[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23790-23813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09033]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XA126]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Alameda Marina Shoreline
Improvement Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Pacific Shops, Inc. (Pacific
Shops) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the
Alameda Marina Shoreline Improvement Project in Alameda, CA over two
years. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to issue two incidental harassment
authorizations (IHAs) to incidentally take marine mammals during the
specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on possible one-
year renewals that could be issued under certain circumstances and if
all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments
at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to
making any
[[Page 23791]]
final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations,
and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our
decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than May 29,
2020.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments
should be sent to [email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments
received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted
online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities
without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name,
address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Davis, 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.
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 IHAs) 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 preliminarily determined
that the issuance of the proposed IHAs qualifies to be categorically
excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
request.
Summary of Request
On November 25, 2019, NMFS received a request from Pacific Shops,
Inc. (Pacific Shops) for two IHAs to take marine mammals incidental to
construction activities at the Alameda Marina in Alameda, CA over two
years. The applicant expects to conduct vibratory pile removal and
vibratory and impact installation during Year 1, and vibratory and
impact pile installation during Year 2. The application was deemed
adequate and complete on April 9, 2020. Pacific Shops' request is for
take of a small number of six species of marine mammals, by Level B
harassment. Neither Pacific Shops nor NMFS expects serious injury or
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, IHAs are
appropriate.
The IHAs, if issued, will be effective from June 1, 2020 to May 31,
2021 for Year 1 activities, and June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022 for Year 2
activities.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Pacific Shops is proposing to conduct improvements to the Alameda
Marina and its shoreline in Alameda, CA over a two-year construction
period. The project will address climate resiliency and rehabilitate
existing shoreline and marina facilities so that the shoreline meets
current seismic resistance criteria and addresses sea level rise risk.
The project will update the existing marina facilities, reconfigure
some of the existing marina piers, and provide the public with more
aquatic recreational opportunities. The construction activities include
vibratory and impact pile driving and removal which will ensonify the
Oakland Estuary over approximately 68 days in year 1, and 98 days in
year 2.
Dates and Duration
Pacific Shops anticipates that construction for the Alameda Marina
Shoreline Improvement Project will occur over two years. The proposed
IHAs would each be effective for one year beginning June 2020 and June
2021, respectively. Pile driving and/or removal are expected to occur
on up to 200 minutes per day, depending on the pile type, and will
occur primarily during daylight hours. Fishery regulatory authorities
recommend that Pacific Shops close off the cofferdam (see details
below) during low tide, which could occur outside of daylight hours.
Pacific Shops estimates that in-water construction will occur over
approximately 68 days in Year 1, and 98 days in Year 2.
Specific Geographic Region
The project site is entirely within the Oakland Estuary (Estuary),
in the City and County of Alameda, California. Alameda is southeast of
Treasure Island, Yerba Buena Island, and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge, by approximately 3 km (1.9 mi). The Estuary is connected to the
Central San Francisco Bay (Central Bay) on the west end and San Leandro
Bay on the east end. From the Central Bay to the project area, the
Estuary is only approximately
[[Page 23792]]
492 ft (150 m) wide, and is relatively shallow throughout (ranging from
50 ft (15 m) in the shipping channel to 30 ft (9 m) deep in the project
area (BCDC 1994, 2018)).
The geographic, bathymetric, and ecological characteristics of the
Estuary limit its use by marine mammals. The geography of the Estuary
limits tidal flushing, and the industrial history of the Estuary has
led to an accumulation of toxins in the sediment: substrates in the
Oakland Inner Harbor and turning basin contain contaminants that are
harmful to sensitive marine organisms (Shreffler et al. 1994). There
are no eelgrass beds in the project area within the Estuary. This lack
of foraging habitat along with the compromised substrate quality limit
prey resources for marine mammals.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29AP20.001
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
Pacific Shops' planned construction includes work on many
components of the Marina. Please see Figures 2 and 3 in the IHA
application for a detailed map of Alameda Marina and the location of
proposed construction components.
[[Page 23793]]
Demolition Activities
During Year 1, Pacific Shops is proposing to remove several
degraded wharves, piers, and pier studs (the shoreline portion of a
previously removed pier), collectively referred to here as ``pile-
supported structures.'' These structures include the boat elevator
wharf, boat lift wharf, Pier 4 stud, Pier 6 stud, and a pier outboard
of the Promenade Wharf (see Application, Figure 2). Generally, the
pile-supported structures are comprised of piles supporting a wooden
platform of timber joists/girders that are covered with timber deck
boards. The removal methods for these pile-supported structures will
all be similar, and involve removal of the deck boards, followed by the
timber joists/girders and shoring beams, and finally the support piles.
Deck boards will be removed by hand working from the northern end of
the structure back towards the shore. Once the deck is removed, the
underlying timber joists/girders will be dismantled from the estuary-
side toward the landside.
Pacific Shops is proposing to remove piles associated with the pile
supported structures and with Seawall 1 (Table 1). All piles will be
either vibrated out or cut off at the mudline and removed. The
applicant will decide in-situ whether to vibrate-out or cut off the
piles depending on the condition of the pile. The applicant may first
attempt to vibrate the pile out, but if it is so deteriorated that it
cannot be removed, the pile will be cut it off at the mudline. Table 1
includes a summary of structures proposed for removal, and the type and
number of piles to be removed. Please see Figure 2 of Pacific Shops'
application for the location of each structure at Alameda Marina.
Table 1--Summary of Piles to be Removed With a Vibratory Hammer in Year
1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Structure Type of pile piles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seawall 1......................... 16-in Timber........ 150
Pier 4 Stud....................... 16-in Timber........ 16
Pier 6 Stud....................... 16-in Timber........ 20
Boat Elevator Wharf............... 16-in Timber........ 7
12-in Square 12
Concrete.
Boat Lift Wharf................... 16-in Timber........ 25
12-in Square 7
Concrete.
Pier Outboard of Promenade Wharf.. 16-in Timber........ 60
Building 13 Wharf................. 16-in Timber........ 3
Building 14 Wharf................. 16-in Timber........ 20
---------------
Total......................... 16-in Timber........ 301
12-in Square 19
Concrete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Installation
The contractor will install sheet piles with a crane or excavator-
mounted vibratory hammer to a design depth. Sheet pile installation
will be conducted from both land and water. The contractor estimates
that they will install approximately 20 sheet piles per day, each of
which will take approximately 10 minutes (min) to install. Vibratory
hammering will be conducted year-round.
The contractor will initially install all steel pipe piles with a
vibratory hammer through the top soft soils until the vibration cannot
advance the pile further into the substrate. In some cases, the
contractor may be able to achieve final depths for steel piles using a
vibratory hammer only. The contractor will use a crane or excavator-
mounted impact hammer to complete pipe pile installation and drive to
final depths. The contractor will use a bubble curtain during all
impact driving of steel piles. Pipe pile installation will be conducted
from both land and water.
The contractor will install concrete piles with an impact hammer.
Concrete pile installation will be conducted from both land and water.
Table 2--Summary of Piles to be Installed in Year 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Structure Type of pile piles Hammer type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seawall 4............................... Steel Sheet Pile.......... 149 Vibratory.
Seawall 6............................... Steel Sheet Pile.......... 106 Vibratory.
Promenade Wharf......................... 16-in Square Concrete..... 39 Impact.
Building 5 Wharf........................ 16-in Square Concrete..... 1 Impact.
Building 13 Wharf....................... 36-in Steel Pipe.......... 2 Vibratory & Attenuated
Impact.
16-in Square Concrete..... 1 Impact.
Cofferdam............................... Steel Sheet Pile.......... \a\ 214 Vibratory.
Total............................... Steel Sheet Pile.......... 469 Vibratory.
16-in Square Concrete..... 41 Impact.
36-in Steel Pipe.......... 2 Vibratory & Attenuated
Impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 107 steel sheet piles will be installed and later removed (part of cofferdam), and are accounted for in 214
of these piles, as SLs are considered to be the same for both activities. The applicant has not yet determined
the exact sheet pile they will be using.
[[Page 23794]]
Table 3--Summary of Piles to be Installed in Year 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Structure Type of pile piles Hammer type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seawall 1............................... Steel Sheet Pile.......... 233 Vibratory.
Wide Flange Beam.......... 117 Vibratory & Attenuated
Impact.
