Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 684-709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31702]

[[Page 683]]

Vol. 82

Tuesday,

No. 1

January 3, 2017

Part IV

Department of Commerce

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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

50 CFR Part 217

Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental
to Waterfront Construction; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 684]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 217

[Docket No. 160830798-6798-01]
RIN 0648-BG32

Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Waterfront Construction

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting
waterfront construction at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA, over the
course of five years (2017-2022). As required by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that
take, and requests comments on the proposed regulations.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than February
2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2016-0161, by any of the following methods:
Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0161, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Laws, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability

A copy of Navy's application and any supporting documents, as well
as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained
online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In
case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact
listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The Navy is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider
the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment
resulting from the waterfront construction activities. NMFS has
reviewed the draft EA and believes it is appropriate to adopt the EA in
order to assess the impacts to the human environment of issuance of
regulations and subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to the Navy
and subsequently sign our own FONSI. Information in the Navy's
application, the Navy's EA, and this notice collectively provide the
environmental information related to proposed issuance of these
regulations for public review and comment. All documents are available
at the aforementioned Web site. We will review all comments submitted
in response to this notice as we complete the NEPA processes, including
a final decision of whether to adopt the Navy's EA and sign a FONSI,
prior to a final decision on the incidental take authorization request.

Purpose and Need for Regulatory Action

This proposed rule, to be issued under the authority of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), would establish
a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to
the Navy's waterfront construction activities at Naval Submarine Base
Kings Bay, GA (NSB Kings Bay). The Navy proposes to repair (including
direct repairs and repairs by component replacement) in-water
structures at NSB Kings Bay, construct a new Transit Protection System
Operational Support Facility, and extend the existing Layberth Pier in
order to (1) address critical damage and mission and safety
requirements, (2) limit further deterioration and increase the useful
life of the structures, and (3) upgrade infrastructure to meet
requirements of new submarine technology. Construction will include use
of impact and vibratory pile driving, including installation and
removal of steel, concrete, composite, and timber piles.
We received an application from the Navy requesting five-year
regulations and authorization to take bottlenose dolphins. Take would
occur by Level B harassment incidental to impact and vibratory pile
installation and removal. The regulations would be valid from 2017 to
2022. Please see the ``Background'' section below for definitions of
harassment.

Legal Authority for the Proposed Action

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but
not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years
if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings
and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking
pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting
requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for
issuing this proposed rule containing five-year regulations, and for
any subsequent LOAs. As directed by this legal authority, this proposed
rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

Summary of Major Provisions Within the Proposed Rule

Following is a summary of the major provisions of this proposed
rule regarding Navy waterfront construction activities. We have
preliminarily determined that the Navy's adherence to the proposed
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures described below would
achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine
mammals. These measures include:
Required monitoring of the waterfront construction areas
to detect the presence of marine mammals before beginning construction
activities.
Shutdown of construction activities under certain
circumstances to avoid injury of marine mammals.
Soft start for impact pile driving to allow marine mammals
the opportunity

[[Page 685]]

to leave the area prior to beginning impact pile driving at full power.

Background

Paragraphs 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371
(a)(5)(A) and (D)) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) defines ``harassment'' as: Any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A
harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

Summary of Request

On January 19, 2016, we received an adequate and complete request
from Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to
waterfront construction activities. We received an initial draft of the
request on August 27, 2015, followed by revised drafts on November 6
and December 2, 2015. On February 17, 2016 (81 FR 8048), we published a
notice of receipt of Navy's application in the Federal Register,
requesting comments and information related to the request for 30 days.
We did not receive any comments. The Navy provided an interim revised
draft incorporating minor revisions on March 8, 2016.
The Navy proposes to repair in-water structures at NSB Kings Bay,
as well as to construct new facilities and modify existing facilities.
These repairs, upgrades, and new construction would include use of
impact and vibratory pile driving, including installation and removal
of steel, concrete, composite, and timber piles. Hereafter (unless
otherwise specified or detailed) we use the term ``pile driving'' to
refer to both pile installation and pile removal. The use of both
vibratory and impact pile driving is expected to produce underwater
sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral
harassment of marine mammals. Only the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus truncatus) is expected to be present. The requested
regulations would be valid for five years, from July 12, 2017, through
July 11, 2022.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

NSB Kings Bay is the Navy's east coast home port for ballistic
missile nuclear submarines supporting the Trident II (D-5) missile. NSB
Kings Bay manages, maintains, and operates Trident ballistic missile
(SSBN) and guided missile (SSGN) submarines, Trident II D-5 and
Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles and systems, and infrastructure and
quality of life facilities and programs. In 2010, the Navy found that
conditions of water-based support facilities varied widely from good to
seriously deteriorated. Continuous monitoring of these conditions by
Navy at NSB Kings Bay has confirmed the advanced deterioration and
critical nature of some issues that pose operational and safety risks.
Additionally, other areas of initial deterioration were identified
which require remedy in order to maintain the useful life of existing
structures. Damage observed includes deteriorated concrete piles, pile
caps, and deck components (cracked, spalled, delaminated, exposed/
corroded internal reinforcing steel structures); marine pest (marine
wood borer) damage on wooden piles; broken or unmaintained mooring
fittings; and corrosion on steel piles and pile caps. In some cases, it
is more cost effective to demolish older structures that are
deteriorated and not well configured to fit existing and upcoming
assets and replace them with new structures that are specifically
designed to meet new mission requirements.
To ensure the Navy can continue its mission of supporting the Fleet
Ballistic Missile System and Trident Submarine Program, the Navy
proposes to repair (including direct repairs and repairs by component
replacement) in-water structures at NSB Kings Bay, construct a new
Transit Protection System Operational Support Facility, and extend the
existing Layberth Pier. These repairs, upgrades, and new construction
would (1) address critical damage and mission and safety requirements,
(2) limit further deterioration and increase the useful life of the
structures, and (3) upgrade infrastructure to meet requirements of new
submarine technology. Construction will include use of impact and
vibratory pile driving, including installation and removal of steel,
concrete, composite, and timber piles. The specified activity is
comprised of six distinct projects, four of which are comprised of
multiple smaller projects. These projects and components are summarized
in Table 1. Please see Figure 1-2 in the Navy's application for
locations of facilities referred to in Table 1.

Table 1--Summary of Proposed Waterfront Construction Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project ID Descriptor Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project 1: Port Operations Waterfront Facilities Repair
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A.................... Tug Pier............. Repair concrete
structural piles, pile
caps, utility cover
grates, headwall,
mooring support and
hardware, and deck
undersides; replace
wooden fender piles with
concrete piles; and
modify the fender system
on the south side of
access pier.
1B.................... General Access Pier Install new guide piles,
Crab Island. and repair brow and
handrails.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 686]]

Project 2: Unspecified Minor Construction Layberth Fender Pile
Modification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..................... Unspecified Minor Install additional fender
Construction piles to shorten the
Layberth Fender Pile distance between
Modification P661 existing piles and
Project. provide the required
support for hydro-
pneumatic fenders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project 3: Waterfront Repair and Replacement Maintenance Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3A.................... Explosive Handling Repair high-density
Wharf #2 Pier w/ polyethylene (HDPE)
Capstans (7). fender pile wraps,
sacrificial anodes
attached to the steel
fender piles, steel
safety ladders and
treated timber bracing;
repair or replace
various pile caps,
piles, and mooring
foundations; and clean
and repaint mooring
fittings and two steel
guide pipe piles on the
diver's float.
3B.................... (Dry Dock) Interface Replace timber fender
Wharf. bearing strips and
wales, repair concrete
deck, bullrail, edge
beams, and mooring
foundations; and repair,
paint and recoat
cathodic protection on
the steel H-pile fender
system and sheet pile.
3C.................... Refit Wharf #1....... Replace various pile
caps, piles, and the
outboard edge beam; and
repair, clean, and paint
several mooring
fittings.
3D.................... Refit Wharf #2....... Replace or repair various
pile caps, piles,
outboard edge beams, and
mooring foundations; and
reattach underdeck
lighting conduit and
clean and repaint
various mooring
fittings.
3E.................... Refit Wharf #3....... Replace or repair various
pile caps, piles, the
outboard edge beams, and
mooring foundations; and
clean and repaint
various mooring
fittings.
3F.................... Warping Wharf w/ Repair HDPE fender pile
Capstan (4). wraps; replace or repair
various pile caps,
piles, and mooring
foundations; and clean
and repaint mooring
fittings.
3G.................... Tug Pier............. Replace timber fender
piles with guide piles
and small boat access
floats; paint mooring
fittings; and repair
concrete pile caps,
concrete piles, concrete
underdeck, and storm
drain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project 4: Transit Protection System (TPS) Pier and Off-Shore Supply
Vessel Berthing Modification Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4A.................... New TPS Pier......... Construct a new pier with
full hotel service
capability including
power; potable water;
fire protection; sewage
connections; Ship
Overboard Drainage
collection; fuel; and
telephone, cable, and
Local Area Network
services.
4B.................... Small Craft Berth Once the new TPS pier is
Site VI. constructed, floating
berthing slips would be
constructed and provided
with full hotel service
capability. The berthing
pier would consist of a
pile supported
reinforced concrete
structure with floating
sections. This project
includes the
installation of two
5,000-gallon above
ground storage tanks and
provides two associated
truck off-loading
connections and fuel
dispensing units.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project 5: Trident Refit Facility Waterfront Facilities Repair, Magnetic
Silencing Facility with Crane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5..................... Magnetic Silencing Replace timber fender
Facility with Cranes piles, restraining
(Trident Refit chains, aluminum utility
Facility Waterfront tray, and concrete pile
Facilities Repair). utility guide bracket;
and repair wooden hand
rails and the cracked
concrete deck underside.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project 6: Demolition of the Transit Protection System Pier and Layberth
North Trestle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6A.................... Demolition of TPS Remove the tip of the
Pier. existing TPS Pier.
6B.................... Demolition of Demolish the North
Layberth North Layberth Trestle.
Trestle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dates and Duration

The specified activity may occur at any time during the five-year
period of validity of the proposed regulations. Planned dates of
individual projects and project components are shown in Table 2,
however, project dates may shift. In-water construction activities
would occur during daylight hours, defined here as one hour post-
sunrise to one hour prior to sunset.

Specified Geographical Region

NSB Kings Bay is located in southeastern Georgia, approximately
four miles inland (straight line distance) from the Atlantic Ocean, and
approximately eight miles north of the Georgia-Florida border, along
the western shore of Cumberland Sound (see Figure 2-1 in the Navy's
application). NSB Kings Bay is an approximately 16,000 acre
installation including the land areas and adjacent water areas along
Kings Bay and Cumberland Sound between Marianna Creek to the north and
Mill Creek to the south, and is restricted from general public access.
This estuarine environment receives salt water input from ocean
waters through tidal exchange, and fresh water input from rivers,
tributaries, and stormwater outfalls. The large tidal range and strong
currents result in tidally mixed waters that are refreshed on a daily
basis. Please see section 2 of the Navy's application for more
information.

