[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44043-44058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15706]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XA285]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Treasure Island Ferry Dock Project,
San Francisco, California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the City and County of San Francisco, CA (San Francisco) to
incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment only, marine
mammals during construction activities associated with the Treasure
Island Ferry Dock Project in San Francisco, California.
DATES: This Authorization is effective for one year from the date of
issuance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the
application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the
references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above
are included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On February 6, 2020, NMFS received an application from San
Francisco requesting an IHA to take small numbers of seven species of
marine mammals incidental to pile driving associated with the Treasure
Island Ferry Dock Project. The application was deemed adequate and
complete on May 13, 2020. San Francisco's request is for take of a
small number of seven species of marine mammals by Level B harassment
and Level A harassment. Neither San Francisco nor NMFS expects serious
injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA
is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The project consists of the construction of a ferry terminal,
breakwater, and removal of an old pier on Treasure Island in the middle
of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco would install and then remove two
temporary 36-inch-diameter steel piles for moorings and 196 temporary
14-inch by 89 foot steel H piles as templates. Final construction
requires installation of eight 36-inch-diameter steel piles, five 48-
inch-diameter steel piles, 52 24-inch octagonal concrete breakwater
piles, and 120 14-inch by 48-inch concrete sheet piles for the
breakwater. Removing the old pier requires removal of 198 12-inch
diameter timber piles. The work for this project began on June 8, 2020.
From that date until July 7, 2020, San Francisco completed pile driving
for 38 piles (two 48-inch steel pipe piles, six 36-inch steel pipe
piles, and 30 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-piles) associated with the
ferry pier. San Francisco has also informed us that the fireboat access
pier
[[Page 44044]]
will not be built at this time, so the 37 pile associated with that
aspect of the project are also being removed from this authorization.
The revised summary of pile driving activities covered by this IHA is
in Table 1. Therefore in this final authorization we adjust our
analysis and take estimates based on the work still to be completed as
described below. Pile driving/removal for the remaining work is
expected to take no more than 1,820 hours over 182 days. Pile driving
would be by vibratory pile driving until resistance is too great and
driving would switch to an impact hammer. Removal of temporary piles
would use vibratory methods only. A detailed description of the planned
project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA
(85 FR 35271; June 9, 2020). Since that time, no other changes have
been made to the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description
is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for
the description of the specific activity.
Table 1--Summary of Pile Driving Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Number
Location (maximum) Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install Piles for Ferry Pier (impact and/ Ferry Pier................ 0* 36-inch steel pipe
or vibratory). (mooring piles)/
vibratory.
Ferry Pier................ 0* 48-inch steel pipe
vibratory & impact.
Ferry Pier................ 0* 36-inch steel pipe (fender
piles)/vibratory.
Install Temporary Steel Template Piles Ferry Pier................ 4 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
(Vibratory). piles.
Remove Temporary Steel Template Piles Ferry Pier................ 12 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
(Vibratory). piles.
Install Octagonal Piles for North North Breakwater.......... 52 24-inch octagonal
Breakwater (Impact). concrete.
Install Sheetpiles for North Breakwater North Breakwater.......... 120 14 x 48-inch concrete
(Impact). sheetpiles.
Install Temporary Steel Template Piles North Breakwater.......... 105 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
(Vibratory). piles.
Remove Temporary Steel Template Piles North Breakwater.......... 105 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
(Vibratory). piles.
Install Temporary Steel Template Batter North Breakwater.......... 46 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
Piles (Vibratory). piles.
Remove Temporary Steel Template Batter North Breakwater.......... 46 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
Piles (Vibratory). piles.
Install Temporary Mooring Piles Mooring................... 2 36-inch steel pipe.
(Vibratory).
Remove Temporary Mooring Piles Mooring................... 2 36-inch steel pipe.
(Vibratory).
Install Temporary Mooring Batter Piles Mooring................... 4 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
(Vibratory). piles.
Remove Temporary Mooring Batter Piles Mooring................... 4 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
(Vibratory). piles.
Install Crew Access Piles (Vibratory)... Mooring................... 2 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
piles.
Remove Crew Access Piles (Vibratory).... Mooring................... 2 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
piles.
Install Fireboat Access Pier (Vibratory North Breakwater.......... 0** 48-inch steel pipe.
& Impact).
Install Fireboat Access Pier (Vibratory) North Breakwater.......... 0** 36-inch steel pipe.
Install Temporary Fireboat Steel North Breakwater.......... 0** 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
Template Piles (Vibratory). piles.
Remove Temporary Fireboat Steel Template North Breakwater.......... 0** 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-
Piles (Vibratory). piles.
Remove Existing Pier (vibratory or crane Pier...................... 198 12-inch timber.
cable).
-------------------------------------------
Total............................... .......................... 704 N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Work on these piles completed before issuance of IHA.
** Work on the fireboat access pier will no longer occur under this authorization.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to San Francisco was
published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2020 (85 FR 35271). That
notice described, in detail, San Francisco's activity, the marine
mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the
anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received public comment from one commenter. The U.S.
Geological Survey noted they have ``no comment to offer at this time''.
A comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) was
received pursuant to the Commission's authority to recommend steps it
deems necessary or desirable to protect and conserve marine mammals (16
U.S. C. 1402.202(a)). We are obligated to respond to the Commission's
recommendations within 120 days, and we do so below.
Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from issuing
renewals for any authorization and instead use its abbreviated Federal
Register notice process.
Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission and, therefore,
does not adopt the Commission's recommendation. NMFS has explained the
rationale for this decision in multiple Federal Register notices (e.g.,
84 FR 52464; October 02, 2019); nonetheless, NMFS will also provide a
separate detailed explanation of its
[[Page 44045]]
decision within 120 days, as required by section 202(d) of the MMPA.
Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS ensure that San
Francisco keep a running tally of the total takes, based on observed
and extrapolated takes, for Level B harassment consistent with
condition 4(h) of the IHA.