Seawall 1A.............................. Steel Sheet Pile.......... 26 Vibratory.
Wide Flange Beam \a\...... 13 Vibratory & Attenuated
Impact.
Building 14 Wharf....................... 36-in Steel Pipe.......... 1 Vibratory & Attenuated
Impact.
Headwalk................................ 14-in Square Concrete..... 19 Impact.
Boat Hoist Deck......................... 24-in Square Concrete..... 8 Impact.
30-in Steel Pipe.......... 1 Vibratory & Attenuated
Impact.
Total............................... Steel Sheet Pile.......... 259 Vibratory.
Wide Flange Beam \a\...... 130 Vibratory & Attenuated
Impact.
30-in Steel Pipe.......... 1 Vibratory & Attenuated
Impact.
36-in Steel Pipe.......... 1 Vibratory & Attenuated
Impact.
14-in Square Concrete..... 19 Impact.
24-in Square Concrete..... 8 Impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Wide flange beams are steel beams with two parallel ``flanges'' that are longer than the central piece
connecting them. They have an H-shaped cross-section. The contractor will select the specific wide flange
beams at the time of construction.
Wharf Refurbishment
Pacific Shops plans to refurbish the Promenade Wharf, Building 5
Wharf, Building 13 Wharf, and Building 14 Wharf (see application,
Figure 2). In addition to the pile removal and installation activities
outlined above, Pacific Shops will remove and replace or reinforce
miscellaneous support framing, bracing, and connectors (i.e., joists/
girders, blocking, and hardware). NMFS does not expect these above-
water activities to result in marine mammal harassment, and they are
not considered further in this notice.
The contractor will install new prestressed concrete piles adjacent
to existing severely deteriorated piles, and will jacket timber piles
with moderate deterioration. Pile jacketing involves encasing existing
piles in a circular plastic case and filling the space between the pile
and plastic case with cement grout. NMFS does not expect pile jacketing
to result in marine mammal harassment and we do not consider it further
in this notice.
The contractor will replace deteriorated beams with new beams of
the same size and new piles will be added to the wharves for lateral
restraint (steel pipe piles and wide flange beams). The contractor will
construct structural connections between the new piles and the deck
beam frame. Finally, the contractor will place the wharf deck boards
over the frame.
Some limited falsework will likely be required for access, which
will span between the existing beams and piles. Falsework will likely
consist of hanging a temporary scaffold system under the existing wharf
to prevent debris generated during the refurbishment of the wharf from
falling into the water.
NMFS does not expect the installation of structural connections,
deck boards, and falsework to result in marine mammal harassment, and
we do not consider them further in this notice.
Seawall Maintenance
Pacific Shops is proposing repairs that will strengthen the walls
and address projected sea level rise. They anticipate completing
seawall repairs prior to the removal of some existing seawall
materials. Seawall maintenance has been broken up into four segments:
Seawall 1 spans Pier 7 to Pier 3 (700 LF); Seawall 1A is directly east
of Pier 3 (80 LF); Seawall 4 is south of East Pier (280 LF); and
Seawall 6 is east of the graving dock (i.e., dry dock) (200 LF).
The contractor will repair Seawall 4 and Seawall 6 in Year 1 and
will consist of new steel sheet piles with reinforced concrete caps and
tie-rods (Table 2). Seawall 1 and Seawall 1A will be repaired in Year
2. Repairs will consist of new steel sheet piles or combi-wall
(combination of steel wide flange beams and steel sheet piles) with a
reinforced concrete cap at its top (Table 3).
The new sheet piles (steel sheet piles) or combi-wall at Seawalls 1
and 1A will be driven to the design tip elevation seaward of the
existing timber seawall. Wide flange beams and sheet piles will
typically tip in a dense sand layer approximately 25 to 35 ft (7.6 to
10.6m) below mudline. The contractor will install the sheet piles using
a vibratory hammer. If wide flange beams are used, the contractor will
first use a vibratory hammer, and then use an impact hammer to complete
beam installation and drive to final depths. The reinforced concrete
cap will be cast in place along the top of the piles of the new
seawall.
To repair Seawalls 4 and 6, Pacific Shops will construct new wall
segments consisting of steel sheet piles with a concrete cap beam on
the outside face of the existing seawall. The contractor will install
the steel sheet piles and concrete cap in a manner similar to that
described for Seawalls 1 and 1A. Following the installation of the
steel sheet pile wall, the contractor will excavate soil behind the
wall to the depth of the existing tie-rod for inspection of the steel
and concrete deadman anchor components. Deteriorated components of the
deadman anchor and the associated connection components will be
replaced as needed. The existing deadman anchor will be tied to the new
concrete cap beam above the sheet pile wall using a steel tie-rod.
Excavation and replacement of deadman anchor components, as needed,
will occur completely out of water.
NMFS does not expect construction of the concrete caps, excavation
behind the seawall, or potential replacement of the deadman anchor and
associated components to result in take of marine mammals. Therefore,
we do not consider them further in this notice.
Outfall Installation
The Master Plan stormwater management system will include outfall
repair and installation with new inlets and pipelines of appropriate
size to convey runoff and run-on. This stormwater management system
will continue to discharge directly to the Estuary through six outfalls
located either in revetments or in seawalls that range in size from 18-
in to 36-in-diameter (45.7 cm to 91.4 cm) pipelines.
The Project includes the installation of one new outfall in the
Estuary, located in the shoreline between Pier 3 and Pier 2 (see
Application, Figure 3). The outfall is located along the revetment and
will be a cast-in-place concrete structure consisting of a
[[Page 23795]]
headwall, wingwalls, and riprap. The outfall will include a tide valve
to prevent backwater into the storm drain system.
The contractor will install a sheet pile cofferdam to facilitate
outfall repair and installation. The sheet pile cofferdam wall will be
embedded in shoreline substrate immediately downstream from the outfall
using a vibratory hammer. The contractor expects to install the final
cofferdam piles during low tide, if possible, as recommended NMFS
Southwest Region, to minimize impacts to fish. The contractor will
remove some riprap and sediment from the cofferdam footprint prior to
cofferdam installation. Once the cofferdam is installed, soil and
riprap will be excavated from the location of the new outfall using a
landside excavator. Once the contractor has excavated and cleared the
existing material, they will construct forms for the new headwall and
wingwalls and pour concrete into the forms. After the headwall and
wingwalls have cured enough to hold the slope, the contractor will
place riprap in upland areas and within the Estuary. The contractor
will remove the forms and sheet pile cofferdam after the concrete has
reached design strength, allowing the headwall and wingwalls to cure.
The contractor will stabilize the shoreline with riprap, and install
the tidal flap gate.
NMFS does not expect construction of the headwall and wingwalls
(poured concrete), installation of the rip rap, or insallation of the
tidal flap gate to result in marine mammal harassment. Therefore, we do
not consider these activities further in this notice.
Marina Infrastructure Removal/Reconfiguration
Pacific Shops plans to reconfigure the existing 529-slip marina to
reduce points of land access as a measure of safety, to improve access
and operation of the docks, and to create a new waterlife park in the
remnant graving dock. The existing marina uses will remain unchanged
with no additional slips. Pacific Shops plans to modify existing marina
infrastructure, including removing Pier 2 slip covers, installing
floating docks in the existing graving dock, and reconfiguring gangways
and headwalks. Gangways provide pedestrian access from land to the
floating docks and headwalks are pile-supported floating portions of a
dock that provide pedestrian access to slips.
The contractor will reuse existing support piles for marina
infrastructure to the greatest extent possible; however, they will
remove some existing piles for dock reconfiguration, as previously
described in the Pile Removal section. The contractor will reconfigure
Pier 1 slips to accommodate larger vessels and the East Pier slips will
be moved toward the channel to accommodate the new waterfront park. The
contractor will install new support piles for the new headwalks (Table
3).
The contractor will complete the bulk of marina reconfiguration
work from land. New sections of headwalks, gangways, and docks will be
constructed in an upland location, hoisted onto the water and floated
into place. Existing features that require demolition will be
disconnected from the current fixed dock, floated to the edge of the
marina, hoisted onto land, and demolished in an upland location.
Only the headwalk reconfiguration involves pile driving. NMFS does
not anticipate that Pier 2 slipcover removal, gangway reconfiguration,
and floating dock installation will result in marine mammal harassment.
Therefore, we do not consider those activities further in this notice.