Detailed Description of Activities

The Navy plans to remove deteriorated timber, concrete, and steel
piles and replace them with concrete, composite, and steel piles. New
construction would involve installation of steel, concrete, and
composite piles. Aspects of construction activities other than pile
driving are not anticipated to have the potential to result in
incidental take of marine mammals because they are either above water
or do not produce levels of underwater sound with likely potential to
result in marine mammal disturbance. Therefore, we do not discuss
elements of construction

[[Page 687]]

activity other than pile driving. No concurrent pile driving would
occur. Project specific pile totals are given in Table 2.
A vibratory hammer would be used for all pile removal work. If use
of the vibratory hammer is not feasible for pile installation (i.e.,
with steel piles), a Delmag Pile Hammer D62-22 or equivalent impact
hammer would be used. The Delmag Pile Hammer D62-22 is a single acting
diesel impact hammer with energy capacity of 76,899-153,799 foot-
pounds. The most effective and efficient method of pile installation
available would be implemented for each project. The method fitting
these criteria may vary based on specific project requirements and
local conditions. In some areas of Kings Bay a limestone layer can be
found relatively close to the substrate/water interface. This type of
layer requires impact driving because vibratory installation will not
drive the piles to a sufficient depth. Impact driving, while generally
producing higher levels of sound also minimizes the net amount of
active driving time, thus reducing the amount of time during which
marine mammals may be exposed to noise. Impact or vibratory pile
driving could occur on any day, but would not occur simultaneously.

Table 2--Pile Driving Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Total number Estimated Total
start Water Pile ------------------------ number of maximum
ID (fiscal depth size Pile type Installation method strikes in-water
year) (ft) (in) Installed Removed per pile work days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A.................. 2017 24 18 Concrete................. 148 0 Impact................... 60 30
24 Concrete................. 18 0 Impact................... 70 4
16 Timber................... 0 159 n/a...................... n/a 31
1B.................. 2017 15 16 Composite................ 2 0 Vibratory................ n/a 1
16 Timber................... 0 2 n/a...................... n/a 1
2................... 2017 46 14 Steel (H)................ 55 0 Impact................... 80 7
3A.................. 2017 46 24 Steel.................... 2 2 Impact................... 70 2
2022 24 Concrete................. 3 3 Impact................... 75 2
24 Steel.................... 10 10 Impact................... 70 7
3B.................. 2021 46 14 Steel (H)................ 99 99 Impact................... 60 15
3C.................. 2018 46 24 Steel.................... 6 0 Impact................... 70 1
30 Steel.................... 0 6 n/a...................... n/a 1
3D.................. 2017 46 24 Steel.................... 6 0 Impact................... 70 1
30 Steel.................... 0 6 n/a...................... n/a 1
3E.................. 2018 46 24 Steel.................... 6 0 Impact................... 70 1
30 Steel.................... 0 6 n/a...................... n/a 1
3F.................. 2021 46 30 Steel.................... 8 8 Impact................... 70 4
3G.................. 2022 30 14 Steel (H)................ 77 77 Impact................... 60 16
4A.................. 2020 35 24 Concrete................. 165 0 Impact................... 200 55
18 Concrete................. 50 0 Impact................... 80 17
24 Concrete................. 0 121 n/a...................... n/a 8
4B.................. 2020 35 24 Steel.................... 30 30 Impact................... 100 8
5................... 2017 46 18 Composite................ 18 0 Vibratory................ n/a 3
16 Timber................... 0 18 n/a...................... n/a 3
6A.................. 2022 46 24 Concrete................. 0 649 n/a...................... n/a 41
6B.................. 2022 46 24 Concrete................. 0 121 n/a...................... n/a 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vibratory hammers, which can be used to either install or extract a
pile, contain a system of counter-rotating eccentric weights powered by
hydraulic motors, and are designed in such a way that horizontal
vibrations cancel out, while vertical vibrations are transmitted into
the pile. The pile driving machine is lifted and positioned over the
pile by means of an excavator or crane, and is fastened to the pile by
a clamp and/or bolts. The vibrations produced cause liquefaction of the
substrate surrounding the pile, enabling the pile to be extracted or
driven into the ground using the weight of the pile plus the hammer.
Impact hammers use a rising and falling piston to repeatedly strike a
pile and drive it into the ground. Impact or vibratory driving could
occur on any work day during the period of validity of these proposed
regulations.
Steel piles are typically vibratory-driven for their initial
embedment depths or to refusal and finished with an impact hammer for
proofing or until the pile meets structural requirements, as necessary.
Proofing involves striking a driven pile with an impact hammer to
verify that it provides the required load-bearing capacity, as
indicated by the number of hammer blows per foot of pile advancement.
Non-steel piles are typically impact-driven for their entire embedment
depth, in part because non-steel piles are often displacement piles (as
opposed to pipe piles) and require some impact to allow substrate
penetration.
Table 3 shows total piles planned for installation (I) and removal
(R) by pile type and size in total and per year. Note that no pile
driving is planned for fiscal year (FY) 2019. Below we provide further
detail specific to individual projects and project components. For
additional detail, please see Table 1 and section 1 of the Navy's
application. As noted previously, all pile removal would be
accomplished using a vibratory hammer and all impact driving would be
accomplished using a Delmag Pile Hammer D62-22 or equivalent impact
hammer.

[[Page 688]]

Table 3--Pile Totals by Type and Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2017 FY2018 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 Totals
Pile type Size -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(in) I R I R I R I R I R I R
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composite..................................................... 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0
Concrete...................................................... 18 148 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 198 0
24 18 0 0 0 165 121 0 0 3 773 186 894
Steel (H)..................................................... 14 55 0 0 0 0 0 99 99 77 77 231 176
Steel......................................................... 24 8 2 12 0 30 30 0 0 10 10 60 42
30 0 6 0 12 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 26
Timber........................................................ 16 0 179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 249 187 12 12 245 151 107 107 90 860 703 1,317
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project 1A: Tug Pier--The Navy plans to remove deteriorated timber
fender piles and replace them with concrete piles. It is anticipated
that 5 to 16 piles would be removed or installed per day with a total
of up to 65 days of in-water work.
Project 1B: General Access Pier Crab Island--Timber guide piles at
this pier are damaged and would be replaced by fiberglass reinforced
plastic composite guide piles. Extraction and installation would both
be performed using a vibratory hammer. It is anticipated that an
average of two piles would be installed or removed per day for
approximately two days of in-water work.
Project 2: Unspecified Minor Construction, Layberth Pier--The Navy
plans to install additional steel H-piles to reduce the existing gaps
between fender piles, which are considered too wide to adequately
support the necessary fender system. No existing piles would need to be
removed. It is anticipated that an average of eight piles would be
installed per day for approximately seven days of in-water work.
The Waterfront Pile Repair and Replacement Maintenance Program
(i.e., Project 3) consists of repairing and/or replacing structurally
unsound piles along the waterfront restricted area. This project
includes multiple individual projects as follows:
Project 3A: Explosives Handling Wharf #2 Pier with Capstans--
Upgrading Explosives Handling Wharf #2 would require the installation
of two new steel piles and the removal of two guide piles in FY17.
Additionally, three concrete piles and ten steel piles would be removed
and subsequently replaced in 2022. It is anticipated that two piles
would be installed or removed per day for a total of approximately 11
days of in-water work in FY17 and FY22.
Project 3B: (Dry Dock) Interface Wharf--Numerous fender piles are
in an advanced state of deterioration. Repairing the Interface Wharf
would require the installation of new steel H-piles and removal of
existing steel H-piles. It is anticipated that an average of 14 piles
would be removed or installed per day for approximately 15 days of in-
water work.
Projects 3C-E: Refit Wharfs 1-3--All three Refit Wharfs are in
disrepair and present a safety risk to the personnel and heavy
equipment utilizing the piers. In each case, proposed repair work would
involve the removal of existing fender piles and replacement with new
steel piles. It is anticipated that an average of six piles would be
removed or installed per day for approximately two days of in-water
work for each of the three projects.
Project 3F: Warping Wharf with Capstan--Repairing deterioration of
the existing Warping Wharf would require the installation of new steel
piles and the removal of eight existing fender piles. It is anticipated
that an average of five piles would be removed or installed per day for
approximately four days of in-water work.
Project 3G: Tug Pier--The same location subject to Project 1A,
Project 3G represents anticipated future work at the Tug Pier
(scheduled for FY22). A large quantity of steel fender piles would be
removed and replaced. It is anticipated that an average of ten piles
would be removed or installed per day for approximately sixteen days of
in-water work.
Project 4 (Transit Protection System (TPS) Off-Shore Supply Vessel
Berthing Modification Project) involves the construction of a new pier
associated with TPS functions and the modification of the existing
berthing pier on the north trestle.
Project 4A: New Facility--The construction of the new pier would
require the installation of new square concrete piles and removal of
existing concrete piles. It is anticipated that 16 to 22 piles would be
removed and 3 to 12 piles would be installed per day for approximately
80 days of in-water work.
Project 4B: Small Craft Berth Site--The existing berthing pier on
the north trestle would be relocated to align with the new pier
associated with the proposed TPS Operational Facility and modified as
needed. These modifications would require installation of new steel
piles and the removal existing piles. It is anticipated that an average
of eight piles would be installed or removed per day for approximately
eight days of in-water work.
Project 5: Waterfront Facilities Repair, Magnetic Silencing
Facility (MSF)--The MSF at Kings Bay is in a deteriorated condition and
Navy plans to replace existing timber fender piles with fiberglass
reinforced plastic composite piles. It is anticipated that an average
of six piles would be extracted or installed per day for approximately
six days of in-water work.
Following completion of Project 4, Project 6 would involve
demolition of the existing TPS Pier and north trestle.
Project 6A-B: Demolition of TPS Pier and North Trestle--Both
projects would involve vibratory removal of existing concrete piles.
For the TPS Pier, it is anticipated that an average of 16 piles would
be removed per day for approximately 41 days of in-water work. For the
work at the north trestle, it is anticipated that an average of 20
piles would be removed per day for approximately 6 days of in-water
work.

Proposed Mitigation

In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods
of taking pursuant to such activity, ``and other means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species
or stock for subsistence uses.'' NMFS's implementing regulations
require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and feasibility (economic and
technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means

[[Page 689]]

of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected
species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
The mitigation strategies described below largely follow those
required and successfully implemented under previous incidental take
authorizations issued in association with similar construction
activities. Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled
with practical spreading loss and other relevant information to
estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see ``Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment''); these ZOI values were used to develop mitigation
measures for pile driving activities at NSB Kings Bay. Background
discussion related to underwater sound concepts and terminology is
provided in the section on ``Description of Sound Sources,'' later in
this preamble. Practical spreading loss is discussed in further detail
in the section on ``Zones of Influence,'' later in this preamble. The
ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone that would be
established around each pile to prevent Level A harassment to dolphins,
while providing estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment
might occur. In addition to the specific measures described later in
this section, the Navy would conduct briefings for construction
supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and Navy staff
prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel
join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational
procedures. All relevant personnel would watch applicable sections of
the Navy's Marine Species Awareness Training video. Relevant personnel
would also follow NMFS's ``Southeast Region Marine Mammal and Sea
Turtle Viewing Guidelines,'' which are described in Attachment 1 of
Navy's Monitoring Plan.

Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving

The following measures would apply to the Navy's mitigation through
shutdown and disturbance zones:
Shutdown Zone--The purpose of a shutdown zone is to define an area
within which shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area),
thus preventing some undesirable outcome, such as auditory injury or
behavioral disturbance of sensitive species (serious injury or death
are unlikely outcomes even in the absence of mitigation measures). For
all pile driving activities, the Navy would establish a minimum
shutdown zone with radial distance of 15 meters (m). This minimum zone
is intended to prevent the already unlikely possibility of physical
interaction with construction equipment and to establish a
precautionary minimum zone with regard to acoustic effects.
Using NMFS's user spreadsheet, an optional companion spreadsheet
associated with the alternative implementation methodology provided in
Appendix D of NMFS's acoustic guidance (NMFS, 2016), we calculated
project, pile type, and pile driving methodology-specific zones within
which auditory injury (i.e., Level A harassment) could occur. The user
spreadsheet is publicly available online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm. In using the spreadsheet, we assumed
practical spreading loss and used supplementary information provided by
the Navy regarding assumed number of piles driven per day and number of
pile strikes necessary to install a pile (for impact pile driving) and
daily duration of pile driving (for vibratory pile driving). Assumed
source levels are provided in Table 7.
In most cases, this minimum shutdown zone of 15 m is expected to
contain the area in which auditory injury could occur. All predicted
auditory injury zones are less than the minimum 15 m shutdown zone
(radial distance range: 0.5-13.1 m), with the exception of impact
driving of 30-inch (in) steel piles associated with Project 3F (radial
distance of 38 m) and impact driving of 24-in steel piles associated
with Project 4B (radial distance of 16.6 m). In all cases, predicted
injury zones are calculated on the basis of cumulative sound exposure,
as peak pressure source levels are below the injury threshold for mid-
frequency cetaceans. For these two scenarios we propose shutdown zones
of 40 m and 20 m radial distance, respectively.
Injury zone predictions generated using the optional user
spreadsheet are precautionary due to a number of simplifying
assumptions. For example, the spreadsheet tool assumes that marine
mammals remain stationary during the activity and does not account for
potential recovery between intermittent sounds. In addition, the tool
incorporates the acoustic guidance's weighting functions through use of
a single-frequency weighting factor adjustment intended to represent
the signal's 95 percent frequency contour percentile (i.e., upper
frequency below which 95 percent of total cumulative energy is
contained; Charif et al., 2010). This will typically result in higher
predicted exposures for broadband sounds, since only one frequency is
being considered, compared to exposures associated with the ability to
fully incorporate the guidance's weighting functions.
Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which sound
pressure levels (SPLs) equal or exceed 160 and 120 dB root mean square
(rms) (for impulsive and non-impulsive, continuous sound,
respectively). Disturbance zones provide utility for monitoring
conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by
establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown
zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of
and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area but
outside the shutdown zone, and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of
activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring
is for documenting incidents of Level B harassment; disturbance zone
monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see ``Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting''). Nominal radial distances for disturbance
zones are shown in Table 8.
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors
record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The
observer's location and the location of the pile being driven are
known, and the location of the animal may be estimated as a distance
from the observer and then compared to the location from the pile. It
may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to sound levels
constituting incidental harassment on the basis of predicted distances
to relevant thresholds in post-processing of observational data, and a
precise accounting of observed incidents of harassment created. This
information may then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an
approximate understanding of actual total takes, in cases where the
entire zone was not monitored and/or all days of activity were not
monitored.
Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring would be conducted before, during,
and after pile driving activities. In addition, observers will record
all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from
activity, and monitors will document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being driven. Observations made
outside the shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile
segment will be completed without cessation, unless the animal
approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which point all

[[Page 690]]

pile driving activities would be halted. Monitoring will take place
from 15 minutes prior to initiation through 30 minutes post-completion
of pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to
install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time
elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than
thirty minutes. Observation of shutdown zones will always occur, but
observation of the larger disturbance zones will occur on a subset of
days associated with each specific project (see project-specific
details provided in ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting,'' later in
this document). Please see the Monitoring Plan, developed by the Navy
in agreement with NMFS, for full details of the monitoring protocols.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by designated observers, who will
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable (as defined in the
Monitoring Plan) to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/
delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the
hammer operator. Observers would have no other construction-related
tasks while conducting monitoring. Observers should have the following
minimum qualifications:
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
Experience or training in the field identification of
bottlenose dolphins, 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 document observations
including, but not limited to: The number and species of marine mammals
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were
suspended to avoid potential incidental injury of marine mammals from
construction noise within a defined shutdown zone; 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.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone
will be monitored for 15 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine
mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared
the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to
remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own volition),
and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone
may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, when the entire
shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog,
etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise during impact pile
driving that is already underway, the activity would be halted.
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone
during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted
and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been
visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have
passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted
throughout the time required to drive a pile and for thirty minutes
following the conclusion of pile driving.

Soft Start

The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional
protection to marine mammals by warning marine mammals or providing
them with a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at
full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound
from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This
procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify
the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation
across drivers and, for impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at
reduced energy will vary because operating the hammer at less than full
power results in ``bouncing'' of the hammer as it strikes the pile,
resulting in multiple ``strikes.'' The Navy will utilize soft start
techniques for impact pile driving. We require an initial set of three
strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-
second waiting period, then 2 subsequent 3-strike sets. Soft start will
be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and
at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of thirty
minutes or longer; the requirement to implement soft start for impact
driving is independent of whether vibratory driving has occurred within
the prior 30 minutes.
We have carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures
and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring
that we prescribed the means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their
habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of
the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in
which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the
measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2)
the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize
adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure
for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment
only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at a
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat
during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, we have

[[Page 691]]

preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide
the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine
mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

We have reviewed the Navy's species descriptions--which summarize
available information regarding status and trends, distribution and
habitat preferences, behavior and life history, and auditory
capabilities of the potentially affected species and stocks--for
accuracy and completeness, and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of
Navy's application, as well as to NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports
(SARs; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of reprinting the
information here. Additional general information (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) and information on the U.S. regulatory status
of species under the MMPA and ESA may be found on NMFS's Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/). Table 4 lists all species and
stocks with expected potential for occurrence in the specified
geographical region where Navy proposes to conduct the specified
activity, and summarizes information related to the population or
stock, including potential biological removal (PBR). PBR, 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, is considered in concert with known sources of ongoing
anthropogenic mortality (as described in NMFS's SARs).
Only one species under NMFS's jurisdiction is considered to have
the potential to co-occur with Navy activities: The bottlenose dolphin.
However, multiple stocks of bottlenose dolphin have the potential to be
present. The offshore stock of bottlenose dolphins are generally found
in deeper waters farther from the coast; biopsy tissue sampling and
genetic analysis demonstrated that bottlenose dolphins concentrated
close to shore were of the coastal morphotype, while those in waters
greater than 40 m depth were from the offshore morphotype (Garrison et
al., 2003). However, south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, the ranges
of the coastal and offshore morphotypes overlap to some degree. Based
on genetic analysis of tissue samples collected in nearshore and
offshore waters from New York to central Florida, Torres et al. (2003)
found the offshore morphotype exclusively seaward of 34 kilometers (km)
and in waters deeper than 34 m. Within 7.5 km of shore, all animals
were of the coastal morphotype. Garrison et al. (2003) found offshore
morphotype animals as close as 7.3 km from shore in water depths of 13
m. Therefore, the offshore stock of bottlenose dolphins is considered
extralimital to the project area and is not discussed further in this
document. In addition, the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus
latirostris) may be found in coastal waters of the Atlantic. However,
manatees are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not
considered further in this document. All stocks are assessed in NMFS's
U.S. Atlantic SARs (e.g., Waring et al., 2016).

Table 4--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of NSB Kings Bay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance
ESA/MMPA (CV, Nmin, most
Species Stock status; recent abundance PBR \3\ Annual M/SI Relative occurrence in Kings Bay;
Strategic (Y/ survey) \2\ \4\ season of occurrence \5\
N) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)........................................................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae......................................................................................................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin............ Western North D; Y 4,377 (0.43; 31.............. 1.2-1.6....... Likely; year-round.
Atlantic 3,097; 2009).
Coastal, South
Carolina/
Georgia.
WNA Coastal, D; Y 1,219 (0.67; 7............... 0.4........... Rare; year-round.
Northern 730; 2009).
Florida.
WNA Coastal, D; Y 9,173 (0.46; 63.............. 0-12.......... Rare; January-March.
Southern 6,326; 2009).
Migratory.
Southern Georgia --; Y 194 (0.05; 185; 1.9............. Unk........... Likely; year-round.
Estuarine 2009).
System.
Jacksonville --; Y Unknown......... Undetermined.... 1.2........... Rare; year-round.
Estuarine
System.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (--) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see
footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future.
\2\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance
estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate.
\3\ Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
\4\ 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, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a range.
\5\ The Navy considers ``rare'' to mean that there may be a few confirmed sightings or that the distribution of the stock is near enough to the area of
interest that the species could occur there, and that overall the stock may occur but only infrequently or in small numbers. ``Likely'' is considered
to mean that confirmed and regular sightings of the species occur year-round. Extralimital stocks are those that are considered unlikely to co-occur
with the activity because the action area is outside the range of normal occurrence, but for which there may be some sighting or stranding records.

[[Page 692]]