Response: NMFS agrees that San Francisco must ensure they do not
exceed authorized takes.
Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS revise its standard
condition for ceasing in-water heavy machinery activities to include,
as examples, movement of the barge to the pile location, positioning of
the pile on the substrate, use of barge-mounted excavators, and
dredging in all draft and final incidental take authorizations
involving pile driving and removal.
Response: NMFS appreciates the recommendation but disagrees that a
comprehensive listing of potential activities for which the measure is
appropriate is necessary, and does not adopt the recommendation.
Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) require San
Francisco to have at least two Protected Species Observers (PSO)
monitoring during all activities, with at least one PSO monitoring the
shut-down zones at each pile-driving or removal site, one PSO near Pier
33 during vibratory installation of 36- and 48-inch steel piles, and
one PSO stationed south toward Yerba Buena Island during all other
pile-driving and removal activities and (2) specify the number and
location of PSOs for each of the various activities in condition 5(iv)
in the final authorization.
Response: We disagree with the Commission. For the less noisy
scenarios with smaller harassment zones we believe the current
provisions are sufficient to ensure we obtain adequate information on
take, especially given the abundant anthropogenic effects, loud ambient
noise environment in which the activities occur, and small sliver of
area in which sound can propagate long distances. For the possibility
of vibratory driving of 36-inch piles alone (without the second hammer
operating simultaneously) we have clarified that a second PSO near Pier
33 is also required. Therefore, two PSOs are required for 36 inch piles
(alone or simultaneous), and 1 PSO for all other scenarios. The second
PSO will be located near Pier 33 for driving 36 inch piles and at the
best vantage point practicable to monitor the shutdown zones when
removing timer piles at the old pier is combined with vibratory driving
of 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-pile elsewhere in the project area.
Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) have its experts
in underwater acoustics and bioacoustics review and finalize as soon as
possible, its recommended proxy source levels for impact pile driving
of the various pile types and sizes, and (2) compile and analyze the
source level data for vibratory pile driving of the various pile types
and sizes in the near term.
Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's interest in this issue
and, as we have indicated previously, we are working on developing such
products within the context of available resources and staff.
Comment: The Commission recommends NMFS ensure action proponents
use consistent and appropriate proxy source levels in all future
rulemakings and proposed IHAs.
Response: We agree with the Commission that applicants should use
appropriate source levels and will continue to work to ensure that they
do through our review of applications.
Comment: The Commission recommends NMFS use a source level of 166
decibels (dB) re 1 [micro]Pa2-sec (micro Pascals) at 10 meters (m)
(Caltrans 2015) for impact installation of 24-inch concrete piles.
Response: We disagree. The source level used by San Francisco is
based on recent nearby data. The Caltrans (2015) data the Commission
cites is 16 years-old and comes from deeper locations. Caltrans (2015)
provided a second source level for 24-inch concrete piles at shallow
depths more similar to those of this project, and that source level is
quieter than the source level we use. The Commission provides no
rationale for this recommendation, and thus given the above
information, we retain the original source level that is more
conservative than the most comparable Caltrans (2015) source.
Comment: The Commission recommends NMFS (1) use 164 dB re 1
[micro]Pa2-sec at 10 m and a 250-millisecond (msec) pulse duration
rather than 170 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (root mean square (rms)) at 10 m and
a 100-msec pulse duration to re-estimate the Level A harassment zones
during impact installation of 24-inch concrete piles, (2) revise the
Level A harassment zones accordingly, (3) revise the shut-down zone to
be 100 m rather than 80 m for LF cetaceans and at least 75 m rather
than 40 m for phocids, and (4) ensure all tables in the notice for
final authorization issuance and the final authorization include those
revisions.
Response: We disagree. The Commission fails to acknowledge that the
source level data is not measured perfectly and are medians. The 164 dB
SEL (Sound Exposure Level)/170dB rms measurements from Illingworth and
Rodkin (2019a) are medians from a small number of estimates. That means
they are estimates and are not perfectly precise or accurate, and are
medians, not means. In fact, from Illingworth and Rodkin (2019a) we
know that the SEL measurements ranged from 146 to 171, and the rms
measurements ranged from 157 to 178. Thus the Commission's
unacknowledged assumption that the SEL and RMS numbers are exactly
correct leads them to come to the improper conclusion that the pulse
duration must be 250-msec, apparently also without error bars in the
Commission's view.
Thus the disagreement stems from a debate about what is the most
appropriate assumption for pulse duration and the various source
levels. A 250-msec pulse duration near the source is unrealistically
long based on our experience. Given the data are medians from a small
number of samples with large variation, it is not surprising that they
are not perfect estimators of source levels. Illingworth and Rodkin
(2019a) do not provide means of their measurements, making assessment
of the skewness of the data impossible. We do note that the RMS data
range over 21 dB while the range for the SEL data is larger at 25dB.
The Commission failed to reference additional data on source levels
for 24-inch concrete piles in Caltrans (2015), a source the Commission
normally trusts (see e.g., above comment). Caltrans (2015) provides two
source level estimates for 24-inch concrete piles. Both of those source
levels reflect a 100-msec pulse duration. Moreover, the shallow water
source level estimate for 24-inch piles that is most relevant to this
project has an rms source level of 170dB, exactly what we and San
Francisco used. Therefore, we decline to change the source level for
24-inch concrete piles and thus there is no need to change the Level A
harassment or shutdown zones or revise any other tables.
Comment: The Commission recommends that, for all incidental take
authorizations involving impact pile driving, NMFS (1) use the SELs-s
(single strike) source levels, when available, to estimate the Level A
harassment zones consistent with NMFS (2018), (2) if an SELs-s source
level is not available, use the pulse duration that accompanies the
SPL(Sound Pressure Level) rms source level, and (3) if neither an SELs-
s source
[[Page 44046]]
level nor a specified pulse duration based on the SPLrms source level
is available, then and only then use the 100-msec pulse duration
default. NMFS should consult with its experts in underwater acoustics
and bioacoustics on this matter.
