Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Wharf Recapitalization Project, 46545-46565 [2015-19184]
Download as PDF
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
September 2015. The intent of the
meeting is to consider options for the
conservation and management of
Atlantic HMS. The meeting is open to
the public.
DATES: The AP meeting and webinar
will be held from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 9, 2015; and
from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Thursday,
September 10, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Sheraton Silver Spring, 8777
Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD
20910. The meeting presentations will
also be available via WebEx webinar/
conference call.
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015,
the conference call information is phone
number 1–800–857–6552; Participant
Code: 8099565; and the webinar event
address is: https://
noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/
onstage/g.php?d=393951018&t=a; event
password: NOAA.
On Thursday, September 10, 2015, the
conference call information is phone
number 1–800–857–6552; Participant
Code: 8099565; and the webinar event
address is: https://
noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/
onstage/g.php?d=395887510&t=a; event
password: NOAA.
Participants are strongly encouraged
to log/dial in fifteen minutes prior to the
meeting. NMFS will show the
presentations via webinar and allow
public comment during identified times
on the agenda.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LeAnn Hogan or Margo Schulze-Haugen
at (301) 427–8503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, 16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq., as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, Public Law
104–297, provided for the establishment
of an AP to assist in the collection and
evaluation of information relevant to the
development of any Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) or FMP
amendment for Atlantic HMS. NMFS
consults with and considers the
comments and views of AP members
when preparing and implementing
FMPs or FMP amendments for Atlantic
tunas, swordfish, billfish, and sharks.
The AP has previously consulted with
NMFS on: Amendment 1 to the Billfish
FMP (April 1999); the HMS FMP (April
1999); Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP
(December 2003); the Consolidated HMS
FMP (October 2006); and Amendments
1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to the
2006 Atlantic Consolidated HMS FMP
(April and October 2008, February and
September 2009, May and September
2010, April and September 2011, March
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
and September 2012, January and
September 2013, April and September
2014 and March 2015), among other
things.
The intent of this meeting is to
consider alternatives for the
conservation and management of all
Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and
shark fisheries. We anticipate discussing
Final Amendment 6 to the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP on the future of
shark fishery, providing updates on
Amendment 5b on dusky shark
management and Amendment 9 on
smoothhound shark management,
reviewing the results of the
smoothhound shark stock assessment,
discussing implementation of Final
Amendment 7 on bluefin tuna
management measures, as well as
discussing the Final HMS Essential Fish
Habitat 5-Year Review and next steps.
The meeting will also include
discussion of a survey of Atlantic HMS
tournaments that is in development, and
providing updates on various topics
relevant to Atlantic HMS fisheries
management.
Additional information on the
meeting and a copy of the draft agenda
will be posted prior to the meeting at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/
advisory_panels/hms_ap/meetings/ap_
meetings.html.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
LeAnn Hogan at (301) 427–8503 at least
7 days prior to the meeting.
Dated: July 30, 2015.
Emily H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–19148 Filed 8–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE056
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to a Wharf
Recapitalization Project
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46545
NMFS has received a request
from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to construction activities as
part of a wharf recapitalization project.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting public comment on its
proposal to issue an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to the
Navy to take, by Level B harassment
only, during the specified activity.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than September 4,
2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal
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 ITP.Laws@noaa.gov.
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 25megabyte 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 to the
Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm
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: Ben
Laws, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Availability
An electronic copy of the Navy’s
application and supporting documents,
as well as a list of the references cited
in this document, may be obtained by
visiting the Internet at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.htm. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Navy prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA; 2013) for this project.
We subsequently adopted the EA and
signed our own Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
46546
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
issuing the first IHA for this project, in
accordance with NEPA and the
regulations published by the Council on
Environmental Quality. Information in
the Navy’s application, the Navy’s EA,
and this notice collectively provide the
environmental information related to
proposed issuance of this IHA for public
review and comment. All documents are
available at the aforementioned Web
site. We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice as
we complete the NEPA process,
including a decision of whether to
reaffirm the existing FONSI, prior to a
final decision on the incidental take
authorization request.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
area, the incidental, but not intentional,
taking of small numbers of marine
mammals, providing that certain
findings are made and the necessary
prescriptions are established.
The incidental taking of small
numbers of marine mammals may be
allowed only if NMFS (through
authority delegated by the Secretary)
finds that the total taking by the
specified activity during the specified
time period will (i) have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii)
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such taking must be set
forth, either in specific regulations or in
an authorization.
The allowance of such incidental
taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), by
harassment, serious injury, death, or a
combination thereof, requires that
regulations be established.
Subsequently, a Letter of Authorization
may be issued pursuant to the
prescriptions established in such
regulations, providing that the level of
taking will be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking
allowable under the specific regulations.
Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may
authorize such incidental taking by
harassment only, for periods of not more
than one year, pursuant to requirements
and conditions contained within an
IHA. The establishment of prescriptions
through either specific regulations or an
authorization requires notice and
opportunity for public comment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘. . . an
impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely
to, adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.’’ Except with
respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(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].’’
Summary of Request
On January 28, 2015, we received a
request from the Navy for authorization
to take marine mammals incidental to
pile driving in association with the
Wharf C–2 recapitalization project at
Naval Station Mayport, Florida (NSM).
That request was modified on April 17
and the Navy submitted a revised
version of the request on July 24, 2015,
which we deemed adequate and
complete. In-water work associated with
the project is expected to be completed
within the one-year timeframe of the
proposed IHA, which would be valid for
one year from the date of issuance.
The use of both vibratory and impact
pile driving is expected to produce
underwater sound at levels that have the
potential to result in behavioral
harassment of marine mammals. Two
species of marine mammal have the
potential to be affected by the specified
activities: Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus truncatus) and Atlantic
spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis).
These species may occur year-round in
the action area. However, we have
determined that incidental take of
spotted dolphins is not reasonably
likely and do not propose to authorize
such take.
This is expected to be the second and
final year of in-water work associated
with the Wharf C–2 project. This would
be the second such IHA, if issued,
following the IHA issued effective from
September 1, 2014, through August 31,
2015 (78 FR 71566; November 29, 2013).
Please note that the previous IHA was
initially issued with effective dates from
December 1, 2013, through November
30, 2014. However, no work was
conducted during this period and the
effective dates were changed to those
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
stated above (79 FR 27863; May 15,
2014).
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
Wharf C–2 is a single level, general
purpose berthing wharf constructed in
1960. The wharf is one of NSM’s two
primary deep-draft berths and is one of
the primary ordnance handling wharfs.
