[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23024-23036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10550]



[[Page 23024]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG956


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the South Quay Wall 
Recapitalization Project, Mayport, Florida

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command Southeast and Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command Atlantic (Navy) for authorization to take marine 
mammals incidental to the South Quay Wall Recapitalization Project, 
Naval Station (NAVSTA) Mayport, Florida. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to 
issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 
marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting 
comments on a possible one-year renewal that could be issued under 
certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in 
Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will 
consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the 
issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will 
be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 20, 
2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments 
should be sent to [email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or 
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public 
for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
    The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and 
``specified geographical region'' limitations indicated above and 
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military 
readiness activity.'' The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory 
terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Summary of Request

    On December 4, 2018, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an 
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving at the South Quay 
wall, NAVSTA Mayport, Florida. The application was deemed adequate and 
complete on April 16, 2019. The Navy's request is for take of a small 
number of bottlenose dolphins, by Level B harassment only. Neither the 
Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this 
activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
    NMFS previously issued several IHAs to the Navy for similar work at 
NAVSTA Mayport, specifically at Bravo Wharf (81 FR 52637, August 9, 
2018; 83 FR 9287, March 5, 2019) and Wharf C-2 (78 FR 71566, November 
29, 2013; 80 FR 55598, September 16, 2015). The Navy complied with all 
the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the 
previous IHAs and information

[[Page 23025]]

regarding their monitoring results may be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    The Navy proposes to install 240 24-inch (in) steel sheet piles 
within 5 feet (ft) from the existing South Quay bulkhead located at the 
end of a channel within the NAVSTA Mayport turning basin along the St. 
Johns River, Florida. The purpose of the project is to support the 
existing bulkhead wall that has been weakened by the formation of voids 
within the wall. The Navy anticipates the entire project will take up 
to one year; however, in-water pile driving work would be limited to 35 
days. The IHA would be valid from February 15, 2020, to February 14, 
2021.
    Pile driving would elevate noise levels within the turning basin; 
however, given the location of the South Quay wall at the end of a man-
made channel, noise above NMFS harassment thresholds would not extend 
outside the basin. The configuration of the channel limits noise 
propagation above the Level B harassment threshold to approximately 0.5 
square kilometers (km\2\). Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) 
exposed to pile driving may be taken, by Level B harassment. Harassment 
would be short-term and likely include temporary behavioral 
modifications (e.g., avoidance, increased swim speeds, foraging 
changes, etc.).

Dates and Duration

    The proposed IHA would be effective February 15, 2010, through 
February 14, 2021; however, vibratory pile driving is expected to occur 
for only 30 days with impact pile driving occurring on up to 5 days. 
Vibratory driving would occur for a maximum of 45 minutes per day while 
the Navy will only install one pile per day requiring 20 strikes with 
an impact hammer. Impact hammering would only occur if the piles cannot 
be set with a vibratory hammer. Pile driving would be limited to 
daylight hours only.

Specific Geographic Region

    NAVSTA Mayport is located at the mouth of the St. Johns River, 
approximately 15 miles east of the Jacksonville Central Business 
District in Duval County, Florida. It is bordered to the north by the 
St. Johns River, to the south by Jacksonville, to the east by the 
Atlantic Ocean, and to the west by the Village of Mayport and the 
Atlantic Coastal Waterway. The Mayport turning basin is a deep-water 
surface ship berthing facility whose entrance meets the main navigation 
channel at the mouth of the St. Johns River. Ship berthing facilities 
are provided at 16 locations along wharves A through F around the 
turning basin perimeter. The turning basin is approximately 2,000 by 
3,000 ft in area, and is connected to the St. Johns River by a 500-ft-
wide entrance channel. The South Quay wall is located along the 
southern edge of the Mayport turning basin (Figure 1). All pile driving 
would occur at the existing South Quay wall.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 23026]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21MY19.009

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    The South Quay Wall Recapitalization Project includes the 
construction of a new sheet pile wall within five ft of the current 
South Quay wall in order to support the pre-existing bulkhead that has 
been weakened by the formation of voids within the wall. In-water work 
includes only pile driving for a new sheet pile bulkhead. The wall will 
be anchored at the top and fill consisting of clean gravel and/or 
flowable concrete will be placed behind the wall. Concrete and/or 
flowable fill will also be used to fill the voids that have formed 
along the outer edge of the South Quay wall to