Bottlenose dolphins range widely in temperate and tropical waters
and are found from deep, offshore to coastal areas, including bays,
estuaries and river mouths. In the western North Atlantic, there are
two morphologically and genetically distinct bottlenose dolphin
morphotypes described as the coastal and offshore forms (Duffield et
al., 1983; Hersh and Duffield, 1990; Mead and Potter, 1995; Curry and
Smith, 1997; Rosel et al., 2009). These forms are genetically distinct
based upon both mitochondrial and nuclear markers (Hoelzel et al.,
1998; Rosel et al., 2009). As described above, the offshore form--which
is distributed primarily along the outer continental shelf and
continental slope--is considered extralimital to the project area and
is not discussed here. The coastal morphotype is continuously
distributed in nearshore coastal and estuarine waters along the U.S.
Atlantic coast south of Long Island, New York, around the Florida
peninsula and into the Gulf of Mexico. Primary habitat for coastal
dolphins generally includes waters less than 20 m deep (e.g., Garrison
et al., 2003).
Initially, a single stock of coastal bottlenose dolphins was
thought to migrate seasonally between New Jersey (summer months) and
central Florida based on seasonal patterns in strandings during a large
scale mortality event occurring during 1987-1988 (Scott et al., 1988).
However, re-analysis of stranding data and extensive analysis of
genetic, photo-identification, and satellite telemetry data demonstrate
a complex mosaic of coastal bottlenose dolphin stocks (Zolman, 2002;
McLellan et al., 2002; Rosel et al., 2009; Waring et al., 2016).
Integrated analysis of these multiple lines of evidence suggests that
there are five coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphins, including the
South Carolina/Georgia and northern Florida stocks that may be present
in the action area.
The coastal morphotype inhabits inshore estuarine waters in
addition to coastal nearshore and continental shelf waters, with
multiple lines of evidence supporting demographic separation between
bottlenose dolphins residing within different estuaries along the
Atlantic coast (Wells et al., 1987; Scott et al., 1990; Wells et al.,
1996; Zolman, 2002; Speakman et al., 2006; Stolen et al., 2007; Balmer
et al., 2008; Mazzoil et al., 2008). In some cases, studies have
identified communities of resident dolphins that are seen within
relatively restricted home ranges year-round, as well as year-round
resident dolphins repeatedly observed across multiple years (Zolman,
2002; Speakman et al., 2006; Stolen et al., 2007; Mazzoil et al.,
2008). A few published studies demonstrate that these resident animals
are genetically distinct from animals in nearby coastal waters and/or
from animals residing in nearby estuarine areas (Caldwell, 2001; Rosel
et al., 2009; Litz et al., 2012). However, the degree of spatial
overlap between estuarine and coastal populations remains unclear, and
the degree of movement of resident estuarine animals into coastal
waters on seasonal or shorter time scales is poorly understood (Waring
et al., 2016). Bottlenose dolphins inhabiting primarily estuarine
habitats are considered distinct stocks from those inhabiting coastal
habitats.
The spatial extent of the coastal stocks, their potential seasonal
movements, and their relationships with estuarine stocks are poorly
understood (Waring et al., 2016). Photo-identification studies
documented dolphins in coastal waters off Charleston, South Carolina,
that are not known resident members of the estuarine stock (Speakman et
al., 2006). Genetic analyses of samples from northern Florida and
Georgia and central South Carolina, using both mitochondrial DNA and
nuclear microsatellite markers, indicate significant genetic
differences between these areas (NMFS, 2001; Rosel et al., 2009).
Therefore, NMFS defines separate stocks occurring in coastal Atlantic
waters from the North Carolina/South Carolina border south to the
Georgia/Florida border, and from the Georgia/Florida border south to
29.4[deg]N. There is likely to be some overlap between actual stock
ranges at these borders, which are defined for management purposes, and
the action area is located adjacent to the Georgia/Florida border.
Therefore, although we would expect that most coastal dolphins
encountered would be from the Georgia/South Carolina stock, it is
possible that animals from the northern Florida stock could be present.
These five stocks also include migratory stocks that move south
seasonally from mid-Atlantic coastal waters. In particular, the
southern migratory stock, defined on the basis of satellite tag
telemetry studies and stable isotope analysis, is thought to migrate
south from waters of southern Virginia and north central North Carolina
in the summer to waters south of Cape Fear and as far south as coastal
Florida during winter months, where it could overlap with the South
Carolina/Georgia coastal stock (and potentially occur in the action
area) (Knoff, 2004; Waring et al., 2016). Also based on tagging
studies, the northern migratory stock is not thought to move south of
Cape Lookout, North Carolina, during cold water months (Waring et al.,
2016). Telemetry data suggest this stock occupies waters of southern
North Carolina (south of Cape Lookout) during October-December, before
moving south during January-March (as far south as northern Florida).
During April-June, the stock moves north back to North Carolina, and is
presumed to remain in coastal waters north of Cape Lookout, North
Carolina, from July-August (Waring et al., 2016). However, during its
winter movements the southern migratory stock is thought to occur in
waters from 10-30 m depth (i.e., remain further offshore than it does
in northern waters, where it is more likely to overlap with estuarine
system stocks) (Waring et al., 2016). Therefore, we assume that rare
occurrence of migratory stock dolphins during January to March may be
possible.
There are two resident estuarine stocks of bottlenose dolphin that
may occur in the action area: Those present in southern Georgia and
Jacksonville estuarine systems (SGES and JES). Balmer et al. (2011)
conducted photo-identification studies between 2004 and 2009 in two
field sites in south-central Georgia, one in the Turtle/Brunswick River
estuary and the second north of the Altamaha River/Sound including the
Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve and extending north
to Sapelo Sound. The data revealed strong site fidelity to the two
regions and supported Altamaha Sound as an appropriate boundary between
the two sites (Balmer et al., 2013). Genetic analysis of mitochondrial
DNA control region sequences and microsatellite markers of dolphins
biopsied in southern Georgia showed significant genetic differentiation
from animals biopsied in northern Georgia and southern South Carolina
estuaries as well as from animals biopsied in coastal waters greater
than 1 km from shore at the same latitude (Waring et al., 2016).
Caldwell (2001) investigated the social structure of bottlenose
dolphins inhabiting the estuarine waters between the St. Mary's River
(at the Georgia/Florida border) and Jacksonville Beach, Florida, using
photo-identification and behavioral data. Multiple behaviorally-
different communities were identified during the study, including those
inhabiting estuarine waters to the north and south of the St. Johns
River, which differed in density, habitat fidelity and social
affiliation patterns. Dolphins to the north of the St. Johns River were
isolated, with 96 percent of the groups observed containing dolphins
that had been photographically identified only in

[[Page 693]]

this area, demonstrating strong year-round site fidelity (Caldwell,
2001). Cluster analyses suggested that dolphins using the northern area
did not socialize with those using the area to the south of the St.
Johns River (Caldwell, 2001).
The SGES stock is bounded in the south by the Georgia/Florida
border at the Cumberland River out through Cumberland Sound and in the
north by the Altamaha River out through Altamaha Sound, and encompasses
all estuarine waters in between as well as coastal waters out to 1 km
from shore. The southern boundary abuts the northern boundary of the
JES stock, which is currently considered to extend south to
Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Although both stocks may occur in the
action area (the proposed construction site is just north of the shared
SGES/JES stock boundary), we assume that animals from the JES stock
would occur only rarely if at all due to the strong site fidelity
exhibited within areas to the south of the St. Mary's River and
Cumberland Sound.
The best available abundance estimate for the SGES stock is 194
animals (Table 4). However, seasonal mark-recapture, photo-
identification surveys informing this estimate cover less than half of
the assumed range of the stock and, therefore, the abundance estimate
is negatively biased (Waring et al., 2016). The portion of range
surveyed did not include the proposed action area. There is no official
abundance estimate for the JES stock because existing data are greater
than eight years old. However, photo-identification data from 1994-1997
yielded 334 individually identified dolphins, including an unknown
number of seasonal residents and transients (Gubbins et al., 2003).
Mark-recapture analyses including all individually identifiable
dolphins yielded a population abundance estimate of 412 animals (CV =
0.06; Gubbins et al., 2003). This is considered to be an overestimate
because it included non-resident and seasonally resident dolphins
(Waring et al., 2016).
In summary, the SGES stock and the South Carolina/Georgia coastal
stock are expected to be the two stocks most likely to be affected by
the specified activity. Individual animals from the northern Florida
and southern migratory (January to March only) coastal stocks and the
JES stock may also occur rarely.
Biologically Important Areas--LaBrecque et al. (2015) recognize
multiple biologically important areas (BIA) for small and resident
populations of bottlenose dolphins in the mid- and south Atlantic.
Small and resident population BIAs are areas and times within which
small and resident populations occupy a limited geographic extent, and
are therefore necessarily important areas for those populations. Here,
these include areas defined for the SGES and JES populations and
correspond with the stock boundaries described above.
Unusual Mortality Events (UME)--A UME is defined under the MMPA as
``a stranding that is unexpected, involves a significant die-off of any
marine mammal population, and demands immediate response.'' Beginning
in July 2013, elevated strandings of bottlenose dolphins were observed
along the Atlantic coast from New York to Florida. The investigation
was closed in 2015, with the UME ultimately being attributed to
cetacean morbillivirus (though additional contributory factors are
under investigation; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/midatldolphins2013.html; accessed November 25, 2016). Dolphin
strandings during 2013-2015 were greater than 6 times higher than the
average from 2007-2012, with the most strandings reported from
Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. A total of approximately 1,650
bottlenose dolphins stranded from June 2013 to March 2015 and,
additionally, a small number of individuals of several other cetacean
species stranded during the UME and tested positive for morbillivirus
(humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, pygmy sperm whale, and striped
dolphin). Approximately one hundred of the stranded dolphins were
recovered along the Georgia coast, with at least 31 found on nearby
Cumberland Island. Only one offshore ecotype dolphin has been
identified, meaning that over 99 percent of affected dolphins were of
the coastal ecotype (D. Fauquier; pers. comm.). Research, to include
analyses of stranding samples and post-UME monitoring and modeling of
surviving populations, will continue in order to better understand the
impacts of the UME on the affected stocks. Notably, an earlier major
UME in 1987-1988 was also caused by morbillivirus. Over 740 stranded
dolphins were recovered during that event.
A second UME, declared in 2010, affected bottlenose dolphins in the
St. Johns River (FL). Affected animals likely belonged to the JES
stock; the cause of this UME is undetermined. For more information on
UMEs, please visit: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/ mmume/.
Take Reduction Planning--Take reduction plans are designed to help
recover and prevent the depletion of strategic marine mammal stocks
that interact with certain U.S. commercial fisheries, as required by
Section 118 of the MMPA. The immediate goal of a take reduction plan is
to reduce, within six months of its implementation, the annual human-
cause mortality and serious injury (M/SI) of marine mammals incidental
to commercial fishing to less than the PBR level. The long-term goal is
to reduce, within five years of its implementation, the M/SI of marine
mammals incidental to commercial fishing to insignificant levels,
approaching a zero serious injury and mortality rate, taking into
account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing
technology, and existing state or regional fishery management plans.
Take reduction teams are convened to develop these plans.
One take reduction plan has been developed to reduce deaths of
Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins incidental to commercial fishing.
The bottlenose dolphin take reduction plan contains both regulatory and
non-regulatory conservation measures, including seasonal gillnet
restrictions, gear proximity requirements, and gear length
restrictions, as well as continued research and monitoring,
enforcement, outreach, and partnership efforts. Gillnet restrictions
are in place in Georgia waters. More information is available online
at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/bdtrp.html.

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

This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section
later in this preamble will include a quantitative analysis of the
number of incidents of take expected to occur incidental to this
activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include an
analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals, and
will consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed Mitigation''
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals,
and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. In
the following discussion, we provide general background information on
sound and marine mammal hearing before considering potential effects to
marine mammals from sound produced by pile driving.

[[Page 694]]

Description of Sound Sources

This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified
activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the
distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave
(length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths
than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more
rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the
height of the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is
typically described using the relative unit of the decibel (dB). A
sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a
measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this
is 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa)), and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for
large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in
dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level
(SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source
(referenced to 1 [mu]Pa), while the received level is the SPL at the
listener's position (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square
root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and
negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so
that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s)
represents the total energy contained within a pulse, and considers
both intensity and duration of exposure. Peak sound pressure (also
referred to as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-p) is the maximum
instantaneous sound pressure measurable in the water at a specified
distance from the source, and is represented in the same units as the
rms sound pressure.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either
directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions
(omnidirectional sources), as is the case for sound produced by the
pile driving activity considered here. The compressions and
decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in
pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as
hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g.,
wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number
of sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following
(Richardson et al., 1995):
Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of
naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50
kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase
with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf sound becomes
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band
during heavy surf conditions.
Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the
water surface can become an important component of total sound at
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times.
Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to
ambient sound levels, as can some fish and snapping shrimp. The
frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz
to over 100 kHz.
Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient sound related to human
activity include transportation (surface vessels), dredging and
construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys,
sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically
dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300
Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz
and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate
rapidly. Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than the
activity of interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is sometimes termed
background sound, as opposed to ambient sound.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through
the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that depending
on the source type, its intensity, and the receivers' generalized
hearing range, sound from a given activity may be a negligible addition
to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may
affect marine mammals.
The underwater acoustic environment at NSB Kings Bay is dominated
by noise from day-to-day port and vessel activities. The base is
sheltered from most wave noise, but is a high-use area for naval ships,
tugs, submarines, and security vessels. When underway, these sources
can create noise between 20 Hz and 16 kHz (Lesage et al., 1999), with
broadband noise levels up to 180 dB rms. Normal port operations,
including transits, docking, and maintenance by multiple vessels would
continue throughout the period proposed for the specified activity. As
a result of measurements conducted in February 2015, the Navy found
that background sound levels averaged around 135 dB rms (Acentech,
2015). Due to the existing loud environment and

[[Page 695]]

similarity to noise produced by existing activity, it is unlikely that
noise produced by vibratory pile driving in particular would have any
significant impact on marine mammals occurring in the vicinity of NSB
Kings Bay. Details of source types are described in the following text.
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types:
pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction
between these two sound types is important because they have differing
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to
hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see
Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds
are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure
to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal
pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g.,
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems (such as
those used by the U.S. Navy). The duration of such sounds, as received
at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
Impact hammers operate by using a piston or weight to drive the
pile into the substrate. The impulsive sound generated by impact
hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a
potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005).
Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them, which liquefies
surrounding substrate, and allowing the weight of the hammer to push
the pile into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce non-impulsive,
continuous noise at levels significantly lower than those produced by
impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally
10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the
same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing
the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed
over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et
al., 2005).