Response: We disagree with the Commission. We have consulted with
our acoustics experts. As the example from the prior comment shows, the
source level data we use is often imprecise and based on field
estimates of a small number of piles with large variation. In some
cases, as we also see in the prior comment, the variation in SEL
measurements is larger and less precise than that for RMS measurements.
Moreover, as the above example shows, knowledge of expected values for
pulse duration and other inputs may be available from prior experience
so that a strict adherence to formulas that assume the data have no
variation is not wise or effective. In addition, the Commission fails
to acknowledge or discuss potential challenges and pitfalls in using
median values to estimate pulse duration when means are unavailable and
we do not know the underlying distribution of the data points, and
where that distribution might differ for RMS and SEL. Therefore, we
will continue to recommend SEL as the preferred source, when data are
relatively complete and robust, but allow consideration of RMS data
when conditions warrant.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA
We corrected discrepancies between the proposed table and text in
pile numbers and types and we revised the number of piles to be
completed based on work already completed and/or cancelled (see Table 1
above). Not all of the work planned for completion in the ``June'' work
scenario was completed so we changed the name of the scenario to
``July'' as needed. We used more appropriate source levels for the 14 x
48-inch concrete sheet piles (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2019b). We
revised our guidance in Table 6 for combining sound levels generated
during simultaneous pile installation to require Level B zones for a
combination of vibratory and impact hammering to be the largest of the
zones for either source; impact pile driving can produce a louder
source when the impact driven pile is much larger in diameter than the
vibratory driven pile. We also clarified that sound sources from
multiple simultaneous hammers are combined when their Level B
harassment zones overlap. We clarified the scenario involving 12-inch
timber pile removal and corrected the Level B harassment zone size for
this scenario.
These changes in source levels and pile numbers alter the Level A
and Level B harassment zones sizes and expected take for California sea
lion, harbor seals, and harbor porpoises (see Estimated Take section
below). Specifically, the Level B harassment zone for simultaneous
vibratory driving of 14-inch x 89-foot steel H-piles and vibratory
removal of 12-inch timber piles increased from 1585 to 2512 m and the
Level A harassment zones for 14 x 48-inch concrete sheet piles increase
by no more than 1 m. Total take for California sea lion, harbor seals,
and harbor porpoises increases by 7, 192, and 8 individuals,
respectively. The shutdown zone for 14 x 48-inch concrete sheet piles
increases to 20 m (66 feet) (see Mitigation section below).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the project area near Treasure Island and summarizes information
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological
removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on
Taxonomy (2019). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious
injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as
gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. Pacific SARs and draft SARs (e.g., Caretta et al. 2019).
Table 2--Species That Spatially Co-Occur With the Activity to the Degree That Take Is Reasonably Likely To Occur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status;
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most PBR Annual M/SI
\1\ recent abundance survey) \2\ \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray Whale................ Eschrichtius Eastern North -, -, N......... 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) 801 138
robustus. Pacific.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44047]]
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Bottlenose Dolphin........ Tursiops California -, -, N......... 453 (0.06, 346, 2011) 2.7 >2.0
truncatus. Coastal.
Family Phocoenidae
(porpoises):
Harbor porpoise........... Phocoena San Francisco/ -, -, N......... 9,886 (0.51, 2019) 66 0
phocoena. Russian River.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
California Sea Lion....... Zalophus United States... -, -, N......... 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 2014) 14,011 >321
californianus.
Northern fur seal......... Callorhinus California...... -, D, N......... 14,050 (N/A, 7,524, 2013) 451 1.8
ursinus.
................ Eastern North -, D, N......... 620,660 (0.2, 525,333, 2016) 11,295 399
Pacific.
Family Phocidae (earless
seals):
Northern elephant seal.... Mirounga California -, -, N......... 179,000 (N/A, 81,368, 2010) 4,882 8.8
angustirostris. Breeding.
Harbor seal............... Phoca vitulina.. California...... -, -, N......... 30,968 (N/A, 27,348, 2012) 1,641 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2--NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance.
3--These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated
with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
Harbor seal, California sea lion, bottlenose dolphin and Harbor
porpoise spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take
is reasonably likely to occur, and we are authorizing take of these
species. For gray whale, northern fur seal and northern elephant seal,
occurrence is such that take is possible, and we are also authorizing
take of these species. All species that could potentially occur in the
proposed survey areas are included in San Francisco's IHA application
(see application, Table 2). Humpback whales could potentially occur in
the area. However the spatial and temporal occurrence of this species
is very rare, the species is readily observed, and the applicant would
shut down pie driving if humpback whales enter the project area. Thus
take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further.
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected
by the project, including brief introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR
25271; June 9, 2020); since that time, we are not aware of any changes
in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS'
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized
species accounts.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from San Francisco's construction
activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of
marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey area. The notice of
proposed IHA (85 FR 35271; June 9, 2020) included a discussion of the
effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential
effects of underwater noise from San Francisco's survey activities on
marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is
incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination and is not
repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 35271;
June 9, 2020).
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance,
[[Page 44048]]
which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level
B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the acoustic source (i.e., vibratory or impact pile driving) has the
potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual
marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level
A harassment) to result for pinnipeds and harbor porpoise because
predicted auditory injury zones are larger. The mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking
to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Due to the lack of marine
mammal density for some species, NMFS relied on local occurrence data
and group size to estimate take. Below, we describe the factors
considered here in more detail and present the take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur
permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g.,
vibratory pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-
explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) or intermittent (e.g.,
scientific sonar) sources.
