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in 
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more 
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in 
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools 
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with 
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going 
to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of 
overestimate of take by Level A harassment. However, these tools offer 
the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 
3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop 
ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively 
address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as 
impact/vibratory pile driving or drilling, NMFS User Spreadsheet 
predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at 
that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur 
PTS.
    Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet (Table 8), and the resulting 
isopleths are reported below (Table 9) for each of the work scenarios. 
These inputs follow the rules for simultaneous pile driving as 
described in Table 5. The weighting factor adjustments for impact pile 
driving were all 2 kilohertz (kHz) and for vibratory pile driving were 
2.5 kHz.

Table 8--NMFS Technical Guidance User Spreadsheet Input To Calculate Level A Isopleths for a Combination of Pile
                                                     Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   High exposure day                     Average exposure day
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     July-January            July            July-January        July-December
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Type.......................  24-inch Octagonal   36-inch Steel       14 x 48-inch        Vibratory Removal
                                   Concrete Impact.    Simultaneous        Concrete Sheet      of 12-inch Timber
                                                       Vibratory.          Pile Impact.        Pile.
Source Level (RMS SPL)..........  170...............  173...............  157...............  153.
Source Level (Peak).............  189...............  ..................  168...............  ..................
Source Level (ssSEL)............  164...............  ..................  147...............  ..................
Strike Duration (sec)...........  0.1...............
Number of Piles per day.........  4.................  2 *...............  1.................  15.
Number of Strikes per Pile/       1000 strikes......  45 minutes........  600 strikes.......  5 minutes.
 Duration to drive a single pile.
Distance of source level          10................  10................  33................  15.8.
 measurement (m).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Propagation loss coefficient is 15LogR for all cells.
* Two combined piling events, four piles total.

    The above input scenarios lead to PTS isopleth distances (Level A 
thresholds) of 0.1 to 88 meters, depending on the marine mammal group 
and scenario (Table 9).

[[Page 44052]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY20.000

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations. For the three most common species (harbor seal, 
California sea lion, and Harbor porpoise) density data exists from the 
multiple years of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) 
demolition and reconstruction project (Caltrans 2015, 2018). For other 
species we used more qualitative data on observations from the SFOBB 
project and observations from year one of this project along with local 
information on strandings and other biology. Take by Level A and B 
harassment is proposed for authorization and summarized in Table 10.
    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

Bottlenose Dolphin

    Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist. 
SFOBB monitoring showed two observations of this species over 6 days of 
monitoring in 2017 (CalTrans 2018). No common bottlenose dolphins were 
observed over the course of 264 monitoring hours within the 1,000 foot 
(305 m) monitoring zone for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in 
2019. One common bottlenose dolphin is sighted with regularity near 
Alameda (GGCR 2016). Based on the regularity of the sighting in Alameda 
and the SFOBB observations of approximately 0.33 dolphin a day, we 
propose the Level B harassment take equivalent to 0.33 dolphins per day 
for the 182 proposed days of the project, or 61 common bottlenose 
dolphin. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and 
we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A 
harassment zones, we do not anticipate or propose take by Level A 
harassment of bottlenose dolphins.

Harbor Porpoise

    Density data for this species from SFOBB monitoring was 0.17/km\2\ 
(CalTrans 2018). Based on the work scenarios of different pile types 
there are three different sized ensonified areas to be considered to 
estimate Level B harassment take (Table 11). Multiplication of the 
above density times the corresponding scenario area and duration, and 
summing the results for the two scenarios leads to a Level B harassment 
take of 563 harbor porpoise (Table 11).
    Given the relatively high density and size of the Level A isopleths 
for two of the scenarios for Harbor porpoises (Table 9, high-frequency 
cetaceans) we consider Level A harassment take is a possibility. Based 
on density alone it is estimated only two harbor porpoises will enter a 
Level A harassment zone. However, we recognize that harbor porpoises 
travel in groups of up to 10 individuals and observers of the Treasure 
Island Ferry Dock project in 2019 recorded two harbor porpoises over 
264 hours of observation, or 0.008 per hour. Based on this observation 
take equivalent to this rate (0.008 per hour) over the entire project 
period of 182 days (10 hours per day or 1820 hours) equals 15 animals. 
Because the observation area in 2019 is larger than the small Level A 
harassment zones for this species, we propose take at less than one-
half this rate. As such, we propose Level A harassment take of 7 harbor 
porpoise.
    Because any harbor porpoises that enter the Level A harassment zone 
would initially be counted as entering the Level B harassment zone, we 
deduct the Level A harassment take form the Level B harassment take 
calculation in Table 11 to avoid double-counting and arrive at the 
Level B harassment take in Table 10.