Boat Hoist Deck
The contractor will replace three existing boat hoists with a new
3-ton boat hoist (approximately 42 ft by 50 ft (12.8 m by 15.2 m) in
area). The new boat hoist, located on the west side of the project site
(see application, Figure 4), will lift sailboats into and out of the
Estuary. It requires a new, pile-supported deck.
The new deck will be 2,100ft\2\, (195m\2\) with 270 ft\2\ (25m\2\)
over land and 1,830 ft\2\ (170 m\2\) over water. The new deck will be
supported by eight 24-in square prestressed concrete piles and one 30-
in cylindrical steel pipe pile (Table 3). The single 30-in steel pipe
pile supporting the hoist platform deck will be initially installed
with a vibratory hammer; an attenuated impact hammer will be used to
complete pile installation and drive to final depths. The 24-in
concrete piles will be impact-driven their entire length without
attenuation.
Pacific Shops does not plan to conduct pile driving with multiple
hammers concurrently.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
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 4 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
Alameda, CA and summarizes information related to the population or
stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and 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 (e.g., Carretta et al., 2019). All values
presented in Table 4 are the most recent available at the time of
publication and are available in the 2018 SARs (Carretta et al., 2019)
and draft 2019 SARs (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
[[Page 23796]]
Table 4--Species That Spatially Co-Occur With the Activity to the Degree That Take May Occur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance (CV,
ESA/MMPA status; Nmin, most recent Annual M/
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) abundance survey) \2\ PBR SI \3\
\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Bottlenose Dolphin.............. Tursiops truncatus..... California Coastal..... -, -, N 453 (0.06, 346, 2011). 2.7 >2.0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... San Francisco/Russian -, -, N 9,886 (0.51, 2019).... 66 0
River.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California Sea Lion............. Zalophus californianus. United States.......... -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 14,011 >321
2014).
Northern fur seal............... Callorhinus ursinus.... California............. -, D, N 14,050 (N/A, 7,524, 451 1.8
2013).
Eastern North Pacific.. -, D, N 620,660 (0.2, 525,333, 11,295 399
2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Northern elephant seal.......... Mirounga angustirostris California Breeding.... -, -, N 179,000 (N/A, 81,368, 4,882 8.8
2010).
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... California............. -, -, N 30,968 (N/A, 27,348, 1,641 43
2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. 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 and California sea lion spatially co-occur with the
activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we
have proposed authorizing take of these species. For bottlenose
dolphin, harbor porpoise, northern fur seal, and northern elephant
seal, occurrence is such that take is possible, and we have proposed
authorizing take of these species also. All species that could
potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Pacific
Shops' IHA application (see application, Table 4). While gray whale and
humpback whale could potentially occur in the area, the spatial
occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur,
and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided
here. In recent years there have been an increased number of gray
whales in the San Francisco Bay, but they primarily occur in the
western and central Bay (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019), and none have
been reported in the Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b). Humpbacks have
regularly been seen inside the Bay, primarily in the western Bay, from
April through November since 2016 (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019), and
sometimes venture up the Delta waterway (e.g., Gulland et al. 2008),
but have not been recorded in the Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b).
Additionally, both gray whales and humpback whales are not expected to
enter the project area due to the narrow channel width and shallow
water depths.
Bottlenose Dolphin
The California coastal stock of common bottlenose dolphin is found
within 0.6 mi (1 km) of shore (Defran and Weller 1999) and occurs from
northern Baja California, Mexico to Bodega Bay, CA. Their range has
extended north over the last several decades with El Ni[ntilde]o events
and increased ocean temperatures (Hansen and Defran 1990). Genetic
studies have shown that no mixing occurs between the California coastal
stock and the offshore common bottlenose dolphin stock (Lowther-
Thieleking et al. 2015). Bottlenose dolphins are opportunistic
foragers: Time of day, tidal state, and oceanographic habitat influence
where they pursue prey (Hanson and Defran 1993). Dive durations up to
15 minutes have been recorded for trained Navy bottlenose dolphins,
(Ridgway et al. 1969), but typical dives are shallower and of a much
shorter duration (approximately 30 seconds [sec]; Bearzi et al. 1999,
Mate et al. 1995).
Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and
Estimation section for information on local occurrence in the project
area.
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoise occur along the US west coast from southern
California to the Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2013, Barlow and Hanan
1995, Carretta et al. 2009, 2014). They rarely occur in waters warmer
than 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit (17 degrees Celsius; Read 1990). The San
Francisco-Russian River stock is found from Pescadero, 18 mi (30 km)
south of the San Francisco Bay, to 99 mi (160 km) north of the Bay at
Point Arena (Carretta et al. 2014, Chivers et al. 2002). In most areas,
harbor porpoise occur in small groups of just a few individuals.
Harbor porpoise occur frequently outside the Bay and re-entered the
Bay beginning in 2008 (Stern et al. 2017). They now commonly occur
year-round within the Bay, primarily on the west and northwest side of
the Central Bay near the Golden Gate Bridge, near Marin County, and
near the city of San Francisco (Duffy 2015, Keener et al. 2012, Stern
et al. 2017). In the summer of 2017 and 2018, mom-calf pairs and small
groups (1-4 individuals) were seen to the north and west of Treasure
Island, and just south of YBI (Yerba Buena Island) (Caltrans 2018a,
2019; M. Schulze, pers. comm. 2019). Please see the Marine Mammal
Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation section for information
on local occurrence in the project area.
Harbor porpoise must forage nearly continuously to meet their high
metabolic needs (Wisniewska et al. 2016). They consume up to 550 small
fish (1.2-3.9 in [3-10 cm]; e.g. anchovies) per hour at a nearly 90
[[Page 23797]]
percent capture success rate (Wisniewska et al. 2016).
California Sea Lion
California sea lions occur from Vancouver Island, British Columbia,
to the southern tip of Baja California. Sea lions breed on the offshore
islands of southern and central California from May through July (Heath
and Perrin 2008). During the non-breeding season, adult and subadult
males and juveniles migrate northward along the coast to central and
northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island
(Jefferson et al. 1993). They return south the following spring (Heath
and Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney 2005). Females and some juveniles
tend to remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et al. 1990, Melin et al.
2008).
California sea lions have occupied docks near Pier 39 in San
Francisco, about 9.2 mi (14.9 km) from the project area, since 1987.
The highest number of sea lions recorded at Pier 39 was 1,701
individuals in November 2009. Occurrence of sea lions here is typically
lowest in June (during pupping and breeding seasons) and highest in
August. Approximately 85 percent of the animals that haul out at this
site are males, and no pupping has been observed here or at any other
site in the Bay. Pier 39 is the only regularly used haulout site in the
project vicinity, but sea lions occasionally haul out on human-made
structures such as bridge piers, jetties, or navigation buoys (Riedman
1990).
Pupping occurs primarily on the California Channel Islands from
late May until the end of June (Peterson and Bartholomew 1967). No
pupping has been observed at the Pier 39 site or any other site in San
Francisco Bay under normal conditions (USACE 2011). Although there has
been documentation of pupping on docks in the Bay, this event was
during a domoic acid event. There is no reason to anticipate that any
domoic events will occur during the project construction activities.
Weaning and mating occur in late spring and summer during the peak
upwelling period (Bograd et al., 2009). After the mating season, adult
males migrate northward to feeding areas as far away as the Gulf of
Alaska (Lowry et al,. 1992), and they remain away until spring (March-
May), when they migrate back to the breeding colonies. Adult females
generally remain south of Monterey Bay, California throughout the year,
feeding in coastal waters in the summer and offshore waters in the
winter, alternating between foraging and nursing their pups on shore
until the next pupping/breeding season (Melin and DeLong 2000; Melin et
al. 2008).
Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and
Estimation section for information on local occurrence in the project
area.
Northern Fur Seal
Two northern fur seal stocks may occur near the Bay: the California
and Eastern North Pacific stocks. The California stock breeds and pups
on the offshore islands of California, and forages off the California
coast. The Eastern Pacific stock breeds and pups on islands in the
North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, including the Aleutian Islands,
Pribilof Islands, and Bogoslof Island, but females and juveniles move
south to California waters to forage in the fall and winter months
(Gelatt and Gentry 2018). Breeding and pupping occur from mid- to late-
May into July. Pups are weaned in September and move south to feed
offshore California (Gentry 1998).