San Francisco's proposed activity includes the use of continuous
(vibratory pile-driving) and impulsive (impact pile-driving) sources,
and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) thresholds are
applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive). San Francisco's activity includes the use
of impulsive (impact pile-driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile
driving/removal) sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 3. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described
in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Impulsive Non-impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: Cell 2: LE,LF,24h:
219 dB; 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: Cell 4: LE,MF,24h:
230 dB; 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: Cell 6: LE,HF,24h:
202 dB; 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Cell 7: Lpk,flat: Cell 8: LE,PW,24h:
(Underwater). 218 dB; 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Cell 9: Lpk,flat: Cell 10:
(Underwater). 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 219
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB. dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever
results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-
impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure
level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds
should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa,
and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of
1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect
American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However,
peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency
weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence,
the subscript ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound
pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure
level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory
weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The
cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a
multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty
cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to
indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
[[Page 44049]]
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory
pile driving, vibratory pile removal).
Vibratory hammers produce constant sound when operating, and
produce vibrations that liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile,
allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth. An impact
hammer would then generally be used to place the pile at its intended
depth through rock or harder substrates. The actual durations of each
installation method vary depending on the type and size of the pile. An
impact hammer is a steel device that works like a piston, producing a
series of independent strikes to drive the pile. Impact hammering
typically generates the loudest noise associated with pile
installation.
In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level
B harassment sound thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in
this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations
to develop source levels or the various pile types, sizes and methods
(see Table 4).
Table 4--Project Sound Source Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile driving activity Estimated sound source level at
---------------------------------------------------------- 10 meters without attenuation
--------------------------------- Data source
Hammer type Pile type dB RMS dB SEL dB peak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact............................ 36-inch steel pipe... 193 183 210 Compendium pg. 131
(Buehler et al.
2015) Humboldt.
24-inch octagonal 170 164 189 Measurements at Pile
concrete. 3B, 9/10/2019 at
Alameda Seaplane
Lagoon Project
(Illingworth and
Rodkin, Inc.,
2019a).
14-inch x 48-inch 157 147 168 Treasure Island
concrete sheetpile (Illingworth and
(measured at 32m). Rodkin, Inc.,
2019b).
Vibratory......................... 36-inch steel pipe... 170 Compendium pg. 129
(Buehler et al.
2015).
14-inch x 89-foot 150 Compendium pg. 129
steel H-piles. (Buehler et al.
2015).
Vibratory Removal................. 12-inch timber piles 150 Port Townsend
(measured at 15.8m). Dolphin Timber Pile
Removal (WSDOT
2011).*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: It is assumed that noise levels during pile installation and removal are similar. Use of an impact
hammer will be limited to 5-10 minutes per pile, if necessary. SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB
peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean square.
NMFS typically uses Greenbusch Group (2018) data for source levels for timber pile removal, but the applicant
chose the more conservative WSDOT (2011). The source level from Greenbush Group (2018) is 152 dB at 10m, the
equivalent source level for WSDOT (2011) at 10m is 153 dB.
During pile driving installation activities, there may be times
when multiple hammers are used simultaneously. For impact hammering, it
is unlikely that the two hammers would strike at the same exact
instant, and therefore, the sound source levels will not be adjusted
regardless of the distance between the hammers. For this reason,
multiple impact hammering is not discussed further. For simultaneous
vibratory hammering, the likelihood of such an occurrence is
anticipated to be infrequent and would be for short durations on that
day. In-water pile installation is an intermittent activity, and it is
common for installation to start and stop multiple times as each pile
is adjusted and its progress is measured. When two continuous noise
sources, such as vibratory hammers, have overlapping sound fields,
there is potential for higher sound levels than for non-overlapping
sources. When two or more vibratory hammers are used simultaneously,
and the Level B harassment sound field of one source encompasses the
Level B harassment sound field of another source, the sources are
considered additive and combined using the following rules (see Table
5): For addition of two simultaneous vibratory hammers, the difference
between the two sound source levels (SSLs) is calculated, and if that
difference is between 0 and 1 dB, 3 dB are added to the higher SSL; if
difference is between 2 or 3 dB, 2 dB are added to the highest SSL; if
the difference is between 4 to 9 dB, 1 dB is added to the highest SSL;
and with differences of 10 or more dB, there is no addition.
Table 5--Rules for Combining Sound Levels Generated During Pile Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammer types Difference in SSL Level A zones Level B zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory, Impact.................... Any.................... Use impact zones....... Use largest zone.
Impact, Impact....................... Any.................... Use zones for each pile Use zone for each pile
size and number of size.
strikes.
Vibratory, Vibratory................. 0 or 1 dB.............. Add 3 dB to the higher Add 3 dB to the higher
source level. source level.
2 or 3 dB.............. Add 2 dB to the higher Add 2 dB to the higher
source level. source level.
4 to 9 dB.............. Add 1 dB to the higher Add 1 dB to the higher
source level. source level.
10 dB or more.......... Add 0 dB to the higher Add 0 dB to the higher
source level. source level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Modified from USDOT 1995, WSDOT 2018, and NMFS 2018b.
Note: dB = decibels; SSL = sound source level.
[[Page 44050]]
For simultaneous usage of three or more continuous sound sources,
such as vibratory hammers, the three overlapping sources with the
highest SSLs are identified. Of the three highest SSLs, the lower two
are combined using the above rules, then the combination of the lower
two is combined with the highest of the three. For example, with
overlapping isopleths from 24-, 36-, and 42-inch diameter steel pipe
piles with SSLs of 161, 167, and 168 dB rms respectively, the 24- and
36-inch would be added together; given that 167-161 = 6 dB, then 1 dB
is added to the highest of the two SSLs (167 dB), for a combined noise
level of 168 dB. Next, the newly calculated 168 dB is added to the 42-
inch steel pile with SSL of 168 dB. Since 168-168 = 0 dB, 3 dB is added
to the highest value, or 171 dB in total for the combination of 24-,
36-, and 42-inch steel pipe piles (NMFS 2018b; WSDOT 2018). As
described in Table 5, dB addition calculations were carried out for all
possible combinations of vibratory installation.