[[Page 23027]]

prevent the further development of surface settling and voids caused by 
the formation of interconnected cracks, fissures and holes. A concrete 
cap will be formed along the top and outside face of the wall to tie 
the entire structure together and provide a berthing surface for 
vessels.
    Depending on weight-bearing and structural integrity issues at the 
current South Quay wall, either shore-based or barge-based cranes will 
be used for pile installation. If necessary, a crane barge with a pile 
installation suite (pile leads, vibratory hammer and an impact hammer) 
will mobilize to the project site with a material barge. A pile driving 
template (approximately 25 ft in length) will be mounted to the crane. 
This allows the crane to control the alignment of the piles as they are 
driven. Once the crane is properly aligned, the sheet piles will be 
driven to the appropriate depth using the vibratory hammer. Impact pile 
driving will only be used as a contingency in cases when vibratory 
driving is insufficient. Once all of the piles are driven, closure 
plates will be attached between the existing adjacent sheet pile wall 
and the new wall end terminations. Typically, these are welded in place 
using underwater welding techniques.
    To construct the new wall, the Navy will install 240 individual 
sheet piles over the course of 35 days, averaging 7-10 sheet piles 
installed per day, with a maximum of 15 individual piles installed per 
day. Of the 35 total days of installation, 30 days were reserved for 
vibratory driving and the remaining 5 days were reserved for 
contingency impact driving. The Navy estimates each pile will require 
three minutes of active driving per pile (maximum of 45 minutes per 
day). When impact driving, the Navy estimates they will install one 
pile per day, with each pile requiring 20 hammer strikes. The use of 
impact driving would be restricted to when vibratory driving is 
insufficient. During a similar project completed at adjacent Wharf C-2, 
only seven of the several hundred piles installed required use of an 
impact hammer. Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures 
are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed 
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    There are four marine mammal species which may inhabit or transit 
near NAVSTA Mayport at the mouth of the St. Johns River and in nearby 
nearshore Atlantic Ocean. These include the bottlenose dolphin, 
Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), North Atlantic right 
whale (Eubalaena glacialis), and humpback whale (Megaptera 
novaeangliae). Please refer to NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized species accounts 
and to the Navy's Marine Resource Assessment for the Charleston/
Jacksonville Operating Area, which documents and describes the marine 
resources that occur in Navy operating areas of the Southeast (Navy, 
2008; available at www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html). All species other than the 
bottlenose dolphin are not included for further analysis due to extreme 
rarity within close proximity to NAVSTA Mayport and lack of sightings 
within NAVSTA Mayport. Unlike previous pile driving projects at NAVSTA 
Mayport where harassment thresholds extended into the mouth of the St. 
Johns River and nearby coastal ocean waters, the South Quay wall is 
positioned such that pile driving noise is not anticipated to propagate 
outside the turning basin. Therefore, we limit our discussion to 
bottlenose dolphins.
    Table 1 lists bottlenose dolphin stocks with expected potential for 
occurrence at NAVSTA Mayport and summarizes information related to the 
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA 
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in 
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS's U.S. 2018 Draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2018). All values presented 
in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication.

[[Page 23028]]



                                        Table 1--Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Potentially Present at NAVSTA Mayport
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Stock abundance (CV,
              Species                         Stock             ESA/MMPA status;       Nmin, most recent     PBR \3\   Annual M/   Relative occurrence;
                                                              strategic (Y/N) \1\    abundance survey) \2\               SI \4\    season of occurrence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Bottlenose dolphin.............  Western North           -/D; Y                 9,173 (0.46; 6,326;            63       0-12  Possibly common; \8\
                                      Atlantic, southern                             2010-11).                                     Jan-Mar.
                                      migratory coastal.
                                     Western North           -/D; Y                 1,219 (0.67; 730; 2010-         7        0.4  Possibly common; \8\
                                      Atlantic, northern                             11).                                          year-round.
                                      Florida coastal.
                                     Jacksonville Estuarine  -; Y                   412 \7\ (0.06; unk;        undet.        1.2  Possibly common; \8\
                                      System \6\.                                    1994-97).                                     year-round.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
  designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see
  footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, abundance
  estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is
  presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate.
\3\ Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
  marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
\4\ These values, found in NMFS' 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 minimum value. All
  values presented here are from the draft 2015 SARs (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).
\5\ Abundance estimates (and resulting PBR values) for these stocks are new values presented in the draft 2015 SARs. This information was made available
  for public comment and is currently under review and therefore may be revised prior to finalizing the 2015 SARs. However, we consider this information
  to be the best available for use in this document.
\6\ Abundance estimates for this stock are greater than eight years old and are therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for
  these stocks, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates
  and PBR values, as these represent the best available information for use in this document.
\7\ This abundance estimate is considered an overestimate because it includes non- and seasonally-resident animals.
\8\ Bottlenose dolphins in general are common in the project area, but it is not possible to readily identify them to stock. Therefore, these three
  stocks are listed as possibly common as we have no information about which stock commonly only occurs.