Acoustic Effects

Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal
hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
Marine Mammal Hearing--Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic
sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the
potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data
indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing
capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999;
Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007)
recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing
groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the
basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using
auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other
data. Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing ranges
for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were
chosen based on the approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-
frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained.
Functional groups for cetaceans and the associated frequencies are
indicated below (note that these frequency ranges correspond to the
range for the composite group, with the entire range not necessarily
reflecting the capabilities of every species within that group):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best
hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): generalized hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to
less than 100 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information.
The bottlenose dolphin is classified as a mid-frequency cetacean.
Potential Effects of Underwater Sound--Please refer to the
information given previously (``Description of Active Acoustic
Sources'') regarding sound, characteristics of sound types, and metrics
used in this document. Note that, in the following discussion, we refer
in many cases to a recent review article concerning studies of noise-
induced hearing loss conducted from 1996-2015 (i.e., Finneran, 2015).
For study-specific citations, please see that work. Anthropogenic
sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have
a range of highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor
to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration
of exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. The
potential effects of underwater sound can result in one or more of the
following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory
physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and
masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al.,
2007; Southall et al., 2007; G[ouml]tz et al., 2009). The degree of
effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received
level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In
general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can
longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of
hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's
hearing range. We first describe specific manifestations of acoustic
effects before providing discussion specific to Navy's pile driving.
Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing
range. First is the area

[[Page 696]]

within which the acoustic signal would be audible (potentially
perceived) to the animal but not strong enough to elicit any overt
behavioral or physiological response. The next zone corresponds with
the area where the signal is audible to the animal and of sufficient
intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological responsiveness. Third
is a zone within which, for signals of high intensity, the received
level is sufficient to potentially cause discomfort or tissue damage to
auditory or other systems. Overlaying these zones to a certain extent
is the area within which masking (i.e., when a sound interferes with or
masks the ability of an animal to detect a signal of interest that is
above the absolute hearing threshold) may occur; the masking zone may
be highly variable in size.
We describe the more severe effects (i.e., certain non-auditory
physical or physiological effects) only briefly as we do not expect
that there is a reasonable likelihood that Navy pile driving may result
in such effects. Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that
theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level
underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral
reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as a result of an avoidance
reaction) caused by exposure to sound include neurological effects,
bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue
damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack,
2007). Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of pile driving,
including some odontocetes, are especially unlikely to incur auditory
impairment or non-auditory physical effects, and Navy construction
activities do not involve the use of devices such as explosives or mid-
frequency active sonar that are associated with these types of effects.
1. Permanent Threshold Shift--Marine mammals exposed to high-
intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's
hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe
cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness, while in most
cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific
frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to
constitute auditory injury.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans, but such
relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other
terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs (a 40-dB threshold shift
approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) at
exposure levels at least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS
(a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al.
2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary
assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as
impact pile driving pulses as received close to the source) are at
least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis, and
PTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher
than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al.,
2007). Given the higher level of sound or longer exposure duration
necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less
likely that PTS could occur.
2. Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985).
While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must
be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong
TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations
necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise [Neophocoena asiaeorientalis]) exposed to a limited number of
sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory
settings (Finneran, 2015). In general, harbor porpoises have a lower
TTS onset than other measured cetacean species (Finneran, 2015).
Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited
number of individuals within these species. There are no data available
on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on
TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset
thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins
(2012), and Finneran (2015).
3. Behavioral effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety
of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007;
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not
only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other
factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source).
Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of
studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes

[[Page 697]]

with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response.
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with
captive marine mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997).
Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources
(typically seismic airguns or acoustic harassment devices) have been
varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral
changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; see also
Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC,
2005). There are broad categories of potential response, which we
describe in greater detail here, and that include alteration of dive
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects on breathing,
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight
responses.
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel
and Clark, 2000; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Goldbogen et
al., 2013a, b). Variations in dive behavior may reflect interruptions
in biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging), or they may be
of little biological significance. The impact of an alteration to dive
behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what the animal
is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the
response.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.,
2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al.,
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors,
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005, 2006; Gailey et
al., 2007).
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al.,
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic
noise (Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, animals may cease sound
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory
paths--in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al.,
1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area
once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996;
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007).
Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species
in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does
not occur (e.g., Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings
(Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to
a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and
Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may
influence the response.
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of
increased vigilance, it may come at

[[Page 698]]

the cost of decreased attention to other critical behaviors such as
foraging or resting). These effects have generally not been
demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies involving fish and
terrestrial animals have shown that increased vigilance may
substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997;
Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, chronic
disturbance can cause population declines through reduction of fitness
(e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent reduction in
reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington and Veitch,
1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, Ridgway et
al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose dolphins
exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any sleep
deprivation or stress effects.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further,
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive
behavioral responses.
4. Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha,
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000;
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found
that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
5. Auditory masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection,
predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; Erbe et al.,
2016). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by
another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or
higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g.,
snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise
source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the
characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest
(e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in
relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g.,
sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency
discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss),
and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions.
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing
significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the
coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment
when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from
masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking
(without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological
function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a
potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species.
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g.,
Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as
animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000;
Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt
et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal
and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995),
through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other
compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can

[[Page 699]]

be tested directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild
populations it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of
masking compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world
masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild
(e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013).
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic),
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
Potential Effects of Navy Activity--As described previously (see
``Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources''), the Navy proposes to
conduct pile driving, including impact and vibratory driving. The
effects of pile driving on marine mammals are dependent on several
factors, including the size, type, and depth of the animal; the depth,
intensity, and duration of the pile driving sound; the depth of the
water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff distance
between the pile and the animal; and the sound propagation properties
of the environment. With both types of pile driving, it is likely that
the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes
in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area.
These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995):
changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per
surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight responses.
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant
behavioral modifications that could lead to effects on growth,
survival, or reproduction, such as drastic changes in diving/surfacing
patterns or significant habitat abandonment are extremely unlikely in
this area (i.e., shallow waters in a heavily altered industrial area).
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to
predict (Southall et al., 2007).
Whether impact or vibratory driving, sound sources would be active
for relatively short durations, with relation to potential for masking.
The frequencies output by pile driving activity are lower than those
used by bottlenose dolphins for communication or foraging. We expect
insignificant impacts from masking, and any masking event that could
possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would occur
concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already
estimated for vibratory and impact pile driving, and which have already
been taken into account in the exposure analysis.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

The proposed activities would not result in permanent impacts to
habitats used directly by marine mammals, but may have potential short-
term impacts to food sources such as forage fish. The proposed
activities could also affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion
above), but meaningful impacts are unlikely. There are no known
foraging hotspots, or other ocean bottom structures of significant
biological importance to marine mammals present in the marine waters in
the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the main impact issue
associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated
sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as
discussed previously in this preamble. The most likely impact to marine
mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on likely marine mammal
prey (i.e., fish) near NSB Kings Bay and minor impacts to the immediate
substrate during installation and removal of piles.
Effects to Prey--Impact pile driving would produce pulsed sounds,
and fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or
intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can
cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution.
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings,
2009). Sound pulses at various received levels may cause subtle to
noticeable changes in fish behavior (Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et
al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury
to fish and fish mortality. The most likely impact to fish from pile
driving activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral
avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area
after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal
recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general,
impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and
temporary due to the expected short daily duration of individual pile
driving events and the relatively small areas being affected. It is
also not expected that the industrial environment of NSB Kings Bay
provides important fish habitat or harbors significant amounts of
forage fish.
The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small
compared to the available habitat in inland waters in the region. Any
behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave
significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in
the nearby vicinity. As described in the preceding, the potential for
Navy construction to affect the availability of prey to marine mammals
or to meaningfully impact the quality of physical or acoustic habitat
is considered to be insignificant. Effects to habitat will not be
discussed further in this document.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).''
Anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, as pile driving
activity has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral
patterns for individual

[[Page 700]]

marine mammals. Level A harassment by auditory injury is unlikely to
occur as a result of this activity for bottlenose dolphins (i.e., mid-
frequency hearing specialists) and, although it is unlikely that take
by Level A harassment would occur even in the absence of the proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures, the proposed measures are expected
to further minimize such potential. The Navy has requested
authorization for the incidental taking by Level B harassment of
bottlenose dolphins in the vicinity of NSB Kings Bay that may result
from pile driving during waterfront construction activities described
previously in this document.

Sound Thresholds

We have historically used generic sound exposure thresholds (see
Table 5) to determine when an activity that produces sound might result
in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might
occur. These thresholds should be considered guidelines for estimating
when harassment may occur (i.e., when an animal is exposed to levels
equal to or exceeding the relevant criterion) in specific contexts;
however, useful contextual information that may inform our assessment
of effects is typically lacking and we consider these thresholds as
step functions. For Level B harassment, the 160 dB and 120 dB rms
criteria are used to estimate incidents of take resulting from impact
and vibratory pile driving, respectively.

Table 5--Historical Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion Definition Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment.......... Injury (onset PTS-- 180 dB rms
any level above (cetaceans).
that which is known
to cause TTS).
Level B harassment.......... Behavioral 160 dB rms (impulse
disruption. sources); 120 dB
rms (non-impulsive,
continuous
sources).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In August 2016, NMFS released its ``Technical Guidance for
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal
Hearing,'' which established new thresholds for predicting auditory
injury (NMFS, 2016), and which equates to Level A harassment under the
MMPA. For more information, please visit www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm. In the August 4, 2016, Federal Register
notice announcing the guidance (81 FR 51694), NMFS explained the
approach it would take during a transition period, wherein we balance
the need to consider this new best available science with the fact that
some applicants have already committed time and resources to the
development of acoustic analyses based on our previous thresholds and
have constraints that preclude the recalculation of take estimates, as
well as with a consideration of where the agency is in the decision-
making pipeline. In that notice, we included a non-exhaustive list of
factors that would inform the most appropriate approach for considering
the new guidance, including: how far in the MMPA process the applicant
has progressed; the scope of the effects; when the authorization is
needed; the cost and complexity of the analysis; and the degree to
which the guidance is expected to affect our analysis.
The new guidance identifies the received levels, or thresholds,
above which individual marine mammals are predicted to experience
changes in their hearing sensitivity (either temporary or permanent)
for all underwater anthropogenic sound sources, reflects the best
available science, and is intended to better predict the potential for
auditory injury than does NMFS's historical criteria. The guidance
reflects the best available science on the potential for noise to
affect auditory sensitivity by:
Dividing sound sources into two groups (i.e., impulsive
and non-impulsive) based on their potential to affect hearing
sensitivity;
Choosing metrics that better address the impacts of noise
on hearing sensitivity, i.e., peak SPL (better reflects the physical
properties of impulsive sound sources, to affect hearing sensitivity)
and cumulative sound exposure level (cSEL) (accounts for not only level
of exposure but also durations of exposure);
Dividing marine mammals into functional hearing groups and
developing auditory weighting functions based on the science supporting
that not all marine mammals hear and use sound in the same manner.
NMFS's new guidance (NMFS, 2016) recommends specific thresholds
under the dual metric approach (i.e., peak SPL and cSEL) and recommends
that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on
measured or estimated functional hearing ranges. The premise of the
dual criteria approach is that, while there is no definitive answer to
the question of which acoustic metric is most appropriate for assessing
the potential for injury, both the intensity and duration of received
signals are important to an understanding of the potential for injury.
Therefore, peak SPL is used to define a pressure criterion above which
tissue injury is predicted to occur, regardless of exposure duration
(i.e., any single exposure at or above this level is considered to
cause tissue injury), and cSEL is used to account for the total energy
received over the duration of sound exposure (i.e., both received level
and duration of exposure) (Southall et al., 2007; NMFS, 2016). As a
general principle, whichever criterion is exceeded first would be used
as the effective injury criterion (i.e., the more precautionary of the
criteria). Note that cSEL acoustic threshold levels incorporate marine
mammal auditory weighting functions, while peak pressure thresholds do
not. NMFS (2016) recommends 24 hours as a maximum accumulation period
relative to cSEL thresholds. For further discussion of auditory
weighting functions and their application, please see NMFS (2016).
Table 6 displays relevant thresholds provided by NMFS (2016).