When calculating Level B harassment zones for simultaneous use of
an impact hammer and a vibratory hammer, the Level B zones are
calculated using the largest zone for either the impact pile driving or
the vibratory pile driving.
In consideration of the various pile types and sizes and the
construction work plan for the different structures and components of
the project, San Francisco developed a set of likely worst case
scenarios for the activities that would be carried out over the course
of individual days (Table 6). These scenarios encompass the worst
possible combinations of simultaneous pile driving over the worst
possible number of days it might take to complete those tasks. There
are four basic scenarios plus the short-term addition of pile removal
of the timber piles from the old pier. The course of the project is
broken up into work windows for the first month of the project versus
the remaining months. Within each of these temporal work windows there
are some days with driving of larger and louder piles (called the
maximum exposure days) and some days where driving will be of smaller
piles (called average exposure days). The table shows what pile driving
source is used to calculate the Level A and level B zones under each
scenario.
The applicant discusses how they will follow the California
Environmental Quality Act requirement that a bubble curtain be used
during operation of an impact hammer if sound pressures exceeded 160 dB
at 500 meters from the source. Because San Francisco will not use a
bubble curtain for all impact hammering of any pile size, we do not
include a source level reduction for bubble curtain use or isopleth
calculation for this project.
Table 6--Work Scenarios With Simultaneous Pile Driving Sources Used To Calculate Level A and Level B Zones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loudest potential sound source
Piles driven during 24 combination
Date Location Total days hours Drive type Pile type ---------------------------------
Level A Level B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum exposure days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July to January 15.......... North 50 4 Impact.... 24-inch Impact 24-inch 2 vibratory 14-
Breakwater. octagonal octagonal inch x 89-foot
concrete or 14 concrete. steel H-pile.
x 48-inch
concrete
sheetpiles.
4 Vibratory. 14-inch x 89-
foot steel H-
piles..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average exposure days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July........................ Ferry Pier..... 20 1 Vibratory. 36-inch steel 2 vibratory (36- 2 vibratory (36-
pipe (fender inch) steel inch) steel
and/or mooring pipes. pipes.
piles).
2 Vibratory. 14-inch x 89-
foot steel H-
piles..
July to January 15.......... North 112 1 Impact.... 14 x 48-inch Impact 14 x 48- 2 vibratory 14-
Breakwater. 2 Vibratory. concrete inch. inch x 89-foot
sheetpiles. steel H-pile.
14-inch x 89-
foot steel H-
piles.
July to December 31......... Existing Timber * 14 15 Vibratory. 12-inch Timber Same as above.. 12-inch timber
Pier Removal. Piles. pile plus 14-
inch x 89-foot
steel H-pile.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pier removal will overlap with work days in July to December 2020, but is kept separate as it is short duration and will have different zone sizes.
Level B Harassment Zones
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),
where
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement
The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is
the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected
propagation environment that would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate
assumption for San Francisco's proposed activity.
Using the practical spreading model, San Francisco determined
underwater noise would fall below the behavioral effects threshold of
120 dB rms for marine mammals at distances of 1,585 to 34,164 m
depending on the pile type(s) and number of simultaneous vibratory
hammers (Table 7). The distance determines the maximum Level B
harassment zones for the project. Other activities have smaller Level B
harassment zones. It should be noted that based on the geography of
Treasure Island, sound will not reach the full distance of the largest
Level B
[[Page 44051]]
harassment isopleth, except a potential sliver that would exit San
Francisco Bay. We do not expect significant sound to exit San Francisco
Bay however because the entrance to the bay is 13 kilometer (km) from
the project location, there is extensive anthropogenic ambient noise
from vessels and development in San Francisco that would mask the
project sounds, and the geography and bathymetry of the bay is not
conducive to sounds originating from Treasure Island escaping San
Francisco Bay.
Table 7--Level B Isopleths for Each Work Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum exposure Average exposure day
day -----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
July-January July July-January July-December
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loudest Pile Type or Combination 2 vibratory 14- 2 vibratory (36- 2 vibratory 14- vibratory 14-inch
inch x 89-foot inch) steel pipes. inch x 89-foot x 89-foot steel H-
steel H-pile. steel H-pile. pile and
vibratory removal
of 12-inch timber
pile.
Level B Isolpleth (meters)...... 1585.............. 34,164............ 1585.............. 2512.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment Zones
When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of
overestimate of take by Level A harassment. However, these tools offer
the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated
3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop
ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively
address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as
impact/vibratory pile driving or drilling, NMFS User Spreadsheet
predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at
that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur
PTS.
Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet (Table 8), and the resulting
isopleths are reported below (Table 9) for each of the work scenarios.
These inputs follow the rules for simultaneous pile driving as
described in Table 5. The weighting factor adjustments for impact pile
driving were all 2 kilohertz (kHz) and for vibratory pile driving were
2.5 kHz.
Table 8--NMFS Technical Guidance User Spreadsheet Input To Calculate Level A Isopleths for a Combination of Pile
Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High exposure day Average exposure day
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July-January July July-January July-December
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Type....................... 24-inch Octagonal 36-inch Steel 14 x 48-inch Vibratory Removal
Concrete Impact. Simultaneous Concrete Sheet of 12-inch Timber
Vibratory. Pile Impact. Pile.
Source Level (RMS SPL).......... 170............... 173............... 157............... 153.
Source Level (Peak)............. 189............... .................. 168............... ..................
Source Level (ssSEL)............ 164............... .................. 147............... ..................
Strike Duration (sec)........... 0.1...............
Number of Piles per day......... 4................. 2 *............... 1................. 15.
Number of Strikes per Pile/ 1000 strikes...... 45 minutes........ 600 strikes....... 5 minutes.
Duration to drive a single pile.
Distance of source level 10................ 10................ 33................ 15.8.
measurement (m).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Propagation loss coefficient is 15LogR for all cells.
* Two combined piling events, four piles total.