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 1. As described below, all three bottlenose 
dolphin stocks temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to 
the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have 
proposed authorizing it.
    In addition, the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus 
latirostris) may be found at NAVSTA Mayport. However, manatees are 
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered 
further in this document.
    In the Mayport area, four stocks of bottlenose dolphins are 
currently managed, none of which are protected under the ESA. Of the 
four stocks--offshore, southern migratory coastal, northern Florida 
coastal, and Jacksonville estuarine system--only the latter three are 
likely to occur in the action area. Bottlenose dolphins typically occur 
in groups of 2-15 individuals (Shane et al., 1986; Kerr et al., 2005). 
Although significantly larger groups have also been reported, smaller 
groups are typical of shallow, confined waters. In addition, such 
waters typically support some degree of regional site fidelity and 
limited movement patterns (Shane et al., 1986; Wells et al., 1987). 
Observations made during marine mammal surveys conducted during 2012-
2013 in the Mayport turning basin show bottlenose dolphins typically 
occurring individually or in pairs, or less frequently in larger 
groups. The maximum observed group size during these surveys is six, 
while the mode is one. Navy observations indicate that bottlenose 
dolphins rarely linger in a particular area in the turning basin, but 
rather appear to move purposefully through the basin and then leave, 
which likely reflects a lack of biological importance for these 
dolphins in the basin. Based on currently available information, it is 
not possible to determine the stock to which the dolphins occurring in 
the action area may belong. These stocks are described in greater 
detail below.
    Western North Atlantic Offshore--This stock, consisting of the 
deep-water ecotype or offshore form of bottlenose dolphin in the 
western North Atlantic, is distributed primarily along the outer 
continental shelf and continental slope, but has been documented to 
occur relatively close to shore (Waring et al., 2014). The separation 
between offshore and coastal morphotypes varies depending on location 
and season, with the ranges overlapping to some degree south of Cape 
Hatteras. Based on genetic analysis, Torres et al. (2003) found a 
distributional break at 34 km from shore, with the offshore form found 
exclusively seaward of 34 km and in waters deeper than 34 meters (m). 
Within 7.5 km of shore, all animals were of the coastal morphotype. 
More recently, coastwide, systematic biopsy collection surveys were 
conducted during the summer and winter to evaluate the degree of 
spatial overlap between the two morphotypes. South of Cape Hatteras, 
spatial overlap was found although the probability of a sampled group 
being from the offshore morphotype increased with increasing depth, and 
the closest distance for offshore animals was 7.3 km from shore 
(Garrison et al., 2003). Noise from the project would not extent 
outside of the Mayport basin; therefore, individuals of the offshore 
morphotype would not be affected by project activities. Thus, this 
stock is thus excluded from further analysis.
    Western North Atlantic Coastal, Southern Migratory--The coastal 
morphotype of bottlenose dolphin is continuously distributed from the 
Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic and north approximately to Long Island 
(Waring et al., 2014). On the Atlantic coast, Scott