Both the California and Eastern North Pacific stocks forage in the
offshore waters of California, but usually only sick or emaciated
juvenile fur seals seasonally enter the Bay. The Marine Mammal Center
(TMMC) occasionally picks up stranded fur seals around YBI and Treasure
Island (NMFS, 2019b). Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take
Calculation and Estimation section for information on local occurrence
in the project area.
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern elephant seals are common on California coastal mainland
and island sites, where the species pups, breeds, rests, and molts. The
largest rookeries are on San Nicolas and San Miguel islands in the
northern Channel Islands. Near the Bay, elephant seals breed, molt, and
haul out at A[ntilde]o Nuevo Island, the Farallon Islands, and Point
Reyes National Seashore.
Northern elephant seals haul out to give birth and breed from
December through March. Pups remain onshore or in adjacent shallow
water through May. Both sexes make two foraging migrations each year:
One after breeding and the second after molting (Stewart 1989; Stewart
and DeLong 1995). Adult females migrate to the central North Pacific to
forage, and males migrate to the Gulf of Alaska to forage (Robinson et
al. 2012). Pup mortality is high when they make the first trip to sea
in May, and this period correlates with the time of most strandings.
Young-of-the-year pups return in the late summer and fall to haul out
at breeding rookeries and small haul-out sites, but occasionally may
make brief stops in the Bay. Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence
and Take Calculation and Estimation section for information on local
occurrence in the project area.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are found from Baja California to the eastern Aleutian
Islands of Alaska (Harvey and Goley 2011, Herder 1986). In California
there are approximately 500 haulout sites along the mainland and on
offshore islands, including intertidal sandbars, rocky shores, and
beaches (Hanan 1996, Lowry et al. 2008).
Harbor seals are the most common marine mammal species observed in
the San Francisco Bay. Within the Bay they primarily haul out on
exposed rocky ledges and on sloughs in the southern Bay. Harbor seals
are central-place foragers (Orians and Pearson 1979) and tend to
exhibit strong site fidelity within season and across years, generally
forage close to haulout sites, and repeatedly visit specific foraging
areas (Grigg et al. 2012, Suryan and Harvey 1998, Thompson et al.
1998). Harbor seals in the Bay forage mainly within 7 mi (10 km) of
their primary haulout site (Grigg et al. 2012), and often within just
1-3 mi (1-5 km; Torok 1994). Depth, bottom relief, and prey abundance
also influence foraging location (Grigg et al. 2012).
Harbor seals molt from May through June. Peak numbers of harbor
seals haul out in central California during late May to early June,
which coincides with the peak molt. During both pupping and molting
seasons, the number of seals and the length of time hauled out per day
increase, from an average of 7 hours per day to 10-12 hours (Harvey and
Goley 2011, Huber et al. 2001, Stewart and Yochem 1994).
Harbor seals tend to forage at night and haul out during the day
with a peak in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. (Grigg et al.
2002, London et al. 2001, Stewart and Yochem 1994, Yochem et al. 1987).
Tide levels affect the maximum number of seals hauled out, with the
largest number of seals hauled out at low tide, but time of day and
season have the greatest influence on haul-out behavior (Manugian et
al. 2017, Patterson and Acevedo-Guti[eacute]rrez 2008, Stewart and
Yochem 1994). Harbor seals in the Bay typically haul out in groups
ranging from a few individuals to over 300 during peak molt (NPS,
unpublished data).
The closest haulout to the project area is YBI, approximately 6.6
mi (10.7 km) to the northwest. The YBI haulout site has a daily range
of zero to 109 harbor seals during fall months, with the
[[Page 23798]]
highest numbers hauled out during afternoon low tides (Caltrans, 2004).
A second high-use haulout is located on the southwest side of
Alameda Island near the Encinal Boat Ramp, 7.8 mi (12.6 km) by water.
This location consists of two haulout sites approximately 0.5 mi (0.8
km) apart: One at the western end of Breakwater Island, and the other
on a platform installed for the harbor seals within the harbor
protected by Breakwater Island. More animals haul out here daily in the
winter than in the summer and fall: An average of fewer than 10 animals
per day haul out in the fall, while up to 75 animals per day use this
haulout in January and December (M. Klein and R. Bangert, pers. comm.
2019). This trend reflects the fact that more seals are present in the
Bay during the winter foraging period than during the spring breeding
season. Large concentrations of spawning Pacific herring (Clupea
pallasii) and migrating salmonids likely attract seals into the Bay
during the winter months (Greig and Allen 2015) and may similarly
increase harbor seal numbers in the Estuary. Harbor seals forage for
Pacific herring in eelgrass beds in the winter (Schaeffer et al. 2007).
There are no eelgrass beds in the Estuary to attract foraging harbor
seals. Please see the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and
Estimation section for information on local occurrence in the project
area.
Pupping occurs from March through May in central California (Codde
and Allen 2018). Pups are weaned in four weeks, most by mid-June (Codde
and Allen 2018). Harbor seals molt from June through July (Codde and
Allen 2018) and breed between late March and June (Greig and Allen
2015). The closest recognized harbor seal pupping site to Alameda
Marina is at Castro Rocks, approximately 24.5 km (15.2 mi) from the
project area.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 5.
Table 5--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups (NMFS, 2018)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, 150 Hz to 160 kHz
toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose
whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger
& L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true 50 Hz to 86 kHz
seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea 60 Hz to 39 kHz
lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Six marine mammal species (two cetacean and four pinniped (two otariid
and two phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with
the proposed activities. Please refer to Table 4. Of the cetacean
species that may be present, one is classified as mid-frequency
cetacean (i.e., bottlenose dolphin), and one is classified as high-
frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity
can occur from vibratory and impact pile driving. The effects of
underwater noise from Pacific Shops' proposed activities have the
potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in the
action area.
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many
sources both near and far. The sound level of an area is defined by the
total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources.
These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind, precipitation,
earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds produced
by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound
(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current
[[Page 23799]]
weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but
also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In
turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally
varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-
dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying
factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both
coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given
frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
et al. 1995). The result is that, depending on the source type and its
intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a negligible
addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal
that may affect marine mammals.
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile
removal. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two
general sound types: Impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds
(e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are
typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist
of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI
1986; NIOSH 1998; ANSI 2005; NMFS 2018a). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g.
aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or
tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically
do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that
impulsive sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018a). The
distinction between these two sound types is important because they
have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et al. 2007).
Two types of pile hammers would be used on this project: Impact and
vibratory. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston
onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by
impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak
levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper 2005).
Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the
weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers
produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak sound
pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10
to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the
same-sized pile (Oestman et al. 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing
the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed
over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards 2002; Carlson et al.
2005).
The likely or possible impacts of Pacific Shops' proposed activity
on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic
stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the
physical presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts
to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.
Acoustic stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during
pile installation and removal.
Acoustic Impacts
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic
environment from pile driving and removal is the primary means by which
marine mammals may be harassed from Pacific Shops' specified activity.
In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may
experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude
from none to severe (Southall et al. 2007). In general, exposure to
pile driving and removal noise has the potential to result in auditory
threshold shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary
cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior).
Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable
physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional
noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by
marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and
predator and prey detection. The effects of pile driving and removal
noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including,
but not limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the
species, age and sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf),
duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal,
received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history
with exposure (Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall et al. 2007). Here we
discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts) followed by
behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change,
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent
or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors
to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-
impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough
duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the
TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how an animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al. 2014), and the
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and
spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold
shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al. 1958, 1959; Ward 1960;
Kryter et al. 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; Henderson et al.
2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the
exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor
seal (Kastak et al. 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in
marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical
reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels
inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--A temporary, reversible increase
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level (NMFS 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see
Southall et al. 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum
threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-
session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et
al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2015),
marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At
low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small
and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher
SELcum, the
[[Page 23800]]
growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the
noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al. 2007), so we can infer that
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis))
and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound
sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory
settings (Finneran 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted
(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to impulsive
noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth
et al. 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a
lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species
(Finneran 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come
from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data are
available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries
of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset
thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins
(2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing piles
requires a combination of impact pile driving and vibratory pile
driving. For the project, these activities would not occur at the same
time and there would be pauses in activities producing the sound during
each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely
moving through the ensonified area and not remaining for extended
periods of time, the potential for TS declines.