The wharf is a diaphragm steel sheet
pile cell structure with a concrete apron,
partial concrete encasement of the
piling and an asphalt paved deck. The
wharf is currently in poor condition due
to advanced deterioration of the steel
sheeting and lack of corrosion
protection, and this structural
deterioration has resulted in the
institution of load restrictions within 60
ft of the wharf face. The purpose of this
project is to complete necessary repairs
to Wharf C–2. Please refer to Appendix
A of the Navy’s application for photos
of existing damage and deterioration at
the wharf, and to Appendix B for a
contractor schematic of the project plan.
Dates and Duration
The total project was expected to
require a maximum of fifty days of inwater vibratory pile driving work over a
twelve-month period, with an
additional twenty days of impact pile
driving included in the specified
activity as a contingency for a total of
seventy days in-water pile driving.
Based on work completed to date and in
consideration of the number of piles yet
to be driven and pile production rates
to date, the Navy estimates that
remaining work may require 47 days in
total.
Specific Geographic Region
NSM is located in northeastern
Florida, at the mouth of the St. Johns
River and adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean
(see Figures 2–1 and 2–2 of the Navy’s
application). The St. Johns River is the
longest river in Florida, with the final
35 mi flowing through the city of
Jacksonville. This portion of the river is
significant for commercial shipping and
military use. At the mouth of the river,
near the action area, the Atlantic Ocean
is the dominant influence and typical
salinities are above 30 ppm. Outside the
river mouth, in nearshore waters,
moderate oceanic currents tend to flow
southward parallel to the coast. Sea
surface temperatures range from around
16 °C in winter to 28 °C in summer.
The specific action area consists of
the NSM turning basin, an area of
approximately 2,000 by 3,000 ft
containing ship berthing facilities at
sixteen locations along wharves around
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
the basin perimeter. The basin was
constructed during the early 1940s by
dredging the eastern part of Ribault Bay
(at the mouth of the St. Johns River),
with dredge material from the basin
used to fill parts of the bay and other
low-lying areas in order to elevate the
land surface. The basin is currently
maintained through regular dredging at
a depth of 50 ft, with depths at the
berths ranging from 30–50 ft. The
turning basin, connected to the St. Johns
River by a 500-ft-wide entrance channel,
will largely contain sound produced by
project activities, with the exception of
sound propagating east into nearshore
Atlantic waters through the entrance
channel (see Figure 2–2 of the Navy’s
application). Wharf C–2 is located in the
northeastern corner of the Mayport
turning basin.
Detailed Description of Activities
In order to rehabilitate Wharf C–2, the
Navy proposes to install a new steel
king pile/sheet pile (SSP) bulkhead,
consisting of large vertical king piles
with paired steel sheet piles driven
between and connected to the ends of
the king piles. Over the course of the
entire project, the Navy will install
approximately 120 single sheet piles
and 119 king piles (all steel) to support
the bulkhead wall, as well as fifty
polymeric (plastic) fender piles. The
SSP wall is anchored at the top and
filled behind the wall before a concrete
cap is formed along the top and outside
face to tie the entire structure together
and provide a berthing surface for
vessels. The new bulkhead will be
designed for a fifty-year service life.
Installation of approximately seventy
percent of steel piles (84 of 120 sheet
piles and 81 of 119 king piles) has been
completed as of July 2015, and the Navy
expects that all installation of steel piles
may be complete by the expiration of
the current IHA. However, we include
here as a contingency the installation of
25 percent of steel piles in the event that
there is a work stoppage or other
unforeseen delay prior to expiration of
the current IHA. All fifty plastic fender
piles would be installed during the
period of validity of the proposed IHA.
All piles would be driven by vibratory
hammer, although impact pile driving
may be used as a contingency in cases
when vibratory driving is not sufficient
to reach the necessary depth. In the
unlikely event that impact driving is
required, either impact or vibratory
driving could occur on a given day, but
concurrent use of vibratory and impact
drivers would not occur. Including the
installation of 25 percent of steel piles
as a contingency, the Navy estimates
that 47 in-water work days may be
required to complete pile driving
activity, including ten days for vibratory
driving of plastic piles, seventeen days
for contingency vibratory driving of
steel piles, and twenty days for
contingency impact driving, if
necessary.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
There are four marine mammal
species which may inhabit or transit
through the waters nearby NSM at the
mouth of the St. Johns River and in
nearby nearshore Atlantic waters. These
include the bottlenose dolphin, Atlantic
spotted dolphin, North Atlantic right
whale (Eubalaena glacialis), and
humpback whale (Megaptera
46547
novaeangliae). Multiple additional
cetacean species occur in South Atlantic
waters but would not be expected to
occur in shallow nearshore waters of the
action area. Table 1 lists the marine
mammal species with expected
potential for occurrence in the vicinity
of NSM during the project timeframe
and summarizes key information
regarding stock status and abundance.
Taxonomically, we follow Committee
on Taxonomy (2014). Please see NMFS’
Stock Assessment Reports (SAR),
available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars,
for more detailed accounts of these
stocks’ status and abundance. Please
also refer to NMFS’ Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
mammals) 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 (DoN,
2008). The document is publicly
available at www.navfac.navy.mil/
products_and_services/ev/products_
and_services/marine_resources/marine_
resource_assessments.html (accessed
July 16, 2015).
In the species accounts provided here,
we offer a brief introduction to the
species and relevant stock as well as
available information regarding
population trends and threats, and
describe any information regarding local
occurrence. Multiple stocks of
bottlenose dolphins may be present in
the action area, either seasonally or
year-round, and are described further
below. We first address the two large
whale species that may occur in the
action area.
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF NSM
Species
ESA/MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 4
PBR 3
Relative occurrence;
season of occurrence
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae
Western North Atlantic 5
E/D; Y .......
465 (n/a; 2013) .............
0.9
4.75
Humpback whale ............
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
North Atlantic right whale
Gulf of Maine ................
E/D; Y .......
823 (n/a; 2008) .............
2.7
10.15
Rare inshore, regular
near/offshore; Nov–
Apr.
Rare; Fall–Spring.
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae
Common bottlenose dolphin.
Common bottlenose dolphin.
Common bottlenose dolphin.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Western North Atlantic
Offshore.
Western North Atlantic
Coastal, Southern Migratory.
Western North Atlantic
Coastal, Northern
Florida.
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
-; N ...........
-/D; Y ........
77,532 (0.4; 56,053;
2011).
9,173 (0.46; 6,326;
2010–11).
-/D; Y ........
1,219 (0.67; 730; 2010–
11).9
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
561
45.1
63
2.6–16.5
Possibly common; 8
Jan–Mar.
7
unk
Possibly common; 8
year-round.
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Rare; year-round.