[[Page 23029]]

et al., (1988) hypothesized a single coastal stock, citing stranding 
patterns during a high mortality event in 1987-88 and observed density 
patterns. More recent studies demonstrate that there is instead a 
complex mosaic of stocks (Zolman, 2002; McLellan et al., 2002; Rosel et 
al., 2009). The coastal morphotype was managed by NMFS as a single 
stock until 2009, when it was split into five separate stocks, 
including northern and southern migratory stocks. The original, single 
stock of coastal dolphins recognized from 1995-2001 was listed as 
depleted under the MMPA as a result of a 1987-88 mortality event. That 
designation was retained when the single stock was split into multiple 
coastal stocks. Therefore, all coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphins 
are listed as depleted under the MMPA, and are also considered 
strategic stocks.
    According to the Scott et al., (1988) hypothesis, a single stock 
was thought to migrate seasonally between New Jersey (summer) and 
central Florida (winter). Instead, it was more recently determined that 
a mix of resident and migratory stocks exists, with the migratory 
movements and spatial distribution of the southern migratory stock the 
most poorly understood of these. Stable isotope analysis and telemetry 
studies provide evidence for seasonal movements of dolphins between 
North Carolina and northern Florida (Knoff, 2004; Waring et al., 2014), 
and genetic analyses and tagging studies support differentiation of 
northern and southern migratory stocks (Rosel et al., 2009; Waring et 
al., 2014). Although there is significant uncertainty regarding the 
southern migratory stock's spatial movements, telemetry data indicates 
that the stock occupies waters of southern North Carolina (south of 
Cape Lookout) during the fall (October-December). In winter months 
(January-March), the stock moves as far south as northern Florida where 
it overlaps spatially with the northern Florida coastal and 
Jacksonville estuarine system stocks. In spring (April-June), the stock 
returns north to waters of North Carolina, and is presumed to remain 
north of Cape Lookout during the summer months. Therefore, the 
potential exists for harassment of southern migratory dolphins, most 
likely during the winter.
    Western North Atlantic Coastal, Northern Florida--The Northern 
Florida Coastal Stock is delimited as the dolphins of the coastal 
morphotype inhabiting coastal waters from the shoreline to 
approximately the 200-m isobath from the Georgia/Florida border 
(30.7[deg] N) south to 29.4[deg] N (Figure 1). The northern and 
southern boundaries for this stock are provisional, as the spatial 
extent of this stock is poorly understood. During cold water months, 
this stock likely overlaps with the Southern Migratory Coastal Stock, 
which 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 (Garrison et 
al., 2017).
    Jacksonville Estuarine System--The Jacksonville estuarine system 
(JES) stock has been defined as separate primarily by the results of 
photo-identification and genetic studies. The stock range is considered 
to be bounded in the north by the Georgia-Florida border at Cumberland 
Sound, extending south to approximately Jacksonville Beach, Florida. 
This encompasses an area defined during a photo-identification study of 
bottlenose dolphin residency patterns in the area (Caldwell, 2001), and 
the borders are subject to change upon further study of dolphin 
residency patterns in estuarine waters of southern Georgia and 
northern/central Florida. The habitat is comprised of several large 
brackish rivers, including the St. Johns River, as well as tidal 
marshes and shallow riverine systems. Three behaviorally different 
communities were identified during Caldwell's (2001) study: The 
estuarine waters north (Northern) and south (Southern) of the St. Johns 
River and the coastal area, all of which differed in density, habitat 
fidelity and social affiliation patterns. The coastal dolphins are 
believed to be members of a coastal stock, however (Waring et al., 
2014). Although Northern and Southern members of the JES stock show 
strong site fidelity, members of both groups have been observed outside 
their preferred areas. Dolphins residing within estuaries south of 
Jacksonville Beach down to the northern boundary of the Indian River 
Lagoon Estuarine System (IRLES) stock are currently not included in any 
stock, as there are insufficient data to determine whether animals in 
this area exhibit affiliation to the JES stock, the IRLES stock, or are 
simply transient animals associated with coastal stocks. Further 
research is needed to establish affinities of dolphins in the area 
between the ranges, as currently understood, of the JES and IRLES 
stocks.
    All bottlenose dolphins stocks described above are susceptible to 
fisheries interactions, including those from trawls, hook and line, 
crab pot/traps, and gill nets and seine nets. Other sources of 
mortality include the morbillivirus which has been implicated in 
unusual mortality events (UMEs) for dolphins along the southeast coast 
of the United States. The amount of known serious injury and mortality 
from all sources are presented in Table 1 for each stock.

