[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