46548
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF NSM—Continued
ESA/MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Species
Stock
Common bottlenose dolphin.
Atlantic spotted dolphin ..
Jacksonville Estuarine
System.6
Western North Atlantic ..
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
-; Y ............
412 7 (0.06; unk; 1994–
97).
44,715 (0.43; 31,610;
2011).
-; N ...........
PBR 3
Annual
M/SI 4
Relative occurrence;
season of occurrence
undet.
unk
316
0
Possibly common; 8
year-round.
Rare; year-round.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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; N
min is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For killer whales, the
abundance values represent direct counts of individually identifiable animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. 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 2014 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 2014 SARs. This information was
made available for public comment and is currently under review and therefore may be revised prior to finalizing the 2014 SARs. However, we
consider this information to be the best available for use in this document.
6 Abundance estimates for these stocks 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.
Right whales occur in sub-polar to
temperate waters in all major ocean
basins in the world with a clear
migratory pattern, occurring in high
latitudes in summer (feeding) and lower
latitudes in winter (breeding). North
Atlantic right whales exhibit extensive
migratory patterns, traveling along the
eastern seaboard from calving grounds
off Georgia and northern Florida to
northern feeding areas off of the
northeast U.S. and Canada in March/
April and returning in November/
December. Migrations are typically
within 30 nmi of the coastline and in
waters less than 50 m deep. Although
this migratory pattern is well-known,
winter distribution for most of the
population—the non-calving portion—is
poorly known, as many whales are not
observed on the calving grounds. It is
unknown where these animals spend
the winter, although they may occur
further offshore or may remain on
foraging grounds during winter (Morano
et al., 2012). During the winter calving
period, right whales occur regularly in
offshore waters of northeastern Florida.
Critical habitat for right whales in the
southeast (as identified under the ESA)
is designated to protect calving grounds,
and encompasses waters from the coast
out to 15 nmi offshore from Mayport.
More rarely, right whales have been
observed entering the mouth of the St.
Johns River for brief periods of time
(Schweitzer and Zoodsma, 2011). Right
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
whales are not present in the region
outside of the winter calving season.
Humpback whales are a cosmopolitan
species that migrate seasonally between
warm-water (tropical or sub-tropical)
breeding and calving areas in winter
months and cool-water (temperate to
sub-Arctic/Antarctic) feeding areas in
summer months (Gendron and Urban,
1993). They tend to occupy shallow,
coastal waters, although migrations are
undertaken through deep, pelagic
waters. In the North Atlantic, humpback
whales are known to aggregate in six
summer feeding areas representing
relatively discrete subpopulations
(Clapham and Mayo, 1987), which share
common wintering grounds in the
Caribbean (and to a lesser extent off of
West Africa) (Winn et al., 1975; Mattila
et al., 1994; Palsb2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 any regular
foraging opportunities or habitat
characteristics of any importance in the
basin. Based on currently available
information, it is not possible to
determine which stock dolphins
occurring in the action area may belong
to. 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 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,
in water depths of 13 m just south of
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46549
Cape Lookout (Garrison et al., 2003).
The maximum radial distance for the
largest ZOI is approximately 7.4 km
(Table 3); therefore, while possible, it is
unlikely that any individuals of the
offshore morphotype would be affected
by project activities. In terms of water
depth, the affected area is generally in
the range of the shallower depth
reported for offshore dolphins by
Garrison et al. (2003), but is far
shallower than the depths reported by
Torres et al. (2003). South of Cape
Lookout, the zone of spatial overlap
between offshore and coastal ecotypes is
generally considered to occur in water
depths between 20–100 m (Waring et
al., 2014), which is generally deeper
than waters in the action area. 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
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., 2003;
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 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
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46550
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
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
only.
Bottlenose dolphins are ubiquitous in
coastal waters from the mid-Atlantic
through the Gulf of Mexico, and
therefore interact with multiple coastal
fisheries, including gillnet, trawl, and
trap/pot fisheries. Stock-specific total
fishery-related mortality and serious
injury cannot be directly estimated
because of the spatial overlap among
stocks of bottlenose dolphins, as well as
because of unobserved fisheries. The
primary known source of fishery
mortality for the southern migratory
stock is the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery
(Waring et al., 2014). Between 2004 and
2008, 588 bottlenose dolphins stranded
along the Atlantic coast between Florida
and Maryland that could potentially be
assigned to the southern migratory
stock, although the assignment of
animals to a particular stock is
impossible in some seasons and regions
due to spatial overlap amongst stocks
(Waring et al., 2014). Many of these
animals exhibited some evidence of
human interaction, such as line/net
marks, gunshot wounds, or vessel strike.
In addition, nearshore and estuarine
habitats occupied by the coastal
morphotype are adjacent to areas of high
human population and some are highly
industrialized. It should also be noted
that stranding data underestimate the
extent of fishery-related mortality and
serious injury because not all of the
marine mammals that die or are
seriously injured in fishery interactions
are discovered, reported or investigated,
nor will all of those that are found
necessarily show signs of entanglement
or other fishery interaction. The level of
technical expertise among stranding
network personnel varies widely as does
the ability to recognize signs of fishery
interactions. Finally, multiple resident
populations of bottlenose dolphins have
been shown to have high concentrations
of organic pollutants (e.g., Kuehl et al.,
1991) and, despite little study of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
contaminant loads in migrating coastal
dolphins, exposure to environmental
pollutants and subsequent effects on
population health is an area of concern
and active research.
Western North Atlantic Coastal,
Northern Florida—Please see above for
description of the differences between
coastal and offshore ecotypes and the
delineation of coastal dolphins into
management stocks. The northern
Florida coastal stock is one of five
stocks of coastal dolphins and one of
three known resident stocks (other
resident stocks include South Carolina/
Georgia and central Florida dolphins).
The spatial extent of these stocks, their
potential seasonal movements, and their
relationships with estuarine stocks are
poorly understood. During summer
months, when the migratory stocks are
known to be in North Carolina waters
and further north, bottlenose dolphins
are still seen in coastal waters of South
Carolina, Georgia and Florida,
indicating the presence of additional
stocks of coastal animals. Speakman et
al. (2006) documented dolphins in
coastal waters off Charleston, South
Carolina, that are not known resident
members of the estuarine stock, and
genetic analyses indicate significant
differences between coastal dolphins
from northern Florida, Georgia and
central South Carolina (NMFS, 2001;
Rosel et al., 2009). The northern Florida
stock is thought to be present from
approximately the Georgia–Florida
border south to 29.4° N.
The northern Florida coastal stock is
susceptible to interactions with similar
fisheries as those described above for
the southern migratory stock, including
gillnet, trawl, and trap/pot fisheries.