Behavioral Harassment--Exposure to noise from pile driving and
removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals.
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound;
therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound
in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the
signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by
changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the
change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the
stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged
period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant
(e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005).
Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw
clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on
numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory
sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2003; Southall et al.
2007; Weilgart 2007; Archer et al. 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary
not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other
factors (Ellison et al. 2012), and can vary depending on
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In
general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans,
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial
sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al.
(2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.
2001; Nowacek et al. 2004; Madsen et al. 2006; Yazvenko et al. 2007). A
determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg
2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical
(in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress
typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated.
[[Page 23801]]
In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose
serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have
sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress
response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This
state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic
reserves sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano
et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g.,
Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that
noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003), however
distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of
marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.
Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995). Masking occurs when
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g. on a day with strong wind and high waves), an
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked.
Airborne Acoustic Effects--Pinnipeds that occur near the project
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving
and removal that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment,
depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are
not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in
harassment as defined under the MMPA.
Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise
levels exceeding the acoustic thresholds. We recognize that pinnipeds
in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in
behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most
likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to
those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance,
anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes
in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause
them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source.
However, these animals would previously have been `taken' because of
exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment
thresholds, which are, in all cases, larger than those associated with
airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is
already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore,
we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from
airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not
discussed further here.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
Pacific Shops' construction activities could have localized,
temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat by increasing in-water sound
pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Construction
activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary
impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater sound.
Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking
discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the
vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During impact and
vibratory pile driving, elevated levels of underwater noise would
ensonify the estuary where both fish and mammals may occur and could
affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the
area during construction, however, displacement due to noise is
expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term
effects to the individuals or populations.
A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor
would occur in the immediate area surrounding the area where piles are
installed (and removed in the case of the temporary templates). The
sediments on the sea floor will be disturbed during pile driving;
however, suspension will be brief and localized and is unlikely to
measurably affect marine mammals or their prey in the area. In general,
turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-
foot (7.6-meter) radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 1980).
Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the pile driving areas
to experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds could avoid
localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, we expect the impact from
increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do
not discuss it further.
In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat
The proposed activities would not result in permanent impacts to
habitats used directly by marine mammals except for the actual
footprint of the project. The total seafloor area affected by pile
installation and removal is a very small area compared to the vast
foraging area available to marine mammals in the San Francisco Bay. At
best, the impact area provides marginal foraging habitat for marine
mammals and fish, while the new pilings installed would provide
substrate for invertebrate prey to settle on.
Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) of the immediate area due
to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is also possible. The
duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is
unknown, but we anticipate a rapid return to normal recruitment,
distribution and behavior. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the
disturbed area would still leave
[[Page 23802]]
significantly large areas of more preferable fish and marine mammal
foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in San Francisco Bay.
Effects on Potential Prey
Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance,
behavior, or distribution of prey species (e.g., crustaceans,
cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species,
season, and location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects
of noise on known marine mammal prey.
Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009).
Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures,
which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and
particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of
surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the
sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include
behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related
injuries), and mortality.
Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or
intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as
flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp
sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local
distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g.,
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors.
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings,
2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might
affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially
impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs (e.g.,
Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al.,
1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some
studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena
et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott
et al., 2012).
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish
and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the
ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is
restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et
al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours
for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish
is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long.
Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can
cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma
injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile
driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the
project areas would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The
duration of fish avoidance of an area after pile driving stops is
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and
behavior is anticipated.
The area impacted by the project is relatively small compared to
the available habitat in the remainder of the Oakland Estuary and the
San Francisco Bay. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed
area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine
mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. As described in the
preceding, the potential for Pacific Shops' construction to affect the
availability of prey to marine mammals or to meaningfully impact the
quality of physical or acoustic habitat is considered to be
insignificant.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization 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, 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 be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns and/or TTS for individual marine
mammals resulting from exposure to pile driving and removal noise.
Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness
of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown zones) discussed in detail
below in the Proposed Mitigation section, Level A harassment is neither
anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. As described previously, no
mortality is anticipated or proposed to be 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). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take
estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to
Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 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,
[[Page 23803]]
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) (microPascal, root mean
square) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and
above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g.,
seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
Pacific Shops' 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) 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). Pacific Shops' proposed activity includes
the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory
pile driving) sources.
These thresholds are provided in the table below. 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 6--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: 219 Cell 2:
dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 LE,LF,24h: 199
dB;. dB
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.. Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 Cell 4:
dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 LE,MF,24h: 198
dB;. dB
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans. Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 Cell 6:
dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB. LE,HF,24h: 173
dB
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 Cell 8:
(Underwater). dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB. LE,PW,24h: 201
dB
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 Cell 10:
(Underwater). dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB. LE,OW,24h: 219
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.
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 and
vibratory pile driving and removal). The largest calculated Level B
harassment zone is 21.5 km (13.4 mi), however, the ZOI is functionally
only 1.43 km\2\ (0.6 mi\2\) due to the geography of the Estuary.
The project includes vibratory and impact pile installation and
vibratory pile removal. Source levels of pile installation and removal
activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar
types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source
levels for vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same
diameter are assumed the same. Source levels for each pile size and
activity are presented in Table 7.
The source level for vibratory removal of timber piles is from in-
water measurements generated by the Greenbusch Group (2018) from the
Seattle Pier 62 project (83 FR 39709; August 10, 2018). Hydroacoustic
monitoring results from Pier 62 determined unweighted rms ranging from
140 dB to 169 dB. NMFS analyzed source measurements at different
distances for all 63 individual timber piles that were removed at Pier
62 and normalized the values to 10 m. The results showed that the
median is 152 dB SPLrms.
Pacific Shops will implement bubble curtains (e.g. pneumatic
barrier typically comprised of hosing or PVC piping that disrupts
underwater noise propagation; see Mitigation section below) during
impact pile driving of the wide flange beams, 30-inch steel pipe piles,
and 36-inch steel pipe piles. They have reduced the source level for
these activities by 7dB (a conservative estimate based on several
studies including Austin et al., 2016).
Table 7--Project Sound Source Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source level @10m
Pile type ------------------------------------------------ Source
dB RMS dB peak dB SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIBRATORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal)................ 152 .............. .............. The Greenbusch Group,
Inc 2018
[[Page 23804]]
12-in Square Concrete (removal)....... 155 .............. .............. CalTrans 2015
(Based on 12-in steel
pipe pile)
Steel sheet pile...................... 160 .............. .............. CalTrans 2015
(Based on 24-in AZ steel
sheet)
30-in Steel Pipe...................... 170 .............. .............. CalTrans 2015
(Based on 36-in steel
pipe pile)
36-in Steel Pipe...................... 170 .............. .............. CalTrans 2015
Wide Flange Beam...................... 155 .............. .............. Based on 38-in x 18-in
king piles at the Naval
Station Mayport in
Jacksonville, Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete................. 166 185 155 CalTrans 2015
(Based on 18-inch
concrete piles)
16-in Square Concrete................. 166 185 155 CalTrans 2015
(Based on 18-inch
concrete piles)
24-in Concrete piles.................. 176 188 166 CalTrans 2015
Wide Flange Beam (attenuated in 194 (187) 207 (200) 178 (171) CalTrans 2015
parentheses). (Source levels based on
24-in steel pipe pile)
30-in Steel Pipe (attenuated in 190 (183) 210 (203) 177 (170) CalTrans 2015
parentheses).
36-in Steel Pipe (attenuated in 193 (186) 210 (203) 183 (176) CalTrans 2015
parentheses).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured
transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the
transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Site-specific
transmission loss data for Alameda Marina are not available, therefore
the default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the distances to the
Level A and Level B harassment thresholds.