California Sea Lion

    Density data for this species from SFOBB monitoring was 0.16/km\2\

[[Page 44053]]

(CalTrans 2018). Based on the work scenarios of different pile types 
there are three different sized ensonified areas to be considered to 
estimate Level B harassment take (Table 11). Multiplication of the 
above density times the corresponding scenario area and duration, and 
summing the results for the two scenarios leads to a Level B harassment 
take of 512 California sea lions (Table 11).
    Given the relatively high density for California sea lions we 
consider Level A harassment take a possibility. Based on density alone 
it is estimated only one California sea lion will enter a Level A 
harassment zone. However, we recognize that observers of the Treasure 
Island Ferry Dock project in 2019 recorded five California sea lions 
over 264 hours of observation, or 0.019 per hour. Because the 
observation area in 2019 is much larger than the small otariid Level A 
harassment zones we propose take at less than one-third this rate. 
Specifically we propose take of 10 California sea lions.
    Because any California sea lions that enter the Level A harassment 
zone would initially be counted as entering the Level B harassment 
zone, we deduct the Level A harassment take form the Level B harassment 
take calculation in Table 11 to avoid double-counting and arrive at the 
Level B harassment take in Table 10.

Northern Fur Seal

    Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exit. 
SFOBB monitoring showed no observations of this species (CalTrans 
2018). None were observed for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in 
2019. The Marine Mammal Center rescues about five northern fur seals in 
a year, and they occasionally rescue them from Yerba Buena Island and 
Treasure Island (TMMC, 2019). To be conservative we propose Level B 
harassment take of five northern fur seals. Because the Level A 
harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSOs will be 
able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, and the 
species is rare, we do not anticipate or propose take by Level A 
harassment of northern fur seals.

Northern Elephant Seal

    Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist. 
SFOBB monitoring showed no observations of this species (CalTrans 
2018). None were observed for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in 
2019. Out of the approximately 100 annual northern elephant seal 
strandings in San Francisco Bay, approximately 10 individuals strand at 
Yerba Buena or Treasure Islands each year (TMMC, 2020). Therefore, we 
propose the Level B harassment take of 10 northern elephant seals. 
Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we 
believe the PSOs will be able to effectively monitor the Level A 
harassment zones, and the species is rare, we do not anticipate or 
propose take by Level A harassment of northern elephant seals.

Harbor Seal

    Density data for this species from SFOBB monitoring was 3.92/km\2\ 
(CalTrans 2018). Based on the work scenarios of different pile types 
there are three different sized ensonified areas to be considered to 
estimate Level B harassment take (Table 11). Multiplication of the 
above density times the corresponding scenario area and duration leads 
to an estimate of 511 harbor seals per day for the pipe pile scenario. 
Summing the results for the two scenarios leads to an expectation of 
12,701 instances of Level B harassment take of harbor seals.
    The number of expected takes per day for the pipe pile scenario 
(511) exceeds the estimate that there is only 500 harbor seals in San 
Francisco Bay (NPS 2016). It is our normal practice not to issue more 
than one take per individual per day. Therefore, we cap the number of 
takes per day for this scenario at 500 per day. Thus, summing the 
results for the two scenarios leads to a Level B harassment take of 
12,481 harbor seals (Table 11).
    Given the relatively high density and size of the Level A isopleths 
for many of the scenarios for harbor seals (Table 9, phocid pinnipeds) 
we consider Level A harassment take is a possibility. Based on density 
alone it is estimated that 3 harbor seals will enter a Level A 
harassment zone. However, we recognize that harbor seals can occur in 
moderate and rarely large size groups and observers of the Treasure 
Island Ferry Dock project in 2019 recorded 324 harbor seals over 264 
hours of observation, or 6.12 per km\2\ per hour. Based on this 
observation and the size and days of activity for the two large Level A 
harassment zones we request take equivalent to this rate. As such, we 
propose Level A harassment take of 20 harbor seals.
    Because any harbor seals that enter the Level A harassment zone 
would initially be counted as entering the Level B harassment zone, we 
deduct the Level A harassment take from the Level B harassment take 
calculation in Table 11 to avoid double-counting and arrive at the 
Level B harassment take in Table 10.