From 2004–08, 78 stranded dolphins
were recovered in northern Florida
waters, although it was not possible to
determine whether there was evidence
of human interaction for the majority of
these (Waring et al., 2014). The same
concerns discussed above regarding
underestimation of mortality hold for
this stock and, as for southern migratory
dolphins, pollutant loading is a concern.
Jacksonville Estuarine System—Please
see above for description of the
differences between coastal and offshore
ecotypes and the delineation of coastal
dolphins into management stocks
primarily inhabiting nearshore waters.
The coastal morphotype of bottlenose
dolphin is also resident to certain
inshore estuarine waters (Caldwell,
2001; Gubbins, 2002; Zolman, 2002;
Gubbins et al., 2003). Multiple lines of
evidence support demographic
separation between coastal dolphins
found in nearshore waters and those in
estuarine waters, as well as between
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
dolphins residing within estuaries along
the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (e.g., Wells
et al., 1987; Scott et al., 1990; Wells et
al., 1996; Cortese, 2000; Zolman, 2002;
Speakman, et al. 2006; Stolen et al.,
2007; Balmer et al., 2008; Mazzoil et al.,
2008). In particular, a study conducted
near Jacksonville demonstrated
significant genetic differences between
coastal and estuarine dolphins
(Caldwell, 2001; Rosel et al., 2009).
Despite evidence for genetic
differentiation between estuarine and
nearshore populations, the degree of
spatial overlap between these
populations remains unclear. Photoidentification studies within estuaries
demonstrate seasonal immigration and
emigration and the presence of transient
animals (e.g., Speakman et al., 2006). In
addition, the degree of movement of
resident estuarine animals into coastal
waters on seasonal or shorter time scales
is poorly understood (Waring et al.,
2014).
The Jacksonville estuarine system
(JES) stock has been defined as separate
primarily by the results of photoidentification 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 photoidentification 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
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
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.
The JES stock is susceptible to similar
fisheries interactions as those described
above for coastal stocks, although only
trap/pot fisheries are likely to occur in
estuarine waters frequented by the
stock. Only one dolphin carcass bearing
evidence of fisheries interaction was
recovered during 2003–07 in the JES
area, and an additional sixteen stranded
dolphins were recovered during this
time, but no determinations regarding
human interactions could be made for
the majority (Waring et al., 2014). The
same concerns discussed above
regarding underestimation of mortality
hold for this stock and, as for stocks
discussed above, pollutant loading is a
concern. Although no contaminant
analyses have yet been conducted in
this area, the JES stock inhabits areas
with significant drainage from industrial
and urban sources, and as such is
exposed to contaminants in runoff from
these. In other estuarine areas where
such analyses have been conducted,
exposure to anthropogenic
contaminants has been found to likely
have an effect (Hansen et al. 2004;
Schwacke et al., 2004; Reif et al., 2008).
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. However, Scott et al.
(1988) suggested that dolphins residing
in the bays, sounds and estuaries
adjacent to these coastal waters were not
affected by the mortality event and these
animals were explicitly excluded from
the depleted listing (Waring et al.,
2014). Gubbins et al. (2003), using data
from Caldwell (2001), estimated the
stock size to be 412 (CV = 0.06).
However, NMFS considers abundance
unknown because this estimate likely
includes an unknown number of nonresident and seasonally-resident
dolphins. It nevertheless represents the
best available information regarding
stock size. Because the stock size is
likely small, and relatively few
mortalities and serious injuries would
exceed PBR, the stock is considered to
be a strategic stock (Waring et al., 2014).
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Atlantic spotted dolphins are
distributed in tropical and warm
temperate waters of the western North
Atlantic predominantly over the
continental shelf and upper slope, from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
southern New England through the Gulf
of Mexico (Leatherwood et al., 1976).
Spotted dolphins in the Atlantic Ocean
and Gulf of Mexico are managed as
separate stocks. The Atlantic spotted
dolphin occurs in two forms which may
be distinct sub-species (Perrin et al.,
1987; Rice, 1998); a larger, more heavily
spotted form inhabits the continental
shelf inside or near the 200-m isobath
and is the only form that would be
expected to occur in the action area.
Although typically observed in deeper
waters, spotted dolphins of the western
North Atlantic stock do occur regularly
in nearshore waters south of the
Chesapeake Bay (Mullin and Fulling,
2003). Specific data regarding seasonal
occurrence in the region of activity is
lacking, but higher numbers of
individuals have been reported to occur
in nearshore waters of the Gulf of
Mexico from November to May,
suggesting seasonal migration patterns
(Griffin and Griffin, 2003).
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
of the specified activity may impact
marine mammals. This discussion also
includes reactions that we consider to
rise to the level of a take and those that
we do not consider to rise to the level
of a take (for example, with acoustics,
we may include a discussion of studies
that showed animals not reacting at all
to sound or exhibiting barely
measurable avoidance). This section is
intended as a background of potential
effects and does not consider either the
specific manner in which this activity
will be carried out or the mitigation that
will be implemented, and how either of
those will shape the anticipated impacts
from this specific activity. The
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment section later in this
document will include a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The Negligible Impact Analyses
section will include the analysis of how
this specific activity will impact marine
mammals and will consider the content
of this section, the Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment section, the
Proposed Mitigation section, and the
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat section to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of this
activity on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and from
that on the affected marine mammal
populations or stocks. In the following
discussion, we provide general
background information on sound and
marine mammal hearing before
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46551
considering potential effects to marine
mammals from sound produced by
vibratory and impact pile driving.
Description of Sound Sources
Sound travels in waves, the basic
components of which are frequency,
wavelength, velocity, and amplitude.
Frequency is the number of pressure
waves that pass by a reference point per
unit of time and is measured in hertz
(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is
the distance between two peaks of a
sound wave; lower frequency sounds
have longer wavelengths than higher
frequency sounds and attenuate
(decrease) more rapidly in shallower
water. Amplitude is the height of the
sound pressure wave or the ‘loudness’
of a sound and is typically measured
using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the
ratio between a measured pressure (with
sound) and a reference pressure (sound
at a constant pressure, established by
scientific standards). It is a logarithmic
unit that accounts for large variations in
amplitude; therefore, relatively small
changes in dB ratings correspond to
large changes in sound pressure. When
referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs;
the sound force per unit area), sound is
referenced in the context of underwater
sound pressure to 1 muPascal (mPa).