Table 6--Exposure Criteria for Auditory Injury \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative
Peak sound
Hearing group pressure \2\ exposure
level \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-frequency cetaceans..................... 230 dB 185 dB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Onset PTS--any level above that which is known to cause TTS.
\2\ Referenced to 1 [mu]Pa; unweighted within generalized hearing range.
\3\ Referenced to 1 [mu]Pa\2\s; weighted according to appropriate
auditory weighting function.

NMFS considers these updated thresholds and associated weighting
functions to be the best available information for assessing whether
exposure to sound from specific activities is likely to result in
changes in marine mammal hearing sensitivity. In this case, Navy
submitted a timely

[[Page 701]]

request for authorization that was determined to be adequate and
complete prior to availability of the guidance. The Navy's analysis
considered the potential for auditory injury to marine mammals, but
ultimately concluded that injury would be unlikely to occur due to
their proposed mitigation measures; i.e., Level A harassment mitigation
zones calculated on the basis of NMFS's then-current thresholds for
onset of permanent threshold shift (i.e., 180 dB rms). Following
release of the new guidance, we have considered the likely implications
for potential auditory injury of marine mammals. Based on consideration
of the guidance, potential injury zones are much smaller than
previously expected, and are fully encompassed by Navy's revised
proposed shutdown zones. In consideration of the small injury zones and
the Navy's proposed mitigation, we believe that injury will be avoided.
In summary, we have considered the new guidance and believe that the
likelihood of injury is adequately addressed in this analysis, and
appropriate protective measures are in place in the proposed
regulations.

Zones of Influence

Sound Propagation--Pile driving generates underwater noise that can
potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project
area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as
an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters
vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * log10(R1/R2),

Where:
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement.

This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which
is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface,
resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of
distance from the source (20*log(range)). Cylindrical spreading occurs
in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water
surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level
for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log(range)). As is
common practice in coastal waters, here we assume practical spreading
loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance)
here. Practical spreading is a compromise that is often used under
conditions where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away
from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment
that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss
conditions.
Sound Source Levels and Behavioral Zones--The intensity of pile
driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of
piles, hammers, and the physical environment in which the activity
takes place. However, there are no measurements available from the
specific environment of NSB Kings Bay. Numerous studies have examined
sound pressure levels (SPLs) recorded from underwater pile driving
projects in California and Washington, and the Navy has conducted a few
studies on the east coast. In addition, the majority of studies are
focused on steel pipe piles, with less data available for other pile
types. In order to determine reasonable SPLs and their associated
effects on marine mammals that are likely to result from pile driving
at NSB Kings Bay, studies with similar properties to the specified
activity were evaluated, and are displayed in Table 7. Where available,
data from the east coast were prioritized due to the differences in
bathymetry and sediment at west coast sites. For pile types for which
data from the east coast were not available, averages of west coast
data were used to approximate source levels. For fiberglass reinforced
plastic composite piles, no measured data are available. The source
level estimates for this type of pile were based on data from timber
piles driven on the east coast of the U.S, assuming that this is the
most similar pile material. In all cases, where data from the same pile
size/type were not available, a more conservative proxy was used. Where
appropriate, weighted project averages were considered. Values measured
at distances greater than 10 m were normalized to 10 m before
calculating averages. For full details of data considered, please see
Appendix C of the Navy's application.

Table 7--Summary of Proxy Measured Underwater Sound Pressure Levels (SPLs)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proxy source levels (dB at 10 m)
Method Pile size and material Proxy -----------------------------------------------
rms pk SEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory.............................. 16'' timber; 16-18'' composite. 12-16'' timber \1\............ 161 n/a n/a
Vibratory.............................. 18-24'' concrete............... 24'' steel pipe 2-5........... 166 n/a n/a
Vibratory.............................. 14'' steel H................... 14'' steel H \6\.............. 163 n/a n/a
Vibratory.............................. 24'' steel pipe................ 24'' steel pipe 2-5........... 166 n/a n/a
Vibratory.............................. 30'' steel pipe................ 30'' steel pipe 7-9........... 166 n/a n/a
Impact................................. 18'' concrete.................. 18'' concrete \4\............. 170 184 159
Impact................................. 24'' concrete.................. 24'' concrete 1 6............. 174 184 165
Impact................................. 14'' steel H................... 14'' steel H \4\.............. 178 196 168
Impact................................. 24'' steel pipe................ 24'' steel pipe 4 10-11....... 190 206 179
Impact................................. 30'' steel pipe................ 30'' steel pipe 4 8 10 12..... 193 209 188
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: \1\ Illingworth & Rodkin, 2015; \2\ Illingworth & Rodkin, 2010; \3\ Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012; \4\ Caltrans, 2012; \5\ Illingworth & Rodkin,
2013b; \6\ Illingworth & Rodkin, 2013a; \7\ Laughlin, 2010a; \8\ Laughlin, 2010b; \9\ Laughlin, 2011; \10\ Laughlin, 2005a; \11\ Laughlin, 2005b; \12\
MacGillivray and Racca, 2005.

We consider the values presented in Table 7 to be representative of
SPLs that may be produced by the specified activity. All calculated
distances to and the total area encompassed by the marine mammal sound
thresholds are provided in Table 8. Calculated radial distances to the
160 dB threshold assume a field free of obstruction.

[[Page 702]]

However, the waters surrounding NSB Kings Bay do not represent open
water conditions and the calculated zone-specific areas take landforms
into consideration. Actual zones are depicted in Figures 6-1 through 6-
26 of the Navy's application. Although calculated radial distances to
threshold do not change, the actual zone sizes may vary depending on
the specific project location.

Table 8--Distances to Relevant Sound Thresholds and Areas of Ensonification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Pile type.............................. Distance to threshold (m) and associated area of
emsonification (km\2\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160 dB
120 dB
---------------------------------------------------------------
1A............................................. 16'' timber............................ n/a n/a 5,412 3.69
1A............................................. 18'' concrete.......................... 46.4 0.01 n/a n/a
1A............................................. 24'' concrete.......................... 85.8 0.02 n/a n/a
1B............................................. 16'' timber/composite.................. n/a n/a 5,412 3.12
2.............................................. 14'' steel H........................... 159 0.06 n/a n/a
3A (FY17)...................................... 24'' steel pipe........................ 1,000 0.88 11,659 3.63
3A (FY22)...................................... 24'' concrete.......................... 85.8 0.02 11,659 3.63
3A (FY22)...................................... 24'' steel pipe........................ 1,000 0.88 11,659 3.63
3B............................................. 14'' steel H........................... 159 0.04 7,356 2.40
3C............................................. 24-30'' steel pipe..................... 1,000 0.75 11,659 3.32
3D............................................. 24-30'' steel pipe..................... 1,000 0.90 11,659 3.17
3E............................................. 24-30'' steel pipe..................... 1,000 0.88 11,659 3.72
3F............................................. 30'' steel pipe........................ 1,585 1.35 11,659 3.49
3G............................................. 14'' steel H........................... 159 0.07 7,356 4.00
4A............................................. 18'' concrete.......................... 46.4 0.02 11,659 7.51
4A............................................. 24'' concrete.......................... 85.8 0.01 11,659 7.51
4B............................................. 24'' steel pipe........................ 1,000 1.63 11,659 6.39
5.............................................. 16'' timber/18'' composite............. n/a n/a 5,412 10.75
6A/6B.......................................... 24'' concrete.......................... n/a n/a 11,659 9.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas presented take into account attenuation and/or shadowing by land. Please see Figures 6-1 to 6-26 in the Navy's application.

Marine Mammal Density

The Navy conducted marine mammal surveys at NSB Kings Bay during
2006-2007 (McKee and Latusek, 2009). Transect lines were run in the
waters around NSB Kings Bay during summer and fall 2006 and during
winter and spring 2007. The survey area included estuarine waters
extending from the mouth of the St. Marys River north through the
Cumberland Sound to approximately eight nautical miles (nmi) inland
along the Satilla River. The Crooked River and the Brickhill River,
which flow into Cumberland Sound, were also part of the study area,
though line transects were not possible in these locations, and census
counts were substituted here. The geographic limits ranged from
30[deg]40' N. to 31[deg]00' N. and inland limits to 81[deg]40' W.
Nearshore Atlantic waters were not included in the surveys.
Observations were made with 7x50 power binoculars and with the
naked eye, scanning from 0-90[deg] relative to the vessel's line of
travel. Sightings, radial distance and angle to animal, and number of
individuals were recorded. For census count areas, the vessel was
driven along the center line of the river and distance and angle to
sightings were noted. Commercially available software (Distance 5.0)
was used to analyze the collected data, including area surveyed, and
calculate a seasonal density. Seasonal densities were combined to
calculate an average annual density of 1.12 dolphins per km\2\.

Incidental Take Calculation

The species density described above (1.12 animals/km\2\) was
multiplied by the activity-specific ZOIs shown in Table 8 to determine
the estimated daily exposures. The Navy then rounded these daily
exposure estimates to the nearest whole number before multiplying by
activity-specific pile driving days, shown in Table 2, to yield the
exposure estimates shown in Table 9. The Navy has requested
authorization for a total of 881 incidents of Level B harassment of
bottlenose dolphins over the five-year period of validity of these
proposed regulations. Table 9 displays the total take estimate broken
out by project and year. However, note that year assignments reflect
only the projected project start years. Projects may continue into
succeeding years, but neither exact start dates nor whether a project
would in fact continue into the succeeding year are known at this time.