Gray Whale

    Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist. 
SFOBB monitoring showed no observations of this species (CalTrans 
2018). None were observed for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in 
2019. Approximately 12 gray whales were stranded in San Francisco Bay 
from January to May of 2019 (TMMC, 2019). Because recent observations 
are not well understood, Treasure Island sits near the entrance to the 
bay, and as a conservative measure, we propose Level B harassment take 
of 10 gray whales. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively 
small and we believe the PSOs will be able to effectively monitor the 
Level A harassment zones, and the species is rare, we do not anticipate 
or propose take by Level A harassment of gray whales.

  Table 10--Authorized Amount of Taking, by Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock and
                                            Percent of Take by Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Authorized take
                             Species                             --------------------------------   Percent of
                                                                      Level B         Level A          stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) California Stock...................          12,461              20             1.6
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) San Francisco--Russian River             538               7             5.5
 Stock..........................................................
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) U.S. Stock.........             502              10             0.2
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Eastern North Pacific Stock..              10               0            <0.1
Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) California                     61               0            13.5
 Coastal Stock..................................................
Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) California                   10               0            <0.1
 breeding Stock.................................................
Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) California and Eastern                 5               0            <0.1
 North Pacific Stocks...........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 44054]]


                 Table 11--Calculations of Level B Harassment Take From Density Data by Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Harbor      California sea
                                                                     porpoise          lion         Harbor seal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                SFOBB density (animals/square km)                           0.17            0.16            3.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Piling Scenario/Level B isopleth Distance (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days of Pile Driving..................  2 vibratory 14-inch x 89-            148             148             148
                                         foot steel H-pile/1585
                                         m.
                                        2 vibratory (36-inch)                 20              20              20
                                         steel pipes/34,164 m.
                                        12-inch timber pile plus              14              14              14
                                         14-inch x 89-foot steel
                                         H-pile/2512 m.
Area of Isopleth in square kilometers.  2 vibratory 14-inch x 89-           3.42            3.42            3.42
                                         foot steel H-pile/1585
                                         m.
                                        2 vibratory (36-inch)                129             129             129
                                         steel pipes/34,164 m.
                                        12-inch timber pile plus             8.6             8.6             8.6
                                         14-inch x 89-foot steel
                                         H-pile/2512 m.
Per day take Level B..................  2 vibratory 14-inch x 89-            0.6             0.5            13.5
                                         foot steel H-pile/1585
                                         m.
                                        2 vibratory (36-inch)               21.9            20.6            *500
                                         steel pipes/34,164 m.
                                        12-inch timber pile plus             1.5             1.4              34
                                         14-inch x 89-foot steel
                                         H-pile.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Level B Take Calculated.....                                       545             512          12,481
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Capped at maximum population size (500) in San Francisco Bay per day (NPS 2016).

Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of the 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 the 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned); and
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    The following mitigation measures are listed in the IHA:
     For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving 
(e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, 
operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum 
level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This 
type of work could include the following activities: (1) Movement of 
the barge to the pile location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the 
substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);
     Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and 
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all 
pile driving activity and when new personnel join the work, to explain 
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring 
protocol, and operational procedures;
     For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take 
has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal will shut 
down immediately if such species are observed within or entering the 
Level B harassment zone; and
     If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized 
species, pile installation will be stopped as these species approach 
the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
    The following mitigation measures would apply to San Francisco's 
in-water construction activities.
     Establishment of Shutdown Zones--San Francisco will 
establish shutdown zones for all pile driving and removal activities. 
The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within 
which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine 
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). 
Shutdown zones will vary based on the activity type and marine mammal 
hearing group (Table 3). The largest shutdown zones are generally for 
high frequency cetaceans, as shown in Table 12.
     The placement and number of PSOs during all pile driving 
and removal activities (described in detail in the Monitoring and 
Reporting section) will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible 
during pile installation. Should environmental conditions deteriorate 
such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be 
visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving and removal must be 
delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown 
zone could be detected.