One pascal is the pressure resulting
from a force of one newton exerted over
an area of one square meter. The source
level (SL) represents the sound level at
a distance of 1 m from the source
(referenced to 1 mPa). The received level
is the sound level at the listener’s
position. Note that all underwater sound
levels in this document are referenced
to a pressure of 1 mPa and all airborne
sound levels in this document are
referenced to a pressure of 20 mPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the
quadratic mean sound pressure over the
duration of an impulse. Rms is
calculated by squaring all of the sound
amplitudes, averaging the squares, and
then taking the square root of the
average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for
both positive and negative values;
squaring the pressures makes all values
positive so that they may be accounted
for in the summation of pressure levels
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This
measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects,
in part because behavioral effects,
which often result from auditory cues,
may be better expressed through
averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or
activity occurs, sound-pressure waves
are created. These waves alternately
compress and decompress the water as
the sound wave travels. Underwater
sound waves radiate in all directions
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46552
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
away from the source (similar to ripples
on the surface of a pond), except in
cases where the source is directional.
The compressions and decompressions
associated with sound waves are
detected as changes in pressure by
aquatic life and man-made sound
receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the
specified activity, the underwater
environment is typically loud due to
ambient sound. Ambient sound is
defined as environmental background
sound levels lacking a single source or
point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the
sound level of a region is defined by the
total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These
sources may include physical (e.g.,
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric
sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and
invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound
(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft,
construction). A number of sources
contribute to ambient sound, including
the following (Richardson et al., 1995):
• Wind and waves: The complex
interactions between wind and water
surface, including processes such as
breaking waves and wave-induced
bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a
main source of naturally occurring
ambient noise for frequencies between
200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In
general, ambient sound levels tend to
increase with increasing wind speed
and wave height. Surf noise becomes
important near shore, with
measurements collected at a distance of
8.5 km from shore showing an increase
of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band
during heavy surf conditions.
• Precipitation: Sound from rain and
hail impacting the water surface can
become an important component of total
noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and
possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times.
• Biological: Marine mammals can
contribute significantly to ambient noise
levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The
frequency band for biological
contributions is from approximately 12
Hz to over 100 kHz.
• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient
noise related to human activity include
transportation (surface vessels and
aircraft), dredging and construction, oil
and gas drilling and production, seismic
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean
acoustic studies. Shipping noise
typically dominates the total ambient
noise for frequencies between 20 and
300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of
anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz
and, if higher frequency sound levels
are created, they attenuate rapidly
(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
identifiable anthropogenic sources other
than the activity of interest (e.g., a
passing vessel) is sometimes termed
background sound, as opposed to
ambient sound.
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and shipping activity) but
also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10–20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from the specified
activity may be a negligible addition to
the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
The underwater acoustic environment
in the Mayport turning basin is likely to
be dominated by noise from day-to-day
port and vessel activities. The basin is
sheltered from most wave noise, but is
a high-use area for naval ships, tugboats,
and security vessels. When underway,
these sources can create noise between
20 Hz and 16 kHz (Lesage et al., 1999),
with broadband noise levels up to 180
dB. While there are no current
measurements of ambient noise levels in
the turning basin, it is likely that levels
within the basin periodically exceed the
120 dB threshold and, therefore, that the
high levels of anthropogenic activity in
the basin create an environment far
different from quieter habitats where
behavioral reactions to sounds around
the 120 dB threshold have been
observed (e.g., Malme et al., 1984,
1988).
In-water construction activities
associated with the project would
include impact pile driving and
vibratory pile driving. The sounds
produced by these activities fall into
one of two general sound types: Pulsed
and non-pulsed (defined in the
following). The distinction between
these two sound types is important
because they have differing potential to
cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in
Southall et al., 2007). Please see
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth
discussion of these concepts.
Pulsed sound sources (e.g.,
explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals
that are brief (typically considered to be
less than one second), broadband, atonal
transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998;
NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005)
and occur either as isolated events or
repeated in some succession. Pulsed
sounds are all characterized by a
relatively rapid rise from ambient
pressure to a maximal pressure value
followed by a rapid decay period that
may include a period of diminishing,
oscillating maximal and minimal
pressures, and generally have an
increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that
lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal,
narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either
continuous or non-continuous (ANSI,
1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the
essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid
rise time). Examples of non-pulsed
sounds include those produced by
vessels, aircraft, machinery operations
such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems
(such as those used by the U.S. Navy).
The duration of such sounds, as
received at a distance, can be greatly
extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
Impact hammers operate by
repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto
a pile to drive the pile into the substrate.
Sound generated by impact hammers is
characterized by rapid rise times and
high peak levels, a potentially injurious
combination (Hastings and Popper,
2005). Vibratory hammers install piles
by vibrating them and allowing the
weight of the hammer to push them into
the sediment. Vibratory hammers
produce significantly less sound than
impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180
dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20
dB lower than SPLs generated during
impact pile driving of the same-sized
pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is
slower, reducing the probability and
severity of injury, and sound energy is
distributed over a greater amount of
time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002;
Carlson et al., 2005).
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals, and
exposure to sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess these
potential effects, it is necessary to
understand the frequency ranges marine
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
mammals are able to hear. Current data
indicate that not all marine mammal
species have equal hearing capabilities
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings,
2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007) recommended that marine
mammals be divided into functional
hearing groups based on measured or
estimated hearing ranges on the basis of
available behavioral data, audiograms
derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. The lower and/or upper
frequencies for some of these functional
hearing groups have been modified from
those designated by Southall et al.
(2007). The functional groups and the
associated frequencies are indicated
below (note that these frequency ranges
do not necessarily correspond to the
range of best hearing, which varies by
species):
• Low-frequency cetaceans
(mysticetes): Functional hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz
(extended from 22 kHz; Watkins, 1986;
Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein,
2007; Ketten and Mountain, 2009;
Tubelli et al., 2012);
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger
toothed whales, beaked whales, and
most delphinids): Functional hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans
(porpoises, river dolphins, and members
of the genera Kogia and
Cephalorhynchus; now considered to
include two members of the genus
Lagenorhynchus on the basis of recent
echolocation data and genetic data
[May-Collado and Agnarsson, 2006;
Kyhn et al. 2009, 2010; Tougaard et al.
2010]): Functional hearing is estimated
to occur between approximately 200 Hz
and 180 kHz; and
• Pinnipeds in water: Functional
hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 75 Hz to 100 kHz for
Phocidae (true seals) and between 100
Hz and 40 kHz for Otariidae (eared
seals), with the greatest sensitivity
between approximately 700 Hz and 20
kHz. 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
¨
(Hemila et al., 2006; Kastelein et al.,
2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013).