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, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be 
divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or 
estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response 
data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). NMFS (2018) described generalized 
hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized 
hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) 
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception 
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was 
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall 
et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their 
associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 2.

[[Page 23030]]



                                      Table 2--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
                                                  [NMFS, 2018]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Hearing group                                     Generalized hearing range *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales)...........  7 Hz to 35 kHz.
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales,  150 Hz to 160 kHz.
 beaked whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia,    275 Hz to 160 kHz.
 river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
 cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals)........  50 Hz to 86 kHz.
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur   60 Hz to 39 kHz.
 seals).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the
  group), where individual species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen
  based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
  cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009). For more detail 
concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see 
NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. One cetacean species 
is expected to potentially be affected by the specified activity. 
Bottlenose dolphins are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section 
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number 
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the 
content of this section, the Estimated Take 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 how those impacts on 
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
    The effects of sounds from pile driving might result in one or more 
of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-
auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and 
masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 
2007; Southall et al., 2007). 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. Impacts to marine 
mammals from pile driving activities are expected to result primarily 
from acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of effect is intrinsically 
related to the received level and duration of the sound exposure, which 
are in turn influenced by the distance between the animal and the 
source. The further away from the source, the less intense the exposure 
should be. The substrate and depth of the habitat affect the sound 
propagation properties of the environment. Shallow environments, such 
as that at NAVSTA Mayport, are typically more structurally complex, 
which leads to rapid sound attenuation. In addition, substrates that 
are soft (e.g., sand and mud like at NAVSTA Mayport) would absorb or 
attenuate the sound more readily than hard substrates (e.g., rock) 
which may reflect the acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates would also 
likely require less time to drive the pile, and possibly less forceful 
equipment, which would ultimately decrease the intensity of the 
acoustic source.
    In general, the effects of sounds from pile driving might result in 
one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent threshold shift 
(TTS and PTS, respectively), non-auditory physical or physiological 
effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; 
Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). PTS 
and TTS is not anticipated in this case due to the fact all noise would 
be limited to the Mayport basin and the proposed mitigation and 
monitoring measures. Any harassment would likely be behavioral in 
nature. Exposure to pile driving noise can result in dolphin behavioral 
changes such as avoidance, 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), and visible 
startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping). 
As reviewed in Southall et al. (2007, 2019), the severity of these 
reactions can range from mild to severe and the longevity of reactions 
can be temporary or long-term. Based on marine mammal monitoring data 
collected by the Navy during previous recapitalization projects 
involving pile driving (Navy 2016, 2018a, 2018b), dolphins behavior 
within and around the turning basin include foraging, traveling, and 
social behavior during and in absence of pile driving. No reactions 
attributed to pile driving noise are documented in those reports.
    Masking may occur during the short periods of pile driving; 
however, this is unlikely to become biologically significant. Masking 
occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another 
coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher 
levels. Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, sound 
could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals, which 
utilize sound for vital biological functions. Masking can interfere 
with detection of acoustic signals such as communication calls, 
echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine 
mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose 
acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also 
be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and 
reproduction. If the coincident (masking) sound were man-made, it could 
be potentially harassing if it disrupted hearing-related behavior. It 
is possible that vibratory pile driving resulting from this proposed 
action may mask acoustic signals important to bottlenose dolphins, but 
the short-term duration and limited affected area would result in 
insignificant impacts from masking. In this case, pile driving 
durations are relatively short and no

[[Page 23031]]

significant habitat is located within NAVSTA Mayport. 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 Habitat

    The proposed activities at NAVSTA Mayport would not result in 
permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals as the 
new wall would be built within five ft of the existing wall, but may 
have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish 
and may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above). There 
are no known foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom structure of 
significant biological importance to marine mammals present in the 
marine waters of the project area; however the surrounding areas may be 
foraging habitat for the dolphins. 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 document. The most likely impact to marine 
mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on likely marine mammal 
prey (i.e., fish) and minor impacts to the immediate substrate and 
water column (e.g., elevated turbidity) during installation and removal 
of piles during the wharf construction project. The Mayport turning 
basin itself is a man-made basin with significant levels of industrial 
activity and regular dredging, and is unlikely to harbor significant 
amounts of forage fish. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are 
not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for 
individual marine mammals or their populations.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to pile driving. Based on the nature of the 
activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures 
(i.e., shutdown-- discussed in detail below in Proposed Mitigation 
section, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be 
authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to 
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is 
estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take 
estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