[[Page 44055]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY20.001

     Monitoring for Level A and Level B Harassment--San 
Francisco will monitor the Level A and B harassment zones. Monitoring 
zones provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring 
protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones 
enable observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine 
mammals in the project area outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare 
for a potential halt of activity should the animal enter the shutdown 
zone. Placement of PSOs will allow PSOs to observe marine mammals 
within the Level A and B harassment zones. However, due to the large 
Level B harassment zones (Table 7), PSOs will not be able to 
effectively observe the entire zone. Therefore, Level B harassment 
exposures will be recorded and extrapolated, as necessary, based upon 
the number of observed takes and the percentage of the Level B 
harassment zone that was not visible.
     Pre-activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-
water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/
removal of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown 
and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will 
be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within 
the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed 
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal 
has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes. When a 
marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is 
present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level 
B harassment take will be recorded. If the entire Level B harassment 
zone is not visible at the start of construction, pile driving 
activities can begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-
activity monitoring of the shutdown zones will commence.
     Soft Start--Soft-start procedures are believed to provide 
additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or 
giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer 
operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors will 
be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer 
at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period. This 
procedure will be conducted three times before impact pile driving 
begins. Soft start will be implemented at the start of each day's 
impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile 
driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
     Pile driving or removal must occur during daylight hours.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the 
mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable 
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life

[[Page 44056]]

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species 
with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure 
(e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring

    Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the 
Monitoring section of the application and section 5 of the IHA. Marine 
mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by 
NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
     Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who 
have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used;
     Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological 
science or related field) or training for experience; and
     San Francisco must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae for 
approval by NMFS prior to the onset of pile driving.
    PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
     Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols;
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation 
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); 
and marine mammal behavior; and
     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.
    Two PSOs will be employed. PSO locations will provide an 
unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone(s), and as much 
of the Level A and Level B harassment zones as possible. PSO locations 
are as follows:
    (1) At the pile driving site(s) or best vantage point practicable 
to monitor the shutdown zones; and
    (2) For the large Level B harassment zone associated with 
simultaneous driving of large pipe piles (i.e. 36-inch), or when 
vibratory driving a 36-inch pile by itself, a second PSO will be placed 
near Pier 33 in San Francisco.
    Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 
minutes after pile driving/removal activities. In addition, observers 
shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of 
distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in 
concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. 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 or drilling equipment is no more than 30 minutes.

Reporting

    A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS 
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal 
activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any 
future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. 
The report will include an overall description of work completed, a 
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data 
sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
     Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal 
monitoring.
     Construction activities occurring during each daily 
observation period, including how many and what type of piles were 
driven or removed and by what method (i.e., impact or vibratory).
     Weather parameters and water conditions during each 
monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover, visibility, sea 
state).
     The number of marine mammals observed, by species, 
relative to the pile location and if pile driving or removal was 
occurring at time of sighting.
     Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals 
observed.
     PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.
     Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to 
the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile driving or 
removal was occurring at time of sighting).
     Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during 
observation, including direction of travel and estimated time spent 
within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was 
active.
     Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by 
month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and 
estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction 
factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate).
     Detailed information about any implementation of any 
mitigation triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of 
specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if 
any.
     Description of attempts to distinguish between the number 
of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such 
as ability to track groups or individuals.
     An extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level B 
harassment based on the number of observed exposures within the Level B 
harassment zone and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that 
was not visible, when applicable.
    If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft 
final report will constitute the final report. If comments are 
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted 
within 30 days after receipt of comments.

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

    In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities 
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, San Francisco shall report 
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to 
the regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or 
injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, San Francisco must 
immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review 
the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, 
additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms 
of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until 
notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first 
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);

[[Page 44057]]

     Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
     Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if 
the animal is dead);
     Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
     If available, photographs or video footage of the 
animal(s); and
     General circumstances under which the animal was 
discovered.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses 
applies to all of the species listed in Table 10, given that many of 
the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal 
stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Additional 
discussion is included for harbor seals, which occur more densely in 
the area and may be disturbed repeatedly during the season. Pile 
driving activities have the potential to disturb or displace marine 
mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in 
the form of Level A harassment and Level B harassment from underwater 
sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could 
occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone when these 
activities are underway.
    The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to 
potential behavioral disturbance, temporary threshold shift (TTS), and 
PTS. No mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and 
measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine 
mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the 
construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation 
measures (see Mitigation section).
    The Level A harassment zones identified in Table 9 are based upon 
an animal exposed to impact pile driving multiple piles per day. 
Considering duration of impact driving each pile (up to 10 minutes) and 
breaks between pile installations (to reset equipment and move pile 
into place), this means an animal would have to remain within the area 
estimated to be ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for 
multiple hours. This is highly unlikely given marine mammal movement 
throughout the area. If an animal was exposed to accumulated sound 
energy, the resulting PTS would likely be small (e.g., PTS onset) at 
lower frequencies where pile driving energy is concentrated, and 
unlikely to result in impacts to individual fitness, reproduction, or 
survival.
    The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of 
serious injury or mortality. For all species and stocks, take would 
occur within a limited, confined area (western San Francisco Bay) of 
any given stock's range. Level A and Level B harassment will be reduced 
to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of 
mitigation measures described herein. Further the amount of take 
authorized for any given stock is extremely small when compared to 
stock abundance.
    Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the 
project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine 
mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues 
they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the 
Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the 
area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as 
changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of noise-
generating activities per day and that pile driving and removal would 
occur across six months, any harassment would be temporary. There are 
no other areas or times of known biological importance for any of the 
affected species.
    We are authorizing large numbers of take of harbor seals. As 
discussed above, there are approximately 500 harbor seals in San 
Francisco Bay. Thus we expect most of the harbor seal take to consist 
of repeated take of a smaller number of individuals, rather than a 
large proportion of the stock. Most of the take is expected to occur 
from the 20 days of simultaneous vibratory pile driving of large piles. 
However, we are not concerned about fitness impacts as the daily 
exposure is likely to be brief and intermittent. The 20 days of 
simultaneous pile driving are not expected to be sequential, providing 
the animals recovery time. The presence of the large simultaneous level 
B harassment zones are also likely to be of very short duration within 
a day on any given day given the dynamics of operating and adjusting 
different pile driving rigs and thus the likelihood that both rigs will 
be operating simultaneously. It is also the case that some of the 
simultaneous pile driving will consist of one large pile and smaller, 
quieter H-piles (see Table 6), so that effects are likely to be less 
significant. In addition, this area of the bay lacks important habitat 
areas, including haulouts within the level B harassment zone, and the 
existing industrialized nature and loud ambient noise of the area 
minimize the degradation of habitat and effects on individual fitness, 
reproduction, or survival. Moreover, harbor seals resident in San 
Francisco Bay are likely habituated to this noise and activity as 
evident in the low number of observed responses, none of which seemed 
severe, from monitoring. Finally, the status of this stock is not of 
concern.
    In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, 
localized area of habitat would have any effect on the stocks' ability 
to recover. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as 
the available body of evidence from other similar activities, 
demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will 
have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified 
activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival 
and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
    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:

[[Page 44058]]

     No mortality is anticipated or authorized.
     Authorized Level A harassment would be very small amounts 
and of low degree.
     No biologically important areas have been identified 
within the project area.
     For all species, San Francisco Bay is a very small and 
peripheral part of their range.
     For harbor seals take is concentrated in a small number of 
individuals with the 20 days of major activity spread out, the most 
severe simultaneous pile driving likely of short duration on any given 
day in an area of unimportant habitat with significant exiting 
anthropomorphic noise and disturbance and evidence the animals are 
habituated to these circumstances.
     San Francisco would implement mitigation measures such as 
vibratory driving piles to the maximum extent practicable, soft-starts, 
and shut downs.
     Monitoring reports from similar work in San Francisco Bay 
have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species 
impacted by the specified activities.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the 
proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine 
mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified 
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not 
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are 
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most 
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in 
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small 
numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to 
be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the 
take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other 
qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the 
temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
    The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize of all species or 
stocks is below one third of the estimated stock abundance. These are 
all likely conservative estimates because they assume all takes are of 
different individual animals which is likely not the case. Some 
individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count 
them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated 
take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals 
will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species 
or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA) 
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or 
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for 
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for 
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would 
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined 
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review.

Endangered Species Act

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the West Coast Region 
Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize 
take for endangered or threatened species.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for 
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS 
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is 
not required for this action.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to San Francisco for the potential 
harassment of small numbers of seven marine mammal species incidental 
to the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in San Francisco, California, 
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting 
requirements are followed.

    Dated: July 16, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-15706 Filed 7-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P