The above input scenarios lead to PTS isopleth distances (Level A
thresholds) of 0.1 to 88 meters, depending on the marine mammal group
and scenario (Table 9).
[[Page 44052]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY20.000
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations. For the three most common species (harbor seal,
California sea lion, and Harbor porpoise) density data exists from the
multiple years of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB)
demolition and reconstruction project (Caltrans 2015, 2018). For other
species we used more qualitative data on observations from the SFOBB
project and observations from year one of this project along with local
information on strandings and other biology. Take by Level A and B
harassment is proposed for authorization and summarized in Table 10.
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist.
SFOBB monitoring showed two observations of this species over 6 days of
monitoring in 2017 (CalTrans 2018). No common bottlenose dolphins were
observed over the course of 264 monitoring hours within the 1,000 foot
(305 m) monitoring zone for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in
2019. One common bottlenose dolphin is sighted with regularity near
Alameda (GGCR 2016). Based on the regularity of the sighting in Alameda
and the SFOBB observations of approximately 0.33 dolphin a day, we
propose the Level B harassment take equivalent to 0.33 dolphins per day
for the 182 proposed days of the project, or 61 common bottlenose
dolphin. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and
we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A
harassment zones, we do not anticipate or propose take by Level A
harassment of bottlenose dolphins.
Harbor Porpoise
Density data for this species from SFOBB monitoring was 0.17/km\2\
(CalTrans 2018). Based on the work scenarios of different pile types
there are three different sized ensonified areas to be considered to
estimate Level B harassment take (Table 11). Multiplication of the
above density times the corresponding scenario area and duration, and
summing the results for the two scenarios leads to a Level B harassment
take of 563 harbor porpoise (Table 11).
Given the relatively high density and size of the Level A isopleths
for two of the scenarios for Harbor porpoises (Table 9, high-frequency
cetaceans) we consider Level A harassment take is a possibility. Based
on density alone it is estimated only two harbor porpoises will enter a
Level A harassment zone. However, we recognize that harbor porpoises
travel in groups of up to 10 individuals and observers of the Treasure
Island Ferry Dock project in 2019 recorded two harbor porpoises over
264 hours of observation, or 0.008 per hour. Based on this observation
take equivalent to this rate (0.008 per hour) over the entire project
period of 182 days (10 hours per day or 1820 hours) equals 15 animals.
Because the observation area in 2019 is larger than the small Level A
harassment zones for this species, we propose take at less than one-
half this rate. As such, we propose Level A harassment take of 7 harbor
porpoise.
Because any harbor porpoises that enter the Level A harassment zone
would initially be counted as entering the Level B harassment zone, we
deduct the Level A harassment take form the Level B harassment take
calculation in Table 11 to avoid double-counting and arrive at the
Level B harassment take in Table 10.
California Sea Lion
Density data for this species from SFOBB monitoring was 0.16/km\2\
[[Page 44053]]
(CalTrans 2018). Based on the work scenarios of different pile types
there are three different sized ensonified areas to be considered to
estimate Level B harassment take (Table 11). Multiplication of the
above density times the corresponding scenario area and duration, and
summing the results for the two scenarios leads to a Level B harassment
take of 512 California sea lions (Table 11).
Given the relatively high density for California sea lions we
consider Level A harassment take a possibility. Based on density alone
it is estimated only one California sea lion will enter a Level A
harassment zone. However, we recognize that observers of the Treasure
Island Ferry Dock project in 2019 recorded five California sea lions
over 264 hours of observation, or 0.019 per hour. Because the
observation area in 2019 is much larger than the small otariid Level A
harassment zones we propose take at less than one-third this rate.
Specifically we propose take of 10 California sea lions.
Because any California sea lions that enter the Level A harassment
zone would initially be counted as entering the Level B harassment
zone, we deduct the Level A harassment take form the Level B harassment
take calculation in Table 11 to avoid double-counting and arrive at the
Level B harassment take in Table 10.
Northern Fur Seal
Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exit.
SFOBB monitoring showed no observations of this species (CalTrans
2018). None were observed for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in
2019. The Marine Mammal Center rescues about five northern fur seals in
a year, and they occasionally rescue them from Yerba Buena Island and
Treasure Island (TMMC, 2019). To be conservative we propose Level B
harassment take of five northern fur seals. Because the Level A
harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSOs will be
able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, and the
species is rare, we do not anticipate or propose take by Level A
harassment of northern fur seals.
Northern Elephant Seal
Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist.
SFOBB monitoring showed no observations of this species (CalTrans
2018). None were observed for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in
2019. Out of the approximately 100 annual northern elephant seal
strandings in San Francisco Bay, approximately 10 individuals strand at
Yerba Buena or Treasure Islands each year (TMMC, 2020). Therefore, we
propose the Level B harassment take of 10 northern elephant seals.
Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we
believe the PSOs will be able to effectively monitor the Level A
harassment zones, and the species is rare, we do not anticipate or
propose take by Level A harassment of northern elephant seals.
Harbor Seal
Density data for this species from SFOBB monitoring was 3.92/km\2\
(CalTrans 2018). Based on the work scenarios of different pile types
there are three different sized ensonified areas to be considered to
estimate Level B harassment take (Table 11). Multiplication of the
above density times the corresponding scenario area and duration leads
to an estimate of 511 harbor seals per day for the pipe pile scenario.
Summing the results for the two scenarios leads to an expectation of
12,701 instances of Level B harassment take of harbor seals.
The number of expected takes per day for the pipe pile scenario
(511) exceeds the estimate that there is only 500 harbor seals in San
Francisco Bay (NPS 2016). It is our normal practice not to issue more
than one take per individual per day. Therefore, we cap the number of
takes per day for this scenario at 500 per day. Thus, summing the
results for the two scenarios leads to a Level B harassment take of
12,481 harbor seals (Table 11).