Table 9--Incidental Take Totals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Project Impact Vibratory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY17............................................................ 1A 0 124
1B n/a 6
2 0 n/a
3A 1 4
3D 1 4
5 n/a 72
FY17 Totals..................................................... n/a 2 210
-------------------------------
212
-------------------------------
FY18............................................................ 3C 1 4
3E 1 4

[[Page 703]]

FY18 Totals..................................................... n/a 2 8
-------------------------------
10
-----------------------------------------------
FY19............................................................ n/a
-----------------------------------------------
FY20............................................................ 4A 0 64
4B 8 32
FY20 Totals..................................................... n/a 8 96
-------------------------------
104
-------------------------------
FY21............................................................ 3B 0 21
3F 4 8
FY21 Totals..................................................... n/a 4 29
-------------------------------
33
-------------------------------
FY22............................................................ 3A 4 16
3G 0 32
6A n/a 410
6B n/a 60
FY22 Totals..................................................... n/a 4 518
-------------------------------
522
-------------------------------
FY17-22 Totals.................................................. n/a 20 861
-------------------------------
881
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analyses and Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact Analysis

NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . .
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.'' 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 by mortality, serious injury, and
Level A or Level B harassment, we consider other factors, such as the
likely nature of any behavioral responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any such responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as the number and nature of estimated
Level A harassment takes (if any), and effects on habitat. We also
assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by
evaluating this information relative to population status (i.e., the
environmental baseline).
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 these
analyses 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, sources of human-caused mortality).
Pile driving activities associated with the wharf construction
projects, as described previously, have the potential to disturb or
displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral
disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving.
Potential takes could occur if individual bottlenose dolphins are
present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.
No serious injury or mortality would be expected even in the
absence of the proposed mitigation measures. No Level A harassment is
anticipated given the nature of the activities and measures designed to
minimize the possibility of injury. The potential for injury is small,
and is expected to be essentially eliminated through implementation of
the planned mitigation measures--soft start (for impact driving) and
shutdown zones. Impact driving, as compared with vibratory driving, has
source characteristics (short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and
much sharper rise time to reach those peaks) that are potentially
injurious or more likely to produce severe behavioral reactions. Given
sufficient notice through use of soft start, marine mammals are
expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its
becoming potentially injurious or resulting in more severe behavioral
reactions. Environmental conditions in waters surrounding NSB Kings Bay
are expected to generally be good, with calm sea states, albeit with
high turbidity. Nevertheless, we expect conditions would allow a high
marine mammal detection capability, enabling a high rate of success in
implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff,
2006; HDR, Inc., 2012; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will
simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced
from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been
observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving. The
pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful
than, numerous other construction activities

[[Page 704]]

conducted in San Francisco Bay and in the Puget Sound region, which
have taken place with no known long-term adverse consequences from
behavioral harassment.
The Navy has conducted similar multi-year activities potentially
affecting bottlenose dolphins in San Diego Bay and in the same general
region at Mayport Florida, that have similarly reported no apparently
consequential behavioral reactions or long-term effects on bottlenose
dolphin populations (Lerma, 2014; Navy, 2015). Repeated exposures of
individuals to relatively low levels of sound outside of preferred
habitat areas are unlikely to significantly disrupt critical behaviors.
Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the
overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized
decrease in viability for the affected individuals, and thus would not
result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B
harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse
impact through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if
sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing,
animals are likely to simply avoid the area while the activity is
occurring. While vibratory driving associated with some project
components may produce sound at distances of multiple kilometers from
the pile driving site, thus intruding on higher-quality habitat, the
project sites themselves and the majority of sound fields produced by
the specified activities are within a heavily impacted, industrialized
area. Therefore, we expect that animals annoyed by project sound would
simply avoid the area and use more-preferred habitats.
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the
following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or
mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the
anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant
habitat within the project area, including known areas or features of
special significance for foraging or reproduction; and (4) the presumed
efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of
the specified activity to the level of least practicable adverse
impact. In addition, while some of the potentially affected stocks are
considered depleted under the MMPA, it is unlikely that minor noise
effects in a small, localized area 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.
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 proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal
take from the Navy's waterfront construction activities will have a
negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers Analysis

Please see Table 9 for information relating to this small numbers
analysis; as described previously, although we provide exposure
estimates broken out by year and project component, we do not have
specific information about when each project would be concluded or
therefore how many takes may actually accrue in any given year during
the five-year period of validity of these propose regulations. The
annual average over the course of the five year period is 176 takes. Of
these annual average 176 incidents of behavioral harassment predicted
to occur for bottlenose dolphin, we have no information allowing us to
parse the predicted incidents amongst the stocks of bottlenose dolphin
that may occur in the project area. However, because they would be
expected to occur only rarely and/or seasonally, we assume that only
small numbers of individuals of the northern Florida coastal, southern
migratory coastal, and Jacksonville estuarine system stocks would be
potentially present and available to be taken.
The South Carolina/Georgia coastal and southern Georgia estuarine
system stocks are expected to potentially be present more regularly.
For the South Carolina/Georgia coastal stock, the annual average
predicted number of incidents of take proposed for authorization would
be considered small--approximately four percent--even if each estimated
taking occurred to a new individual. This is an extremely unlikely
scenario as, for bottlenose dolphins in estuarine and nearshore waters,
there is likely to be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day.
The total number of authorized takes for bottlenose dolphins, if
assumed to accrue solely to new individuals of the SGES stock, is
higher relative to the total stock abundance, which is currently
estimated at 194 individuals. As described previously, this estimate is
the result of surveys covering only a portion of the stock range and is
assumed to underestimate the stock abundance. Regardless, these numbers
represent the estimated incidents of take, not the number of
individuals taken. That is, it is highly likely that a relatively small
subset of SGES bottlenose dolphins would be harassed by project
activities. SGES bottlenose dolphins range from Cumberland Sound at the
Georgia-Florida border north to the Altamaha Sound, Georgia, an area
spanning approximately 70 linear km of coastline and including habitat
consisting of complex inshore and estuarine waterways. SGES dolphins
show strong site fidelity (Balmer et al., 2013), and it is likely that
the majority of SGES dolphins would not occur within waters ensonified
by project activities. In summary, SGES dolphins are known to exhibit
strong site fidelity (i.e., individuals do not generally range
throughout the recognized overall SGES stock range), and the specified
activity will be stationary within a relatively enclosed industrial
area not recognized as an area of any special significance that would
serve to attract or aggregate dolphins. We therefore believe that the
estimated numbers of take, were they to occur, likely represent
repeated exposures of a much smaller number of bottlenose dolphins, and
that these estimated incidents of take represent small numbers of
bottlenose dolphins.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, we
preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken
relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity,
section 101(a)(5)(A) 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 incidental take 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.

[[Page 705]]

Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g.,
presence, abundance, distribution, density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving, or feeding areas).
Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) population,
species, or stock.
Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to
marine mammals.
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Navy provided a separate Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, which
is available online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.

Visual Marine Mammal Observations

The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to
construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of
activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained
in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have
no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The
Navy would monitor all shutdown zones at all times, and would monitor
disturbance zones during a varying subset of total project days.
Approximately half of disturbance zone monitoring effort is proposed
for allocation during the first two years of project activities in
order to provide verification during the early stages of the project
regarding assumed numbers of bottlenose dolphins present in the area.
If compliance monitoring results suggest that the actual number of
incidental take events may differ significantly from the number
originally authorized, the Navy would consult with NMFS. The Navy would
conduct monitoring before, during, and after pile driving, with
observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Based on our
requirements, the Navy would implement the following procedures for
pile driving:
Marine mammal observers would be located at the best
vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and
as much of the disturbance zone as possible.
During all observation periods, observers will use
binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.
If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting
conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until
that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving
is underway, the activity would be halted.
The shutdown zone around the pile would be monitored for
the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after all pile
driving activity, while disturbance zone monitoring would be
implemented according to the schedule proposed here.
Notional marine mammal observation locations are depicted in
Figures 3-14 of the Navy's monitoring plan. Total days planned for each
project are provided above in Table 2. Project-specific disturbance
zone monitoring proposals are described in the following list.
Project 1A--A minimum of three observers would be deployed
to monitor the disturbance zone on a minimum of ten days of vibratory
pile driving.
Project 1B--Only two total days of work are proposed as
part of Project 1B, and no disturbance zone monitoring is proposed.
Project 2--Only impact pile driving is proposed in
association with Project 2; therefore, the disturbance zone would be
visible during shutdown zone monitoring.
Project 3A--This project is expected to occur in two
phases, beginning in FY2017 and FY2022. During phase one, only two
total days of work are proposed and no disturbance zone monitoring is
proposed. During phase two, a minimum of three observers would be
deployed to monitor the disturbance zone on a minimum of three days of
vibratory pile driving.
Project 3B--A minimum of three observers would be deployed
to monitor the disturbance zone on a minimum of five days of vibratory
pile driving.
Projects 3C, 3D, and 3E--A minimum of two observers would
be deployed to monitor the disturbance zone during all vibratory
driving associated with these projects.
Project 3F--A minimum of three observers would be deployed
to monitor the disturbance zone on a minimum of two days of vibratory
pile driving.
Project 3G--A minimum of three observers would be deployed
to monitor the disturbance zone on a minimum of four days of vibratory
pile driving.
Project 4A--A minimum of four observers would be deployed
to monitor the disturbance zone on a minimum of eight days of vibratory
pile driving.
Project 4B--A minimum of four observers would be deployed
to monitor the disturbance zone on a minimum of three days of vibratory
pile driving.
Project 5--A minimum of four observers would be deployed
to monitor the disturbance zone on a minimum of three days of vibratory
pile driving.
Projects 6A and 6B--A minimum of five observers would be
deployed to monitor the disturbance zone on a minimum of twelve days of
vibratory pile driving.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its
effectiveness using an adaptive approach. Monitoring biologists will
use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek
improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any
modifications to the protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the
Navy.

Data Collection

We require that observers use standardized data forms. Among other
pieces of information, the Navy will record detailed information about
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to
the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting
behavior of the animal, if any. We require that, at a minimum, the
following information be collected on the sighting forms:
Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
Weather parameters (e.g., wind speed, percent cloud cover,
visibility);
Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
Description of implementation of mitigation measures
(e.g., shutdown or delay).
Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
Other human activity in the area.

[[Page 706]]

Acoustic Monitoring

The Navy would implement a sound source level verification study
during activities associated with specific project components of
interest. Because data is relatively lacking for these pile types, data
collection would be targeted towards impact and vibratory driving of
concrete, timber and composite piles. A sample scope of work for
acoustic monitoring is provided as Attachment 3 of the Navy's
monitoring plan. The exact specifications of the acoustic monitoring
work would be finalized in consultation with Navy personnel, subject to
constraints related to logistics and security requirements. Reporting
of measured sound level signals will include the average, minimum, and
maximum rms value and frequency spectra for each pile monitored. Peak
and single-strike SEL values would also be reported for impact pile
driving. Acoustic monitoring would be conducted in association with
Project 1A (impact driving of 18-24'' concrete piles and vibratory
removal of 16'' timber piles); Project 2 (impact driving of 14'' steel
H piles); Project 4A (impact driving of 18-24'' concrete piles and
vibratory removal of 24'' concrete piles); and Projects 6A and 6B
(vibratory removal of 24'' concrete piles).

Marine Mammal Surveys

Subject to funding availability, additional work would be performed
to describe the spatial and temporal distributions of bottlenose
dolphins and their densities in areas that may be affected by the
specified activities. Surveys would be performed as soon as
practicable.

Reporting

A draft report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the
completion of the monitoring period for each project. The report will
include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and
post-activity during pile driving days, and will also provide
descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by
marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns
and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take
estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the
course of construction. A final report must be submitted within thirty
days following resolution of comments on the draft report. The Navy
would also submit a comprehensive summary report following conclusion
of the specified activities.