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

[[Page 23032]]



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

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    The Navy used results from previous sound source verification tests 
at NAVSTA Mayport to estimate vibratory pile driving source levels. 
Vibratory driving of steel sheet piles was monitored during the first 
year of construction at the nearby C-2 Wharf at NAVSTA Mayport during 
2015. Measurements were conducted from a small boat in the turning 
basin and from the construction barge itself. Driving periods ranged 
from approximately 17 seconds to a little over one minute. Sound levels 
were recorded at a 10-m distance and the measured dB levels were 
converted to pressure values to generate 10-second averages of the 
levels before converting the values back to dB levels. The average and 
median of the levels resulted in a source level of 156 dB re 1[mu]Pa 
rms (Navy 2017).
    No impact driving was conducted during this acoustic monitoring; 
therefore, the Navy relied on Caltrans (2015) to estimate source levels 
during impact pile driving of the 24-in sheet piles. The selected sound 
pressure levels used for modeling impact driving steel piles are 180 dB 
single-strike sound exposure level (SEL), 190 dB rms, and 205 dB peak. 
These values were also used in previous Navy Mayport IHAs without 
concern or public comment.
    When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in 
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more 
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in 
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools 
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with 
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going 
to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of 
overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the 
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways 
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address 
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources (such as pile 
driving), NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, 
if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the 
activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet 
and the resulting isopleths are reported below (Table 4).
    Vibratory pile driving, in general, does have the potential to 
cause injury to marine mammals if the duration of activity and source 
level are such that the threshold for injury in mid-frequency cetaceans 
(198 dB SELcum) is exceeded. In this case, the duration is 
short enough and source level low enough to where a dolphin must be 
within less than 1m of the pile for the entire duration of activity (45 
minutes per day); therefore, the potential for injury is discountable. 
Impact pile driving also has the potential to result in PTS; impact 
driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels than 
vibratory driving as well as sharp rise time to reach those peaks. 
However, the Navy is proposing to install only one pile per day (at 20 
strikes per pile) resulting in very small isopleths (we note the peak 
threshold resulted in smaller isopleth that than the SEL threshold). As 
evident by the very small isopleths in Table 4, the potential for Level 
A harassment is discountable. As a result of this analysis, the Navy 
has not requested, nor is NMFS proposing to authorize, take by Level A 
harassment; therefore, it will not be discussed further.

                 Table 4--User Spreadsheet Input Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Impact pile       Vibratory pile
     User spreadsheet input             driving             driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used............  E.1) Impact pile    A) Non-Impulse-
                                   driving.            Stat-Cont.
Source Level....................  180 dB SEL/205 dB   156 dBrms.
                                   peak.
Weighting Factor Adjustment       2.................  2.5.
 (kHz).
b) Number of strikes per pile...  20................  N/A.
b) Number of piles per day......  1.................  0.75 (15 piles x 3
                                                       minutes per
                                                       pile).

[[Page 23033]]

 
Propagation (xLogR).............  15................  15.
Distance of source level          10................  10.
 measurement (meters)*.
Level A Harassment Isopleth (mid- 1.7 m.............  0.2 m.
 frequency cetaceans).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the Level B harassment ensonified area, the Navy 
identified distances to the Level B harassment thresholds for impact 
and vibratory pile driving (160 dB rms and 120 dB rms, respectively) 
using a practical spreading loss model. Resulting isopleth distances 
and ensonified areas (corrected in ArcView GIS to eliminate land; see 
the Navy's application for more details) are presented in Table 5.