Given the relatively high density and size of the Level A isopleths
for many of the scenarios for harbor seals (Table 9, phocid pinnipeds)
we consider Level A harassment take is a possibility. Based on density
alone it is estimated that 3 harbor seals will enter a Level A
harassment zone. However, we recognize that harbor seals can occur in
moderate and rarely large size groups and observers of the Treasure
Island Ferry Dock project in 2019 recorded 324 harbor seals over 264
hours of observation, or 6.12 per km\2\ per hour. Based on this
observation and the size and days of activity for the two large Level A
harassment zones we request take equivalent to this rate. As such, we
propose Level A harassment take of 20 harbor seals.
Because any harbor seals that enter the Level A harassment zone
would initially be counted as entering the Level B harassment zone, we
deduct the Level A harassment take from the Level B harassment take
calculation in Table 11 to avoid double-counting and arrive at the
Level B harassment take in Table 10.
Gray Whale
Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist.
SFOBB monitoring showed no observations of this species (CalTrans
2018). None were observed for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in
2019. Approximately 12 gray whales were stranded in San Francisco Bay
from January to May of 2019 (TMMC, 2019). Because recent observations
are not well understood, Treasure Island sits near the entrance to the
bay, and as a conservative measure, we propose Level B harassment take
of 10 gray whales. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively
small and we believe the PSOs will be able to effectively monitor the
Level A harassment zones, and the species is rare, we do not anticipate
or propose take by Level A harassment of gray whales.
Table 10--Authorized Amount of Taking, by Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock and
Percent of Take by Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized take
Species -------------------------------- Percent of
Level B Level A stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) California Stock................... 12,461 20 1.6
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) San Francisco--Russian River 538 7 5.5
Stock..........................................................
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) U.S. Stock......... 502 10 0.2
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Eastern North Pacific Stock.. 10 0 <0.1
Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) California 61 0 13.5
Coastal Stock..................................................
Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) California 10 0 <0.1
breeding Stock.................................................
Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) California and Eastern 5 0 <0.1
North Pacific Stocks...........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44054]]
Table 11--Calculations of Level B Harassment Take From Density Data by Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor California sea
porpoise lion Harbor seal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SFOBB density (animals/square km) 0.17 0.16 3.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piling Scenario/Level B isopleth Distance (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days of Pile Driving.................. 2 vibratory 14-inch x 89- 148 148 148
foot steel H-pile/1585
m.
2 vibratory (36-inch) 20 20 20
steel pipes/34,164 m.
12-inch timber pile plus 14 14 14
14-inch x 89-foot steel
H-pile/2512 m.
Area of Isopleth in square kilometers. 2 vibratory 14-inch x 89- 3.42 3.42 3.42
foot steel H-pile/1585
m.
2 vibratory (36-inch) 129 129 129
steel pipes/34,164 m.
12-inch timber pile plus 8.6 8.6 8.6
14-inch x 89-foot steel
H-pile/2512 m.
Per day take Level B.................. 2 vibratory 14-inch x 89- 0.6 0.5 13.5
foot steel H-pile/1585
m.
2 vibratory (36-inch) 21.9 20.6 *500
steel pipes/34,164 m.
12-inch timber pile plus 1.5 1.4 34
14-inch x 89-foot steel
H-pile.
-----------------------------------------------
Total Level B Take Calculated..... 545 512 12,481
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Capped at maximum population size (500) in San Francisco Bay per day (NPS 2016).
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
The following mitigation measures are listed in the IHA:
For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving
(e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m,
operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum
level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This
type of work could include the following activities: (1) Movement of
the barge to the pile location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the
substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);
Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all
pile driving activity and when new personnel join the work, to explain
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures;
For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take
has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal will shut
down immediately if such species are observed within or entering the
Level B harassment zone; and
If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized
species, pile installation will be stopped as these species approach
the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
The following mitigation measures would apply to San Francisco's
in-water construction activities.
Establishment of Shutdown Zones--San Francisco will
establish shutdown zones for all pile driving and removal activities.
The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within
which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area).
Shutdown zones will vary based on the activity type and marine mammal
hearing group (Table 3). The largest shutdown zones are generally for
high frequency cetaceans, as shown in Table 12.
The placement and number of PSOs during all pile driving
and removal activities (described in detail in the Monitoring and
Reporting section) will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible
during pile installation. Should environmental conditions deteriorate
such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be
visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving and removal must be
delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown
zone could be detected.
[[Page 44055]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY20.001
Monitoring for Level A and Level B Harassment--San
Francisco will monitor the Level A and B harassment zones. Monitoring
zones provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring
protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones
enable observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine
mammals in the project area outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare
for a potential halt of activity should the animal enter the shutdown
zone. Placement of PSOs will allow PSOs to observe marine mammals
within the Level A and B harassment zones. However, due to the large
Level B harassment zones (Table 7), PSOs will not be able to
effectively observe the entire zone. Therefore, Level B harassment
exposures will be recorded and extrapolated, as necessary, based upon
the number of observed takes and the percentage of the Level B
harassment zone that was not visible.
Pre-activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-
water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/
removal of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown
and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will
be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within
the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal
has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes. When a
marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is
present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level
B harassment take will be recorded. If the entire Level B harassment
zone is not visible at the start of construction, pile driving
activities can begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-
activity monitoring of the shutdown zones will commence.
Soft Start--Soft-start procedures are believed to provide
additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or
giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer
operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors will
be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer
at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period. This
procedure will be conducted three times before impact pile driving
begins. Soft start will be implemented at the start of each day's
impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile
driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
Pile driving or removal must occur during daylight hours.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life
[[Page 44056]]
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species
with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure
(e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring
Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the
Monitoring section of the application and section 5 of the IHA. Marine
mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by
NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who
have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used;
Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological
science or related field) or training for experience; and
San Francisco must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae for
approval by NMFS prior to the onset of pile driving.
PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required);
and marine mammal behavior; and
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
Two PSOs will be employed. PSO locations will provide an
unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone(s), and as much
of the Level A and Level B harassment zones as possible. PSO locations
are as follows:
(1) At the pile driving site(s) or best vantage point practicable
to monitor the shutdown zones; and
(2) For the large Level B harassment zone associated with
simultaneous driving of large pipe piles (i.e. 36-inch), or when
vibratory driving a 36-inch pile by itself, a second PSO will be placed
near Pier 33 in San Francisco.
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after pile driving/removal activities. In addition, observers
shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of
distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving
activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or
series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile
driving or drilling equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
Reporting
A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal
activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any
future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first.
The report will include an overall description of work completed, a
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring.
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including how many and what type of piles were
driven or removed and by what method (i.e., impact or vibratory).
Weather parameters and water conditions during each
monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover, visibility, sea
state).
The number of marine mammals observed, by species,
relative to the pile location and if pile driving or removal was
occurring at time of sighting.
Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals
observed.
PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.
Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to
the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile driving or
removal was occurring at time of sighting).
Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during
observation, including direction of travel and estimated time spent
within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was
active.
Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by
month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and
estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction
factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate).
Detailed information about any implementation of any
mitigation triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of
specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if
any.
Description of attempts to distinguish between the number
of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such
as ability to track groups or individuals.
An extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level B
harassment based on the number of observed exposures within the Level B
harassment zone and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that
was not visible, when applicable.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report will constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, San Francisco shall report
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to
the regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or
injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, San Francisco must
immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review
the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any,
additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms
of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until
notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
[[Page 44057]]
Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
General circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses
applies to all of the species listed in Table 10, given that many of
the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal
stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Additional
discussion is included for harbor seals, which occur more densely in
the area and may be disturbed repeatedly during the season. Pile
driving activities have the potential to disturb or displace marine
mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in
the form of Level A harassment and Level B harassment from underwater
sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could
occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone when these
activities are underway.
The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to
potential behavioral disturbance, temporary threshold shift (TTS), and
PTS. No mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and
measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine
mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the
construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation
measures (see Mitigation section).
The Level A harassment zones identified in Table 9 are based upon
an animal exposed to impact pile driving multiple piles per day.
Considering duration of impact driving each pile (up to 10 minutes) and
breaks between pile installations (to reset equipment and move pile
into place), this means an animal would have to remain within the area
estimated to be ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for
multiple hours. This is highly unlikely given marine mammal movement
throughout the area. If an animal was exposed to accumulated sound
energy, the resulting PTS would likely be small (e.g., PTS onset) at
lower frequencies where pile driving energy is concentrated, and
unlikely to result in impacts to individual fitness, reproduction, or
survival.
The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of
serious injury or mortality. For all species and stocks, take would
occur within a limited, confined area (western San Francisco Bay) of
any given stock's range. Level A and Level B harassment will be reduced
to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of
mitigation measures described herein. Further the amount of take
authorized for any given stock is extremely small when compared to
stock abundance.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the
project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine
mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues
they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the
Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the
area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as
changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of noise-
generating activities per day and that pile driving and removal would
occur across six months, any harassment would be temporary. There are
no other areas or times of known biological importance for any of the
affected species.
We are authorizing large numbers of take of harbor seals. As
discussed above, there are approximately 500 harbor seals in San
Francisco Bay. Thus we expect most of the harbor seal take to consist
of repeated take of a smaller number of individuals, rather than a
large proportion of the stock. Most of the take is expected to occur
from the 20 days of simultaneous vibratory pile driving of large piles.
However, we are not concerned about fitness impacts as the daily
exposure is likely to be brief and intermittent. The 20 days of
simultaneous pile driving are not expected to be sequential, providing
the animals recovery time. The presence of the large simultaneous level
B harassment zones are also likely to be of very short duration within
a day on any given day given the dynamics of operating and adjusting
different pile driving rigs and thus the likelihood that both rigs will
be operating simultaneously. It is also the case that some of the
simultaneous pile driving will consist of one large pile and smaller,
quieter H-piles (see Table 6), so that effects are likely to be less
significant. In addition, this area of the bay lacks important habitat
areas, including haulouts within the level B harassment zone, and the
existing industrialized nature and loud ambient noise of the area
minimize the degradation of habitat and effects on individual fitness,
reproduction, or survival. Moreover, harbor seals resident in San
Francisco Bay are likely habituated to this noise and activity as
evident in the low number of observed responses, none of which seemed
severe, from monitoring. Finally, the status of this stock is not of
concern.
In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small,
localized area of habitat would have any effect on the stocks' ability
to recover. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as
the available body of evidence from other similar activities,
demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will
have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified
activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival
and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
[[Page 44058]]
No mortality is anticipated or authorized.
Authorized Level A harassment would be very small amounts
and of low degree.
No biologically important areas have been identified
within the project area.
For all species, San Francisco Bay is a very small and
peripheral part of their range.
For harbor seals take is concentrated in a small number of
individuals with the 20 days of major activity spread out, the most
severe simultaneous pile driving likely of short duration on any given
day in an area of unimportant habitat with significant exiting
anthropomorphic noise and disturbance and evidence the animals are
habituated to these circumstances.
San Francisco would implement mitigation measures such as
vibratory driving piles to the maximum extent practicable, soft-starts,
and shut downs.
Monitoring reports from similar work in San Francisco Bay
have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species
impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the
proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to
be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the
take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other
qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the
temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize of all species or
stocks is below one third of the estimated stock abundance. These are
all likely conservative estimates because they assume all takes are of
different individual animals which is likely not the case. Some
individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count
them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated
take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals
will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species
or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the West Coast Region
Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize
take for endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is
not required for this action.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to San Francisco for the potential
harassment of small numbers of seven marine mammal species incidental
to the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in San Francisco, California,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting
requirements are followed.
Dated: July 16, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-15706 Filed 7-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P