Table 8--Pile Driving Source Levels and Distances to Level B Harassment Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Source level harsasment Distance to
Source at 10m (dB re threshold (dB level B
1 [mu]Pa rms) re 1 [mu]Pa harassment
rms) threshold (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIBRATORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal).......................................... 152 120 1,359
12-in Square Concrete (removal)................................. 155 .............. 2,154
Steel sheet pile................................................ 160 .............. 4,642
30-in Steel Pipe................................................ 170 .............. 21,544
36-in Steel Pipe................................................ 170 .............. 21,544
Wide Flange Beam................................................ 155 .............. 2,154
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete........................................... 166 160 25
16-in Square Concrete........................................... 166 .............. 25
24-in Concrete piles............................................ 176 .............. 117
Wide Flange Beam (attenuated) \a\............................... 194 (187) .............. \b\ 631
30-in Steel Pipe (attenuated) \a\............................... 190 (183) .............. \b\ 341
36-in Steel Pipe (attenuated) \a\............................... 193 (186) .............. \b\ 541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes 7dB reduction for use of bubble curtain.
\b\ Calculated using attenuated source level.
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
[[Page 23805]]
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 Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such has pile
driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the distance at which, if a
marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and
the resulting isopleths are reported below.
Table 9--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating Level A Harassment Isopleths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting Number of Duration to Distance from
factor Source piles drive a Number of Propagation source level
Pile size and installation method Spreadsheet tab used adjustment level within 24- single pile strikes per (xLogR) measurement
(kHz) h period (minutes) pile (meters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal).............. A.1) Vibratory pile 2.5 \a\ 152 10 5 ........... 15 10
driving.
12-in Square Concrete (removal)..... ...................... ........... \a\ 155 10 5 ...........
Steel sheet pile.................... ...................... ........... \a\ 160 20 10 ...........
30-in Steel Pipe.................... ...................... ........... \a\ 170 1 10 ...........
36-in Steel Pipe.................... ...................... ........... \a\ 170 3 10 ...........
Wide Flange Beam.................... ...................... ........... \a\ 155 4 10 ...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete............... E.1) Impact pile 2 \b\ 155 4 ........... 500 15 10
driving.
16-in Square Concrete............... ...................... ........... \b\ 155 4 ...........
24-in Concrete piles................ ...................... ........... \b\ 166 4 ...........
Wide Flange Beam (attenuated)....... ...................... ........... \b\ \c\ 4 ...........
171
30-in Steel Pipe (attenuated)....... ...................... ........... \b\ \c\ 1 ...........
170
36-in Steel Pipe (attenuated)....... ...................... ........... \b\ \c\ 3 ...........
176
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ dB RMS SPL at 10m
\b\ dB SEL at 10m
\c\ Includes 7dB reduction from use of bubble curtain.
Table 10--Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A--Radius to Isopleth (m)
Source ---------------------------------------------------------------
MF Cetaceans HF Cetaceans Phocids Otariids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIBRATORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal).......................... <1 1 <1 <1
12-in Square Concrete (removal)................. <1 4 2 <1
Steel sheet pile................................ <1 3 1 <1
30-in Steel Pipe................................ <1 12 5 <1
36-in Steel Pipe................................ 2 25 10 <1
Wide Flange Beam................................ <1 3 1 <1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete........................... <1 26 12 <1
16-in Square Concrete........................... <1 26 12 <1
24-in Concrete piles............................ 4 139 62 5
Wide Flange Beam (attenuated)................... 9 299 135 10
30-in Steel Pipe (attenuated)................... 3 102 46 3
36-in Steel Pipe (attenuated)................... 16 532 239 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. We describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
[[Page 23806]]
Bottlenose Dolphin
Bottlenose dolphins began entering San Francisco Bay in 2010
(Szczepaniak 2013). They primarily occur in the western Central and
South Bay, from the Golden Gate Bridge to Oyster Point and Redwood
City. However, one individual has been regularly seen in the Bay since
2016 near the former Alameda Air Station (Perlman 2017; W. Keener,
pers. comm. 2017), and five animals were regularly seen in the summer
and fall of 2018 in the same location (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019).
This area is on the far side of Alameda Island from the Project area,
approximately 6.8 mi (10.9 km) by water.
There have been no formal surveys of marine mammals in the Estuary
before 2019 (W. Keener, pers. comm, 2019), and no known reports of
bottlenose dolphins in the Estuary between 2006 and May 2019 (NMFS
2019a, 2019b). The two closest known sightings to the project area were
of a single dolphin on one occasion and an adult and juvenile on
another occasion in February 2019. Both sightings were on the edge of
the Inner Harbor Entrance Channel to the northwest of the Estuary,
approximately 5.8 mi (9.3 km) from the project area (W. Keener, pers.
comm., 2019).
Pacific Shops conducted 30 hours of monitoring over four days in
June 2019 at the project site, and did not observe any bottlenose
dolphins. Additionally, six local frequent users of the Estuary
interviewed for this project reported never having seen a bottlenose
dolphin in the Estuary. However, the applicant has requested the
authorization of Level B harassment take of bottlenose dolphins due to
their year-round presence in the Bay, regular proximity to the work
area, and potential to enter the Level B harassment zone while pile
driving or removal are underway.
Pacific Shops conservatively estimates that a group of two
bottlenose dolphins may occur in the project area every 10 project
days. NMFS concurs that this approach is reasonable given the available
information. Pacific Shops has requested, and NMFS proposes to
authorize, 14 Level B harassment takes of bottlenose dolphins during
Year 1 (2 individuals/10 days * 68 project days = 14 Level B harassment
takes), and 20 Level B harassment takes of bottlenose dolphins during
Year 2 (2 individuals/10 days * 98 project days = 20 Level B harassment
takes).
The largest Level A harassment zone for mid-frequency cetaceans
extends 16 m from the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel
pipe piles (Table 10). Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 25m
shutdown zone during that activity (Table 12). Given the small size of
the Level A harassment zones, the shutdown zones are expected to
eliminate the potential for Level A harassment take of bottlenose
dolphins. Therefore, NMFS does not propose to authorize Level A
harassment take of bottlenose dolphins.
Harbor Porpoise
Historically, harbor porpoise primarily occur near the Golden Gate
Bridge, Marin County, and the city of San Francisco on the northwest
side of the Bay (Keener et al. 2012, Stern et al. 2017). However, in
the summer of 2017 and 2018, mom-calf pairs and small groups (one to
four individuals) were seen to the north and west of Treasure Island,
and just south of YBI (Caltrans 2018a, 2019), indicating that their
range may be expanding within the Bay.
No formal surveys of marine mammals were conducted in the Estuary
before 2019 (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019). The applicant conducted 30
hours of monitoring over four days in June 2019 at the project site,
and did not observe any harbor porpoises. Six local frequent users of
the Estuary interviewed for this project reported never seeing a harbor
porpoise in the Estuary. Between 2006 and June 2019, one harbor
porpoise stranded in the Estuary. The animal was in an advanced state
of decomposition (NMFS 2019a), indicating that it probably died outside
of the Estuary and floated in. However, given their year-round
residency in the Bay, their proximity to the work area, and their
seemingly expanding range within the Bay, the applicant has requested
the authorization of Level B harassment take of harbor porpoise.
Pacific Shops conservatively estimates that a group of two harbor
porpoises may occur in the project area every 10 project days. NMFS
concurs that this approach is reasonable given the available
information. Pacific Shops has requested, and NMFS proposes to
authorize, 14 Level B harassment takes of harbor porpoise during Year 1
(2 individuals/10 days * 68 project days = 14 Level B harassment
takes), and 20 Level B harassment takes of harbor porpoise during Year
2 (2 individuals/10 days * 98 project days = 20 Level B harassment
takes).
The largest Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans
extends 532 m from the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel
pipe piles (Table 10). This largest zone is only relevant for impact
pile driving of the 36-inch piles, which would only occur on a maximum
of three days between both project years. Additionally, the calculated
Level A harassment zone for this activity is based on assumed
accumulation of sound from driving three piles in a day. However, we do
not expect a harbor porpoise to remain within the Level A harassment
zone for a long enough period to incur PTS. Pacific Shops is planning
to implement a 400 m shutdown zone during that activity (Table 12),
which includes the 11.7 m peak PTS isopleth. Pacific Shops will provide
a 3.8m high platform for protected species observers (PSOs). NMFS
expects that the platform, in combination with the anticipated ideal
weather conditions, will allow PSOs to effectively observe harbor
porpoises at 400 m. Therefore, the shutdown zones are expected to
eliminate the potential for Level A harassment take of harbor porpoise,
and NMFS does not propose to authorize Level A harassment take of
harbor porpoise.