                           Table 5--Level B Harassment Isopleths and Ensonified Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Pile type                      Driving method (source level)      Distance (m)    Area (km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24'' Steel sheet piles.....................  Vibratory (156 dB rms).............             0.2          0.0002
                                                                                           2,512          0.4104
                                             impact (190 dB rms)................             1.7          0.0006
                                                                                           1,000          0.3540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    Bottlenose dolphin density used for this analysis was based on 
surveys conducted to support wharf recapitalization projects within the 
Mayport turning basin (Navy, 2015). Those surveys demonstrated dolphin 
presence and abundance is not uniform throughout the year. Because it 
is unknown exactly when pile driving will commence and be completed 
within the effective period of the proposed IHA, the Navy applied the 
highest seasonal density of 4.15366 dolphins per km\2\ to the estimated 
take analysis. This density has been used in previous IHAs issued to 
the Navy for wharf recapitalization projects within the Mayport turning 
basin without public comment or concern.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    Bottlenose dolphin density was multiplied by the size of the 
relevant zone of influence and number of piles driven to determine the 
estimated number of Level B harassment exposures per day. Resulting 
vibratory and impact hammering exposures were summed across days to 
produce a total exposure estimate:

Exposure = (density x vibratory driving ensonified area x number of 
vibratory pile driving days) + (density x impact driving ensonified 
area x number of impact pile driving days).

    The same methodology was used to estimate takes for work at Wharf 
Bravo, completed in 2017-18. During that project, two to three marine 
mammal observers were stationed strategically to cover the entire Level 
B harassment area. The number of detected takes for that project was 
only 30 percent of the number authorized; therefore, this method is 
considered reliable.
    The Navy is requesting, and NMFS is proposing to authorize, 58 
takes by Level B harassment incidental to vibratory and impact driving 
at the South Quay wall. The stocks from which these take could occur 
are provided in Table 1. Because it is not possible to distinguish 
stocks in the field, we assume all 58 takes could occur to any single 
stock. As described above, no Level A take is anticipated or 
authorized.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned); and
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    The Navy has proposed identical mitigation to that required in 
previous IHAs for work at NAVSTA Mayport, as described in detail in the 
draft IHA posted on NMFS' website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. Pile driving will only be

[[Page 23034]]

conducted during daylight hours. For all pile driving, the Navy shall 
implement a minimum shutdown zone of 15-m radius around the pile and 
around any other in-water construction equipment. If a marine mammal 
approaches or enters the shutdown zone, all pile driving activities 
will be halted. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the 
presence of a marine 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.
    For all pile driving activities, a minimum of two protected species 
observers (PSOs) shall be on watch, with one positioned to achieve 
optimal monitoring of the shutdown zone and the second positioned to 
achieve optimal monitoring of monitoring (Level B harassment) zone. 
Observers may be stationed in a tall building at NAVSTA Mayport, the 
construction barge, small vessels, or on the wharf at a location that 
will provide adequate visual coverage for the marine mammal shutdown 
zone.
    The Navy will use soft start techniques for impact pile driving. 
Soft start 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.
    If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a 
species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized 
takes are met, is observed approaching or within the monitoring zone, 
pile driving and removal activities must shut down immediately using 
delay and shut-down procedures. Activities must not resume until the 
animal has been confirmed to have left the area or fifteen minutes have 
passed without re-detection of the animal.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Marine Mammal Monitoring

    The Navy would conduct marine mammal monitoring using two NMFS-
approved PSOs stationed at strategic locations at NAVSTA Mayport, per 
their Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, dated April 2019. Monitoring will 
take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity 
through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. In the 
event of a delay or shutdown of activity resulting from marine mammals 
in the shutdown zone, their behavior shall be monitored and documented. 
No techniques (e.g., pingers, boats) will be used to entice animals to 
leave the area. Monitoring shall occur throughout the time required to 
drive a pile and continue 30 minutes after pile driving ceases. 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).
    PSOs will be equipped with binoculars (7 x 50 power or greater) to 
ensure sufficient visual acuity and magnification while investigating 
sightings, portable radios or cellular phone(s) to rapidly communicate 
with the appropriate construction personnel to initiate shutdown of 
pile driving activity if required, a digital camera for photographing 
any marine species sighted, data collection forms, and a compass or 
GPS.
    The Navy shall collect sighting data for marine mammal species 
observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All 
observers shall be trained in marine mammal identification and 
behaviors, and shall have no other construction-related tasks while 
conducting monitoring.
    PSOs will use approved 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(s), if any. In addition, the Navy will attempt 
to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the 
number of incidences of take.

Reporting

    A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the 
completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the 
requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same 
location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal 
observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during 
pile driving 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. Should the Navy encounter a dead or 
injured marine mammal, additional reporting procedures would be taken.
    All specific monitoring and reporting requirements are available 
for review in the draft IHA (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities).