Two cetacean species are expected to
potentially be affected by the specified
activity. The bottlenose and Atlantic
spotted dolphins are classified as midfrequency cetaceans.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
Acoustic Effects, Underwater
Potential Effects of Pile Driving
Sound—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.,
2004; 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 are
typically more structurally complex,
which leads to rapid sound attenuation.
In addition, substrates that are soft (e.g.,
sand) 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 the absence of mitigation, impacts
to marine species would be expected to
result from physiological and behavioral
responses to both the type and strength
of the acoustic signature (Viada et al.,
2008). The type and severity of
behavioral impacts are more difficult to
define due to limited studies addressing
the behavioral effects of impulsive
sounds on marine mammals. Potential
effects from impulsive sound sources
can range in severity from effects such
as behavioral disturbance or tactile
perception to physical discomfort, slight
injury of the internal organs and the
auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
et al., 1973).
Hearing Impairment and Other
Physical Effects—Marine mammals
exposed to high intensity sound
repeatedly or for prolonged periods can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS),
which is the loss of hearing sensitivity
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46553
at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et
al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000;
Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss
of hearing sensitivity is not recoverable,
or temporary (TTS), in which case the
animal’s hearing threshold would
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Marine mammals depend on acoustic
cues for vital biological functions, (e.g.,
orientation, communication, finding
prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS
may result in reduced fitness in survival
and reproduction. However, this
depends on the frequency and duration
of TTS, as well as the biological context
in which it occurs. TTS of limited
duration, occurring in a frequency range
that does not coincide with that used for
recognition of important acoustic cues,
would have little to no effect on an
animal’s fitness. Repeated sound
exposure that leads to TTS could cause
PTS. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS
does not (Southall et al., 2007). The
following subsections discuss in
somewhat more detail the possibilities
of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical
effects.
Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is
the mildest form of hearing impairment
that can occur during exposure to a
strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While
experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold
rises, and a sound must be stronger in
order to be heard. In terrestrial
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS).
For sound exposures at or somewhat
above the TTS threshold, hearing
sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine
mammals recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends. Few data
on sound levels and durations necessary
to elicit mild TTS have been obtained
for marine mammals, and none of the
published data concern TTS elicited by
exposure to multiple pulses of sound.
Available data on TTS in marine
mammals are summarized in Southall et
al. (2007).
Given the available data, the received
level of a single pulse (with no
frequency weighting) might need to be
approximately 186 dB re 1 mPa2-s (i.e.,
186 dB sound exposure level [SEL] or
approximately 221–226 dB p-p [peak])
in order to produce brief, mild TTS.
Exposure to several strong pulses that
each have received levels near 190 dB
rms (175–180 dB SEL) might result in
cumulative exposure of approximately
186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in a
small odontocete, assuming the TTS
threshold is (to a first approximation) a
function of the total received pulse
energy.
The above TTS information for
odontocetes is derived from studies on
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46554
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
the bottlenose dolphin and beluga
whale (Delphinapterus leucas). There is
no published TTS information for other
species of cetaceans. However,
preliminary evidence from a harbor
porpoise exposed to pulsed sound
suggests that its TTS threshold may
have been lower (Lucke et al., 2009). As
summarized above, data that are now
available imply that TTS is unlikely to
occur unless odontocetes are exposed to
pile driving pulses stronger than 180 dB
re 1 mPa rms.
Permanent Threshold Shift—When
PTS occurs, there is physical damage to
the sound receptors in the ear. In severe
cases, there can be total or partial
deafness, while in other cases the
animal has an impaired ability to hear
sounds in specific frequency ranges
(Kryter, 1985). There is no specific
evidence that exposure to pulses of
sound can cause PTS in any marine
mammal. However, given the possibility
that mammals close to a sound source
might incur TTS, there has been further
speculation about the possibility that
some individuals might incur PTS.
Single or occasional occurrences of mild
TTS are not indicative of permanent
auditory damage, but repeated or (in
some cases) single exposures to a level
well above that causing TTS onset might
elicit PTS.
Relationships between TTS and PTS
thresholds have not been studied in
marine mammals but are assumed to be
similar to those in humans and other
terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at
a received sound level at least several
decibels above that inducing mild TTS
if the animal were exposed to strong
sound pulses with rapid rise time.
Based on data from terrestrial mammals,
a precautionary assumption is that the
PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such
as pile driving pulses as received close
to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than
the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure
basis and probably greater than 6 dB
(Southall et al., 2007). On an SEL basis,
Southall et al. (2007) estimated that
received levels would need to exceed
the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for
there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for
cetaceans, Southall et al. (2007) estimate
that the PTS threshold might be an Mweighted SEL (for the sequence of
received pulses) of approximately 198
dB re 1 mPa2-s (15 dB higher than the
TTS threshold for an impulse). Given
the higher level of sound necessary to
cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is
considerably less likely that PTS could
occur.
Measured source levels from impact
pile driving can be as high as 214 dB
rms. Although no marine mammals
have been shown to experience TTS or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
PTS as a result of being exposed to pile
driving activities, captive bottlenose
dolphins and beluga whales exhibited
changes in behavior when exposed to
strong pulsed sounds (Finneran et al.,
2000, 2002, 2005). The animals tolerated
high received levels of sound before
exhibiting aversive behaviors.
Experiments on a beluga whale showed
that exposure to a single watergun
impulse at a received level of 207 kPa
(30 psi) p-p, which is equivalent to 228
dB p-p, resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS
in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz,
respectively. Thresholds returned to
within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level
within four minutes of the exposure
(Finneran et al., 2002). Although the
source level of pile driving from one
hammer strike is expected to be much
lower than the single watergun impulse
cited here, animals being exposed for a
prolonged period to repeated hammer
strikes could receive more sound
exposure in terms of SEL than from the
single watergun impulse (estimated at
188 dB re 1 mPa2-s) in the
aforementioned experiment (Finneran et
al., 2002). However, in order for marine
mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the
animals have to be close enough to be
exposed to high intensity sound levels
for a prolonged period of time. Based on
the best scientific information available,
these SPLs are far below the thresholds
that could cause TTS or the onset of
PTS.
Non-auditory Physiological Effects—
Non-auditory physiological effects or
injuries that theoretically might occur in
marine mammals exposed to strong
underwater sound include stress,
neurological effects, bubble formation,
resonance effects, and other types of
organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006;
Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining
such effects are limited. In general, little
is known about the potential for pile
driving to cause auditory impairment or
other physical effects in marine
mammals. Available data suggest that
such effects, if they occur at all, would
presumably be limited to short distances
from the sound source and to activities
that extend over a prolonged period.