Adaptive Management

The regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to
Navy waterfront construction activities would contain an adaptive
management component.
The reporting requirements associated with this proposed rule are
designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to
allow consideration of whether any changes are appropriate. The use of
adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from
different sources to determine (with input from the Navy regarding
practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if mitigation or
monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or
deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests
that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing
adverse effects to marine mammals and if the measures are practicable.
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data
to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results
from monitoring reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2)
results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (3) any
information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a
manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or
subsequent LOAs.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated
by these actions. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking
of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be
affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that
section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The Navy has prepared a draft EA in accordance with NEPA and the
regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality. We have
posted it on the NMFS Web site concurrently with the publication of
these proposed regulations. NMFS will independently evaluate the EA and
determine whether or not to adopt it. We may prepare a separate NEPA
analysis and incorporate relevant portions of the Navy's EA by
reference. Information in the Navy's application, EA, and this notice
collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed
issuance of the regulations for public review and comment. We will
review all comments submitted in response to this notice as we complete
the NEPA process, including a decision of whether to sign a FONSI,
prior to a final decision on the request for incidental take
authorization.

Request for Information

NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information,
and suggestions concerning the Navy's request and the proposed
regulations (see ADDRESSES). All comments will be reviewed and
evaluated as we prepare the final rule and make final determinations on
whether to issue the requested authorizations. This notice and
referenced documents provide all environmental information relating to
our proposed action for public review.

Classification

Pursuant to the procedures established to implement Executive Order
12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Navy is the sole entity that would be subject to the requirements in
these proposed regulations, and the U.S. Navy is not a small
governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as
defined by the RFA. Because of this certification, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) because the applicant is a Federal agency. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection
of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
number. These requirements have been approved by OMB under control
number 0648-0151 and include applications for

[[Page 707]]

regulations, subsequent LOAs, and reports.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217

Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood,
Transportation.

Dated: December 22, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 217 is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 217--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE
MAMMALS

0
1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

Subpart X [Reserved]

0
2. Add and reserve subpart X.

Subpart Y [Reserved]

0
3. Add and reserve subpart Y.
0
4. Add subpart Z to part 217 to read as follows:

Subpart Z--Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Navy Waterfront
Construction Activities at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay

Sec.
217.250 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
217.251 Effective dates.
217.252 Permissible methods of taking.
217.253 Prohibitions.
217.254 Mitigation requirements.
217.255 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
217.256 Letters of Authorization.
217.257 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
217.258 [Reserved]
217.259 [Reserved]

Sec. 217.250 Specified activity and specified geographical region.

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy (Navy)
and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its
behalf for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area
outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to
waterfront construction activities.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by Navy may be authorized in a
Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within waters adjacent
to Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay and Crab Island.

Sec. 217.251 Effective dates.

Regulations in this subpart are effective from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] through [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].

Sec. 217.252 Permissible methods of taking.

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.256 of
this chapter, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter ``Navy'') may
incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the
area described in Sec. 217.250(b) of this chapter by Level B
harassment associated with waterfront construction activities, provided
the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and
requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate
LOA.

Sec. 217.253 Prohibitions.

Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec. 217.250 and
authorized by a LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.256 of this
chapter, no person in connection with the activities described in Sec.
217.250 of this chapter may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and
requirements of this subpart or a LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106
and 217.256 of this chapter;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner
other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines
such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or
stocks of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines
such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or
stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.

Sec. 217.254 Mitigation requirements.

When conducting the activities identified in Sec. 217.250 of this
chapter, the mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under
Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.256 of this chapter must be implemented.
These mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to:
(a) General conditions: (1) A copy of any issued LOA must be in the
possession of the Navy, its designees, and work crew personnel
operating under the authority of the issued LOA.
(2) The Navy shall conduct briefings for construction supervisors
and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, acoustic monitoring team, and
Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when
new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and
operational procedures.
(b) Except for pile driving covered under subsections (c) and (d),
for all pile driving activity, the Navy shall implement a minimum
shutdown zone of 15 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes
within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease.
(c) For impact pile driving associated with Project 3F (Warping
Wharf with Capstan), the Navy shall implement a minimum shutdown zone
of 40 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes within or
approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease.
(d) For impact pile driving associated with Project 4B (Small Craft
Berth Site VI), the Navy shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 20
m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes within or approaches
the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease.
(e) The Navy shall deploy marine mammal observers as indicated in
the final Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan and as described in Sec.
217.255 of this chapter.
(1) For all pile driving activities, a minimum of one observer
shall be stationed at the active pile driving rig or reasonable
proximity in order to monitor the shutdown zone.
(2) Monitoring shall take place from 15 minutes prior to initiation
of pile driving activity through 30 minutes post-completion of pile
driving activity. Pre-activity monitoring shall be conducted for 15
minutes to ensure that the shutdown zone is clear of marine mammals,
and pile driving may commence when observers have declared the shutdown
zone clear of marine mammals. In the event of a delay or shutdown of
activity resulting from marine mammals in the shutdown zone, animals
shall be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of
their own volition) and their behavior shall be monitored and
documented. Monitoring shall occur throughout the time required to
drive a pile. The shutdown zone must be determined to be clear during
periods of good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown zone and
surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye).
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, all
pile driving activities at that location shall be halted. If pile
driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine

[[Page 708]]

mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal
has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown
zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
(4) Monitoring shall be conducted by trained observers, who shall
have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods. Trained
observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to
monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures
when applicable through communication with the equipment operator.
(f) The Navy shall use soft start techniques for impact pile
driving. Soft start for impact drivers requires contractors to provide
an initial set of strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-
second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets.
Soft start shall be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile
driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for
a period of thirty minutes or longer.
(g) Pile driving shall only be conducted during daylight hours.

Sec. 217.255 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

(a) Trained observers shall complete applicable portions of the
Navy's Marine Species Awareness Training, as well as a general
environmental awareness briefing conducted by Navy staff. At minimum,
training shall include identification of bottlenose dolphins and
relevant mitigation and monitoring requirements. All observers shall
have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
(b) For shutdown zone monitoring, the Navy shall report on
implementation of shutdown or delay procedures, including whether the
procedures were not implemented and why (when relevant).
(c) The Navy shall deploy additional observers to monitor
disturbance zones according to the minimum requirements defined in this
chapter. These observers shall collect sighting data and behavioral
responses to pile driving for marine mammal species observed in the
region of activity during the period of activity, and shall communicate
with the shutdown zone observer as appropriate with regard to the
presence of marine mammals. All observers shall be trained in
identification and reporting of marine mammal behaviors.
(1) During Project 1A (Tug Pier), Navy shall deploy a minimum of
three additional marine mammal monitoring observers on a minimum of ten
days of vibratory pile driving activity.
(2) During the fiscal year 2022 phase of Project 3A (Explosives
Handling Wharf #2), Navy shall deploy a minimum of three additional
marine mammal monitoring observers on a minimum of three days of
vibratory pile driving activity.
(3) During Project 3B ((Dry Dock) Interface Wharf), Navy shall
deploy a minimum of three additional marine mammal monitoring observers
on a minimum of five days of vibratory pile driving activity.
(4) During Projects 3C, 3D, and 3E (Refit Wharves #1-3), Navy shall
deploy a minimum of two additional marine mammal monitoring observers
on all days of vibratory pile driving activity.
(5) During Project 3F (Warping Wharf with Capstan), Navy shall
deploy a minimum of three additional marine mammal monitoring observers
on a minimum of two days of vibratory pile driving activity.
(6) During Project 3G (Tug Pier), Navy shall deploy a minimum of
three additional marine mammal monitoring observers on a minimum of
four days of vibratory pile driving activity.
(7) During Project 4A (Transit Protection System (TPS) Pier), Navy
shall deploy a minimum of four additional marine mammal monitoring
observers on a minimum of eight days of vibratory pile driving
activity.
(8) During Project 4B (Small Craft Berth Site VI), Navy shall
deploy a minimum of four additional marine mammal monitoring observers
on a minimum of three days of vibratory pile driving activity.
(9) During Project 5 (Magnetic Silencing Facility Repairs), Navy
shall deploy a minimum of four additional marine mammal monitoring
observers on a minimum of three days of vibratory pile driving
activity.
(10) During Projects 6A (Demolition of TPS Pier) and 6B (Demolition
of North Trestle), Navy shall deploy a minimum of five additional
marine mammal monitoring observers on a minimum of twelve days of
vibratory pile driving activity.
(d) The Navy shall conduct acoustic data collection (sound source
verification), in accordance with NMFS's guidelines, in conjunction
with Project 1A (Tug Pier), Project 2 (Unspecified Minor Construction
Layberth Fender Pile Modification), and Projects 4A and 6A (TPS Pier).
(e) Reporting: (1) Annual reporting: (i) Navy shall submit an
annual summary report to NMFS not later than ninety days following the
end of in-water work for each project. Navy shall provide a final
report within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft
report.
(ii) These reports shall contain, at minimum, the following:
(A) Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
(B) Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
(C) Weather parameters (e.g., wind speed, percent cloud cover,
visibility);
(D) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
(E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine
mammals;
(F) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile
driving activity;
(G) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and
distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
(H) Description of implementation of mitigation measures (e.g.,
shutdown or delay);
(I) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
(J) Other human activity in the area.
(2) Navy shall submit a comprehensive summary report to NMFS not
later than ninety days following the conclusion of marine mammal
monitoring efforts described in this chapter.
(3) Navy shall submit acoustic monitoring reports as necessary
pursuant to Sec. 217.255(d) of this chapter.
(f) Reporting of injured or dead marine mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the activity defined in Sec.
217.250 clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a prohibited
manner, Navy shall immediately cease such activity and report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS, and to the
Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. Activities shall not
resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited
take. NMFS will work with Navy to determine what measures are necessary
to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. Navy may not resume their activities until notified by
NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility);
(iv) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(v) Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;

[[Page 709]]

(vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
(vii) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s). Photographs
may be taken once the animal has been moved from the waterfront area.
(2) In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown
and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state
of decomposition), Navy shall immediately report the incident to OPR
and the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must
include the information identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with Navy to determine whether additional
mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(3) In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated with
or related to the activities defined in Sec. 217.250 (e.g., previously
wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition,
scavenger damage), Navy shall report the incident to OPR and the
Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the
discovery. Navy shall provide photographs or video footage or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS. Photographs may
be taken once the animal has been moved from the waterfront area.

Sec. 217.256 Letters of Authorization.

(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these
regulations, Navy must apply for and obtain a LOA.
(b) A LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a
period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) If a LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these
regulations, Navy may apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to
mitigation and monitoring measures required by a LOA, Navy must apply
for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in Sec. 217.257
of this chapter.
(e) The LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the
species for subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the
level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total
taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of a LOA shall be published in the
Federal Register within thirty days of a determination.

Sec. 217.257 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

(a) A LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.256 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 217.250 shall be renewed
or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes
made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section), and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were
implemented.
(b) For a LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant
that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the
findings made for the regulations or that result in no more than a
minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by
species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the change, and
solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
(c) A LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.256 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 217.250 may be modified by
NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management--NMFS may modify (including augment) the
existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after
consulting with Navy regarding the practicability of the modifications)
if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively
accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in
the preamble for these regulations.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in a LOA:
(A) Results from Navy's monitoring from previous years.
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or
studies.
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or
subsequent LOAs.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS
will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and
solicit public comment.
(2) Emergencies--If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of
marine mammals specified in a LOA issued pursuant to Sec. Sec. 216.106
and 217.256 of this chapter, a LOA may be modified without prior notice
or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
Federal Register within thirty days of the action.

Sec. 217.258 [Reserved]

Sec. 217.259 [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2016-31702 Filed 12-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P