[[Page 23035]]

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    Pile driving activities associated with the South Quay Wall 
Recapitalization Project, as outlined previously, have the potential to 
disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified 
activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment 
(behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from 
pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these 
species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is 
happening.
    No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the 
nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the 
possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these 
outcomes is avoided through the construction methods and the 
implementation of the planned mitigation measures such that take by 
Level A harassment (injury), serious injury and mortality is not 
proposed to be authorized.
    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). 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 identical to previous NAVSTA Mayport 
recapilization projects, which have taken place with no reported 
injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse 
consequences on bottlenose dolphins from behavioral harassment. In 
fact, marine mammal reports from previous projects requiring incidental 
harassment authorizations have found that the dolphins observed did not 
exhibit notable reactions attributed to pile driving noise at NAVSTA 
Mayport. In those reports (e.g., Navy 2016, 2018a, 2018b), traveling 
and foraging behaviors were most common with no overt changes in 
behavior observed during pile driving.
    Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause 
Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to 
significantly disrupt foraging behavior. A very limited amount of pile 
driving would occur each day, making extended durations of exposure 
necessary to cause hearing impairment unlikely. Further, as described 
above, marine mammal monitoring reports indicate foraging behavior 
continues despite projects requiring the installation of several 
hundred piles. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small 
subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in decrease in 
fitness for the affected individuals, and thus would not result in any 
adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment severity 
will also be reduced to the level of least practicable 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 turning basin while the activity is occurring. 
Finally, NAVSTA Mayport is a small, man-made military basin that does 
not include any significant marine mammal habitat or biologically 
important area.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from 
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality or injury is anticipated or authorized;
     Behavioral disturbance is possible, but expected to be 
minimal due to the limited duration of activities (no more than 35 days 
of pile driving during the proposed authorized year, the time required 
to drive each pile is brief (less than one hour of vibratory driving 
per day and no more than 20 impact strikes per day), and the proposed 
mitigation (e.g., shut-downs and soft start) would reduce acoustic 
impacts to species in the area of activities; and
     The absence of any significant habitat within the project 
area, including known areas or features of special significance for 
foraging or reproduction.
    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, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine 
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on 
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA 
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated 
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to 
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or 
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to 
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative 
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or 
spatial scale of the activities.
    Of the 58 incidents of behavioral harassment proposed for 
bottlenose dolphins, we have no information allowing us to parse the 
predicted incidents amongst the three stocks that may occur in the 
project area. Therefore, we assessed the total number of predicted 
incidents of take against the best abundance estimate for each stock, 
as though the total would occur for the stock in question. For the 
Florida Coastal and Southern Migratory Coastal stocks, total predicted 
number of incidents of take authorized would be

[[Page 23036]]

considered small at less than 5 percent and 1 percent, respectively.
    The total number of authorized takes proposed for bottlenose 
dolphins of the Jacksonville Estuarine stock, if assumed to accrue 
solely to new individuals, is higher relative to current stock 
abundance compared to these two stocks at 14.07 percent. This assumes 
all 58 exposures occur to 58 individuals. This percentage is still 
relatively low and it is unlikely that all takes would occur to new 
individuals within this stock and this estimate all takes would occur 
to this one stock. Bottlenose dolphins belonging to estuarine stocks 
exhibit high site fidelity, resulting in higher likelihood of repeated 
exposure.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small 
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size 
of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

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

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to the Navy for conducting pile driving at NAVSTA Mayport 
from February 15, 2020, to February 14, 2021, provided the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are 
incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed South 
Quay Wall Recapitalization Project. We also request comment on the 
potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the 
paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data 
or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the 
request for MMPA authorization.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year IHA renewal with 
an expedited public comment period (15 days) when (1) another year of 
identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified 
Activities section is planned or (2) the activities would not be 
completed by the time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for 
completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and 
Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to expiration of the current IHA;
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the 
proposed Renewal are identical to the activities analyzed under the 
initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so 
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the 
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take 
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take 
because only a subset of the initially analyzed activities remain to be 
completed under the Renewal); and
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized; and
     Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and 
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

    Dated: May 16, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-10550 Filed 5-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P