California Sea Lion
There have been no formal surveys of marine mammals in the Oakland
Estuary before 2019 (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019). The few sightings
that have been recorded have been opportunistic, including a sea lion
observed in May 2017 in the small canal that connects Lake Merritt with
the Estuary (Martichoux, 2017). Between 2006 and May 2019, 18 confirmed
sea lion sightings in the Estuary were reported to TMMC and California
Academy of Sciences (CAS) (NMFS 2019a, 2019b), and between 2006 and
June 2019, three sea lions stranded in the Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b).
The applicant conducted 30 hours of monitoring over four days in June
2019 at the project site, and observed one sea lion near the project
site, across the Estuary under the Coast Guard dock approximately 1130
ft (345 m) from the Alameda Marina shoreline. Interviews with local
frequent users of the Estuary confirm that sightings of sea lions are
rare. Two people interviewed reported seeing one to two sea lions per
year in the Estuary. California sea lions forage for Pacific herring in
eelgrass beds in the winter (Schaeffer et al. 2007), however, there are
no eelgrass beds in the Estuary to attract foraging sea lions.
Pacific Shops conservatively estimates that one California sea lion
may occur in the project area every five project days. NMFS concurs
that this approach is reasonable given the available information.
Therefore Pacific Shops has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize,
14 Level B harassment takes of California sea lion during Year 1 (1
individual/5 days * 68 project days = 14 Level B harassment takes), and
20 Level B harassment takes of California sea lion during Year 2 (1
[[Page 23807]]
individual/5 days * 98 project days = 20 Level B harassment takes).
The largest Level A harassment zone for otariids extends 17 m from
the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel pipe piles (Table
10). Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 25 m shutdown zone during
that activity (Table 12). Given the small size of the Level A
harassment zones, we expect the shutdown zones to eliminate the
potential for Level A harassment take of California sea lion.
Therefore, NMFS does not propose to authorize Level A harassment take
of California sea lion.
Northern Fur Seal
There are no available density estimates of northern fur seals in
the project area, and northern fur seals have not been reported in the
Estuary (NMFS 2019b). The applicant conducted 30 hours of monitoring
over four days in June 2019 at the project site and did not observe any
fur seals. Between 2006 and May 2019 there were no reports of stranded
fur seals in the Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b). Interviews with frequent
users of the Estuary also reported they had never seen a fur seal in
the Estuary. However, to account for the possible rare presence of the
species in the action area, NMFS proposes to authorize six Level B
harassment takes of northern fur seal during Year 1, and nine Level B
harassment takes of northern fur seal during Year 2.
The largest Level A harassment zone for otariids extends 17 m from
the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel pipe piles (Table
10). Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 25 m shutdown zone during
that activity (Table 12). Given the small size of the Level A
harassment zones, we expect the shutdown zones to eliminate the
potential for Level A harassment take of northern fur seal. Therefore,
NMFS does not propose to issue Level A harassment take of northern fur
seal.
Northern Elephant Seal
There are no available density estimates of northern elephant seals
in the project area. Generally, only juvenile elephant seals enter the
Bay seasonally and do not remain long if they are healthy. From mid-
February to the end of June, TMMC reports the most strandings,
primarily of malnourished juveniles (TMMC, 2019). However, no elephant
seals, alive or stranded, have been reported in the Estuary (NMFS
2019a, 2019b). The applicant conducted 30 hours of monitoring over four
days in June 2019 at the project site and did not observe any elephant
seals. Interviews with frequent users of the Estuary also reported they
had never seen an elephant seal in the Estuary. However, to account for
the possible rare presence of the species in the action area, NMFS
proposes to authorize six Level B harassment takes of northern elephant
seal during Year 1, and nine Level B harassment takes of northern
elephant seal during Year 2.
The largest Level A harassment zone for phocids extends 239 m from
the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel pipe piles (Table
10). Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 240 m shutdown zone
during that activity (Table 12). Given the small size of the Level A
harassment zones, we expect the shutdown zones to eliminate the
potential for Level A harassment take of northern elephant seal.
Therefore, NMFS does not propose to authorize Level A harassment take
of northern elephant seal.
Harbor Seal
There have been no formal surveys of marine mammals in the Estuary
before 2019 (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019), and the few recorded harbor
seal sightings have been opportunistic. The applicant conducted 30
hours of monitoring over four days in June 2019 at the project site and
did not observe any harbor seals. A local recreational boater who lives
on his boat full-time in the existing Alameda Marina reported seeing a
harbor seal approximately twice a week throughout 2019 (G. Dees, pers.
comm. 2019). Another recreational boater who is occasionally on her
boat in Alameda Marina reported a harbor seal in the marina on five
days in August through October, 2019 (T. Drake, pers. comm. 2019). This
respondent also reported that a single harbor seal occasionally hauled
out on the marina docks for several hours. Two staff members of a local
marina reported an average of two harbor seals per month in the
Estuary. There were only four confirmed harbor seal sightings reported
in the Estuary to TMMC and CAS between 2006 and May 2019 (NMFS 2019a,
2019b), and a dead harbor seal at Pier 2 in the existing Alameda Marina
on October 27, 2019 (T. Drake, pers. comms. 2019).
The number of harbor seals hauled out on a floating platform at the
Alameda Breakwater, approximately 7.8 mi (12.6 km) from the Project
area, has been recorded almost every day since March 2014 (M. Klein and
R. Bangert, pers. comm. 2019). Between zero and 75 seals haul out each
day; more animals are present in the winter during the herring run.
However, based on observations at the Alameda Marina, we do not expect
the counts at the Alameda Breakwater to be representative of harbor
seal presence in the project area.
Between 2006 and June 2019, only two harbor seals stranded in the
Estuary (NMFS 2019a, 2019b). In August 2017 a harbor seal was seen in
Lake Merritt, after transiting through the Estuary (Martichoux 2017).
Grigg et al. (2012) tagged 19 harbor seals at Castro Rocks,
approximately 15.2 mi (24.5 km) north-northeast of the project area.
Although some ranged as far as the South Bay, approximately 39 mi (63
km) from Castro Rocks, none were recorded in the Estuary (Grigg et al.
2012).
Pacific Shops conservatively estimates that one harbor seal may
enter the project area per project day. NMFS concurs that this approach
is reasonable given the available information. Therefore, Pacific Shops
has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, 68 Level B harassment
takes of harbor seal in Year 1 (1 harbor seal per day x 68 project days
= 68 Level B harassment takes), and 98 Level B harassment takes of
harbor seal in Year 2 (1 harbor seal per day x 98 project days = 98
Level B harassment takes).
The largest Level A harassment zone for phocids extends 239 m from
the source during impact pile driving of 36-in steel pipe piles (Table
10). This largest zone is only relevant for impact pile driving of the
36-inch piles, which would occur on a maximum of three days between
both project years. Additionally, the calculated Level A harassment
zone for this activity is based on assumed accumulation of sound from
driving three piles in a day. However, we do not expect a harbor seal
to remain within the Level A harassment zone for a long enough period
to incur PTS. Pacific Shops is planning to implement a 240 m shutdown
zone during impact pile driving of the 36-inch piles (Table 12), and
there is no peak PTS isopleth for phocids. Additionally, as noted
previously, PSOs would be observing from a 3.8 m high platform which
would further increase their ability to detect harbor seals within this
zone. Therefore, the shutdown zones are expected to eliminate the
potential for Level A harassment take of harbor seal, and NMFS does not
propose to authorize Level A harassment take of harbor seal.
[[Page 23808]]
Table 11--Estimated Take by Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 level Year 2 level
Stock B harassment B harassment
Common name Stock abundance take (percent take (percent
of stock) of stock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose Dolphin.................... California Coastal...... 453 14 (3.1) 20 (4.4)
Harbor Porpoise....................... San Francisco/Russian 9,886 14 (0.1) 20 (0.2)
River.
California Sea Lion................... United States........... 257,606 14 (0.01) 20 (0.01)
Northern Fur Seal..................... California.............. 14,050 6 (0.04) 9 (0.06)
Eastern North Pacific... 620,660 (<0.01) (<0.01)
Northern Elephant Seal................ California Breeding..... 179,000 6 (<0.01) 9 (<0.01)
Harbor Seal........................... California.............. 30,968 68 (0.2) 98 (0.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 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.
In addition to the measures described later in this section,
Pacific Shops will employ the following mitigation measures:
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 Pacific Shops' in-
water construction activities.
Establishment of Shutdown Zones--Pacific Shops 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 5). The largest shutdown zones are generally for
high frequency cetaceans, as shown in Table 12.
The placement of PSOs during all pile driving and removal
activities (described in detail in the Proposed 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.
Table 12--Shutdown Zones During Pile Installation and Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zone (m)
Source ---------------------------------------------------------------
MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids Otariids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIBRATORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-in Timber (removal).......................... 10 10 10 10
12-in Square Concrete (removal).................
[[Page 23809]]
Steel sheet pile................................
30-in Steel Pipe................................ .............. 25
36-in Steel Pipe................................
Wide Flange Beam................................ .............. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14-in Square Concrete........................... 25 30 25 25
16-in Square Concrete...........................
24-in Concrete piles............................ .............. 140 70
Wide Flange Beam .............. 300 140
30-in Steel Pipe................................ .............. 140 70
36-in Steel Pipe................................ .............. \a\ 400 240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This shutdown zone is smaller than the 532m Level A harassment zone. NMFS expects that PSOs will be able to
monitor this zone more effectively, and that the smaller zone will reduce unnecessary shutdowns while
remaining sufficient to prevent Level A harassment.
Monitoring for Level B Harassment--Pacific Shops will
monitor the Level B harassment zones (areas where SPLs are equal to or
exceed the 160 dB rms threshold for impact driving and the 120 dB rms
threshold during vibratory pile driving) and the Level A 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 cease of activity should the
animal enter the shutdown zone. Placement of PSOs on the shorelines
around Alameda Marina will allow PSOs to observe marine mammals within
the Level B harassment zones. However, due to the large Level B
harassment zones (Table 8), PSOs will not be able to effectively
observe the entire zone. Therefore, Level B harassment exposures will
be recorded and extrapolated 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 thirty-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 thirty minutes or longer.
Pile driving energy attenuator--Pacific Shops will use a
marine pile-driving energy attenuator (i.e., air bubble curtain system)
during impact pile driving of the wide flange beams, 30-in steel pipe
piles, and 36-inch steel pipe piles. The use of sound attenuation will
reduce SPLs and the size of the zones of influence for Level A
harassment and Level B harassment. Bubble curtains will meet the
following requirements:
[cir] The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100
percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
[cir] The lowest bubble ring shall be in contact with the mudline
for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights attached to the
bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the
ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline contact.
[cir] The bubble curtain shall be operated such that there is
proper (equal) balancing of air flow to all bubblers.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means
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.
Proposed 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
[[Page 23810]]
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 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).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring
Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, dated March 2020. 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;
Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead
observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer
during construction;
Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological
science or related field) or training for experience; and
Pacific Shops must submit PSO CVs 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 during all pile driving and removal
activities. PSO locations will provide an unobstructed view of all
water within the shutdown zone, 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 or best vantage point practicable to
monitor the shutdown zone; and
(2) Best vantage point practicable to observe the monitoring zone
for each activity.
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 thirty minutes.
Acoustic Monitoring
Pacific Shops intends to conduct a sound source verification (SSV)
study to confirm the sound source levels, transmission loss
coefficient, and size of the Level A and Level B harassment zones. They
intend to request a modification to the zones accordingly. They will
follow accepted methodological standards to achieve their objectives.
If NMFS approves the results of the SSV study, we propose to modify the
zone sizes based on the approved data. Acoustic monitoring report
requirements are listed in the Reporting section, below.
Reporting
A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal
activities. 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.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a
final report addressing NMFS comments must be
[[Page 23811]]
submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
Pacific Shops must include the following information in their
acoustic monitoring report.
Hydrophone equipment and methods: Recording device,
sampling rate, distance (m) from the pile where recordings were made;
depth of recording device(s).
Type of pile being driven, substrate type, method of
driving during recordings, and if a sound attenuation device is used.
For impact pile driving: Pulse duration and mean, median,
and maximum sound levels (dB re: 1[micro]Pa): cumulative sound exposure
level (SELcum), peak sound pressure level (SPLpeak), and single-strike
sound exposure level (SELs-s).
For vibratory driving/removal: Mean, median, and maximum
sound levels (dB re: 1[micro]Pa): root mean square sound pressure level
(SPLrms), cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum).
Number of strikes (impact) or duration (vibratory) per
pile measured, one-third octave band spectrum and power spectral
density plot.
Estimated source levels, transmission loss coefficient,
and revised Level A and Level B harassment zones.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder must
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (301-427-8401), NMFS and to the
West Coast Region stranding coordinator (562-980-3230) as soon as
feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified
activity, the IHA-holder 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:
i. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
ii. Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
iii. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
iv. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
v. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
vi. 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 11, given that many of
the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal
stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Also, because
the nature of the estimated takes anticipated to occur are identical in
Years 1 and 2, and the number of estimated takes in each year are
extremely similar, the analysis below applies to each of the IHAs.
The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of
serious injury or mortality, and the mitigation is expected to ensure
that no Level A harassment occurs, which would be unlikely to occur
even absent the required mitigation. For all species and stocks, take
would occur within a limited, confined area (Oakland Estuary) of any
given stock's range. Take would be limited to Level B harassment only
due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. Effects on individuals
that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the
literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will
likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds,
increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were
occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006; HDR, Inc. 2012; Lerma 2014;
ABR 2016). 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 proposed to be authorized for any
given stock is extremely small when compared to stock abundance.
Exposure to noise resulting in Level B harassment for all species
is expected to be temporary and minor due to the general lack of use of
the Oakland Estuary by marine mammals, as previously explained. In
general, marine mammals are only occasionally sighted within the
Oakland Estuary. Any behavioral harassment occurring during the project
is highly unlikely to impact the health or fitness of any individuals,
much less effect annual rates of recruitment or survival. Any
harassment would be brief, and if sound produced by project activities
is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the area
while the activity is occurring.
As previously discussed, the closest harbor seal pupping area is
24.5 km (15.2 mi) from the project area. However, there are no habitat
areas of particular importance for marine mammals within the Oakland
Estuary, and it is not preferred habitat for marine mammals. Therefore,
we expect that animals annoyed by project sound will simply avoid the
area and use more-preferred habitats, particularly as the project would
only occur on approximately 68 days in Year 1, and 98 days in Year 2,
for up to approximately 9.5 hours per day.
The project is also not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities
will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount
of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because
of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area
of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal
habitat are not expected to
[[Page 23812]]
cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality is anticipated or authorized.
No Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized.
The number and intensity of anticipated takes by Level B
harassment is relatively low for all stocks.
No biologically important areas have been identified
within the project area.
For all species, the Oakland Estuary is a very small part
of their range.
For all species, proposed Level B harassment takes in each
IHA would affect less than five percent of each stock.
Year 1 IHA--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 required
monitoring and mitigation measures, we find that the total marine
mammal take from Pacific Stores' construction activities will have a
negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Year 2 IHA--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 required
monitoring and mitigation measures, we find that the total marine
mammal take from the Pacific Stores' construction activities will have
a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers so, in practice, where estimated numbers
are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the
most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or
spatial scale of the activities.
Table 11 includes the number of takes for each species proposed to
be taken as a result of activities in Year 1 and Year 2 of this
project. Our analysis shows that less than one-third of the best
available population abundance estimate of each stock could be taken by
harassment during each project year. In fact, for each stock, the take
proposed for authorization each year comprises less than five percent
of the stock abundance. The number of animals proposed to be taken for
each stock discussed above would be considered small relative to the
relevant stock's abundances even if each estimated taking occurred to a
new individual, which is an unlikely scenario.
Year 1 IHA--Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed
activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures)
and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds
that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the
population size of the affected species or stocks in Year 1 of the
project.
Year 2 IHA--Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed
activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures)
and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds
that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the
population size of the affected species or stocks in Year 2 of the
project.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally 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.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue two, one-year IHAs to Pacific Shops for conducting vibratory and
impact pile driving in Alameda, CA beginning June 2020 and June 2021,
respectively, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting requirements are incorporated. Drafts of these proposed
IHAs can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed
project. We also request at this time comment on the potential Renewal
of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please
include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations
to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent
Renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year Renewal IHA
following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly
identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the
Specified Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the
activities as described in the Specified Activities section of this
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA).
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
[[Page 23813]]
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: April 23, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09033 Filed 4-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P