The available data do not allow
identification of a specific exposure
level above which non-auditory effects
can be expected (Southall et al., 2007)
or any meaningful quantitative
predictions of the numbers (if any) of
marine mammals that might be affected
in those ways. Marine mammals that
show behavioral avoidance of pile
driving, including some odontocetes
and some pinnipeds, are especially
unlikely to incur auditory impairment
or non-auditory physical effects.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in
behavior, more conspicuous changes in
activities, and displacement. Behavioral
responses to sound are highly variable
and context-specific and reactions, if
any, depend on species, state of
maturity, experience, current activity,
reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day, and many other factors
(Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al.,
2003; Southall et al., 2007).
Habituation can occur when an
animal’s response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the
absence of unpleasant associated events
(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most
likely to habituate to sounds that are
predictable and unvarying. The opposite
process is sensitization, when an
unpleasant experience leads to
subsequent responses, often in the form
of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. Behavioral state may affect
the type of response as well. For
example, animals that are resting may
show greater behavioral change in
response to disturbing sound levels than
animals that are highly motivated to
remain in an area for feeding
(Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003;
Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive
marine mammals showed pronounced
behavioral reactions, including
avoidance of loud sound sources
(Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al.,
2003). Observed responses of wild
marine mammals to loud pulsed sound
sources (typically seismic guns or
acoustic harassment devices, but also
including pile driving) have been varied
but often consist of avoidance behavior
or other behavioral changes suggesting
discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002;
Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also
Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al.,
2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Responses
to continuous sound, such as vibratory
pile installation, have not been
documented as well as responses to
pulsed sounds.
With both types of pile driving, it is
likely that the onset of pile driving
could result in temporary, short term
changes in an animal’s typical behavior
and/or avoidance of the affected area.
These behavioral changes may include
(Richardson et al., 1995): Changing
durations of surfacing and dives,
number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or
feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where sound sources are located;
and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds
flushing into water from haul-outs or
rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase their
haul-out time, possibly to avoid inwater disturbance (Thorson and Reyff,
2006).
The biological significance of many of
these behavioral disturbances is difficult
to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However,
the consequences of behavioral
modification could be expected to be
biologically significant if the change
affects growth, survival, or
reproduction. Significant behavioral
modifications that could potentially
lead to effects on growth, survival, or
reproduction include:
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing
patterns (such as those thought to cause
beaked whale stranding due to exposure
to military mid-frequency tactical
sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of
desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social
interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance
from anthropogenic sound depends on
both external factors (characteristics of
sound sources and their paths) and the
specific characteristics of the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is difficult
to predict (Southall et al., 2007).
Auditory Masking
Natural and artificial sounds can
disrupt behavior by masking, or
interfering with, a marine mammal’s
ability to hear other sounds. 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 highintensity, 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
important to distinguish TTS and PTS,
which persist after the sound exposure,
from masking, which occurs during the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
sound exposure. Because masking
(without resulting in TS) is not
associated with abnormal physiological
function, it is not considered a
physiological effect, but rather a
potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially
masking sound is important in
determining any potential behavioral
impacts. Because sound generated from
in-water pile driving is mostly
concentrated at low frequency ranges, it
may have less effect on high frequency
echolocation sounds made by porpoises.
However, lower frequency man-made
sounds are more likely to affect
detection of communication calls and
other potentially important natural
sounds such as surf and prey sound. It
may also affect communication signals
when they occur near the sound band
and thus reduce the communication
space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009)
and cause increased stress levels (e.g.,
Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Masking has the potential to impact
species at the population or community
levels as well as at individual levels.
Masking affects both senders and
receivers of the signals and can
potentially have long-term chronic
effects on marine mammal species and
populations. Recent research suggests
that low frequency ambient sound levels
have increased by as much as 20 dB
(more than three times in terms of SPL)
in the world’s ocean from pre-industrial
periods, and that most of these increases
are from distant shipping (Hildebrand,
2009). All anthropogenic sound sources,
such as those from vessel traffic, pile
driving, and dredging activities,
contribute to the elevated ambient
sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
The most intense underwater sounds
in the proposed action are those
produced by impact pile driving. Given
that the energy distribution of pile
driving covers a broad frequency
spectrum, sound from these sources
would likely be within the audible
range of marine mammals present in the
project area. Impact pile driving activity
is relatively short-term, with rapid
pulses occurring for approximately
fifteen minutes per pile. The probability
for impact pile driving resulting from
this proposed action masking acoustic
signals important to the behavior and
survival of marine mammal species is
likely to be negligible. Vibratory pile
driving is also relatively short-term,
with rapid oscillations occurring for
approximately one and a half hours per
pile. It is possible that vibratory pile
driving resulting from this proposed
action may mask acoustic signals
important to the behavior and survival
of marine mammal species, but the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46555
short-term duration and limited affected
area would result in insignificant
impacts from masking. 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 NSM
would not result in permanent impacts
to habitats used directly by marine
mammals, but may have potential shortterm 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 in the vicinity of the project area.
Therefore, the main impact issue
associated with the proposed activity
would be temporarily elevated sound
levels and the associated direct effects
on marine mammals, as discussed
previously in this document. The most
likely impact to marine mammal habitat
occurs from pile driving effects on likely
marine mammal prey (i.e., fish) near
NSM and minor impacts to the
immediate substrate during installation
and removal of piles during the wharf
construction project.
Pile Driving Effects on Potential Prey
(Fish)
Construction activities may produce
both pulsed (i.e., impact pile driving)
and continuous (i.e., vibratory pile
driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds
which are especially strong and/or
intermittent low-frequency sounds.
Short duration, sharp sounds can cause
overt or subtle changes in fish behavior
and local distribution. Hastings and
Popper (2005) identified several studies
that suggest fish may relocate to avoid
certain areas of sound energy.
Additional studies have documented
effects of pile driving (or other types of
sounds) on fish, although several are
based on studies in support of large,
multiyear bridge construction projects
(e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002;
Popper and Hastings, 2009). Sound
pulses at received levels of 160 dB re 1
mPa may cause subtle changes in fish
behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause
noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson
et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs
of sufficient strength have been known
to cause injury to fish and fish
mortality. The most likely impact to fish
from pile driving activities at the project
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
46556
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
area would be temporary behavioral
avoidance of the area. The duration of
fish avoidance of this area after pile
driving stops is unknown, but a rapid
return to normal recruitment,
distribution and behavior is anticipated.
In general, impacts to marine mammal
prey species are expected to be minor
and temporary due to the short
timeframe for the project.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Pile Driving Effects on Potential
Foraging Habitat
The area likely impacted by the
project is relatively small compared to
the available habitat in nearshore and
estuarine waters in the region.
Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish)
of the immediate area due to the
temporary loss of this foraging habitat is
also possible. The duration of fish
avoidance of this area after pile driving
stops is unknown, but a rapid return to
normal recruitment, distribution and
behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral
avoidance by fish of the disturbed area
would still leave significantly large
areas of fish and marine mammal
foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity.
In summary, given the short daily
duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving events and the
relatively small areas being affected,
pile driving activities associated with
the proposed action are not likely to
have a permanent, adverse effect on any
fish habitat, or populations of fish
species. Therefore, pile driving is not
likely to have a permanent, adverse
effect on marine mammal foraging
habitat at the project area. 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 longterm consequences for individual
marine mammals or their populations.
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.
Measurements from similar pile
driving events were coupled with
practical spreading loss to estimate
zones of influence (ZOI; see Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment); these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
values were used to develop mitigation
measures for pile driving activities at
NSM. The ZOIs effectively represent the
mitigation zone that would be
established around each pile to prevent
Level A harassment to marine
mammals, while providing estimates of
the areas within which Level B
harassment might occur. In addition to
the specific measures described later in
this section, the Navy would conduct
briefings between construction
supervisors and crews, marine mammal
monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to
the start of all pile driving activity, and
when new personnel join the work, in
order to explain responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and
operational procedures.
Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile
Driving
The following measures would apply
to the Navy’s mitigation through
shutdown and disturbance zones:
Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving
activities, the Navy will establish a
shutdown zone intended to contain the
area in which SPLs equal or exceed the
190 dB rms acoustic injury criteria. The
purpose of a shutdown zone is to define
an area within which shutdown of
activity would occur upon sighting of a
marine mammal (or in anticipation of an
animal entering the defined area), thus
preventing injury of marine mammals
(as described previously under Potential
Effects of the Specified Activity on
Marine Mammals, serious injury or
death are unlikely outcomes even in the
absence of mitigation measures).
Modeled radial distances for shutdown
zones are shown in Table 3. However,
a minimum shutdown zone of 15 m
(which is larger than the maximum
predicted injury zone) will be
established during all pile driving
activities, regardless of the estimated
zone. Vibratory pile driving activities
are not predicted to produce sound
exceeding the 190-dB Level A
harassment threshold, but these
precautionary measures are intended to
prevent the already unlikely possibility
of physical interaction with
construction equipment and to further
reduce any possibility of acoustic
injury. For impact driving of steel piles,
if necessary, the radial distance of the
shutdown would be established at 40 m.
Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones
are the areas in which SPLs equal or
exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for impulse
and continuous sound, respectively).
Disturbance zones provide utility for
monitoring conducted for mitigation
purposes (i.e., shutdown zone
monitoring) by establishing monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
protocols for areas adjacent to the
shutdown zones. Monitoring of
disturbance zones enables observers to
be aware of and communicate the
presence of marine mammals in the
project area but outside the shutdown
zone and thus prepare for potential
shutdowns of activity. However, the
primary purpose of disturbance zone
monitoring is for documenting incidents
of Level B harassment; disturbance zone
monitoring is discussed in greater detail
later (see Proposed Monitoring and
Reporting). Nominal radial distances for
disturbance zones are shown in Table 3.
Given the size of the disturbance zone
for vibratory pile driving, it is
impossible to guarantee that all animals
would be observed or to make
comprehensive observations of finescale behavioral reactions to sound, and
only a portion of the zone (e.g., what
may be reasonably observed by visual
observers stationed within the turning
basin) would be observed.
In order to document observed
incidents of harassment, monitors
record all marine mammal observations,
regardless of location. The observer’s
location, as well as the location of the
pile being driven, is known from a GPS.
The location of the animal is estimated
as a distance from the observer, which
is then compared to the location from
the pile. It may then be estimated
whether the animal was exposed to
sound levels constituting incidental
harassment on the basis of predicted
distances to relevant thresholds in postprocessing of observational and acoustic
data, and a precise accounting of
observed incidences of harassment
created. This information may then be
used to extrapolate observed takes to
reach an approximate understanding of
actual total takes.
Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring
would be conducted before, during, and
after pile driving activities. In addition,
observers shall record all incidents of
marine mammal occurrence, regardless
of distance from activity, and shall
document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being
driven. Observations made outside the
shutdown zone will not result in
shutdown; that pile segment would be
completed without cessation, unless the
animal approaches or enters the
shutdown zone, at which point all pile
driving activities would be halted.
Monitoring will take place from fifteen
minutes prior to initiation through
thirty minutes post-completion of pile
driving activities. Pile driving activities
include the time to install or remove a
single pile or series of piles, as long as
the time elapsed between uses of the
pile driving equipment is no more than
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
thirty minutes. Please see the
Monitoring Plan (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/permits/incidental/
construction.htm), developed by the
Navy in agreement with NMFS, for full
details of the monitoring protocols.
The following additional measures
apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by
qualified observers, who will be placed
at the best vantage point(s) practicable
to monitor for marine mammals and
implement shutdown/delay procedures
when applicable by calling for the
shutdown to the hammer operator.
Qualified observers are typically trained
biologists, with the following minimum
qualifications:
• Visual acuity in both eyes
(correction is permissible) sufficient for
discernment of moving targets at the
water’s surface with ability to estimate
target size and distance; use of
binoculars may be necessary to correctly
identify the target;
• Advanced education in biological
science, wildlife management,
mammalogy, or related fields (bachelor’s
degree or higher is required);
• Experience and ability to conduct
field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols (this
may include academic experience);
• Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of
behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
report of observations including but not
limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid
potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals
observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior;
and
• Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
For this project, we waive the
requirement for advanced education, as
the observers will be personnel hired by
the engineering contractor that may not
have backgrounds in biological science
or related fields. These observers will be
required to watch the Navy’s Marine
Species Awareness Training video and
shall receive training sufficient to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
achieve all other qualifications listed
above (where relevant).
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving
activity, the shutdown zone will be
monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure
that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile
driving will only commence once
observers have declared the shutdown
zone clear of marine mammals; animals
will be allowed to remain in the
shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their
own volition) and their behavior will be
monitored and documented. The
shutdown zone may only be declared
clear, and pile driving started, when the
entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e.,
when not obscured by dark, rain, fog,
etc.). In addition, if such conditions
should arise during impact pile driving
that is already underway, the activity
would be halted.
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or
enters the shutdown zone during the
course of pile driving operations,
activity will be halted and delayed until
either the animal has voluntarily left
and been visually confirmed beyond the
shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have
passed without re-detection of the
animal. Monitoring will be conducted
throughout the time required to drive a
pile.
Soft Start
The use of a soft start procedure is
believed to provide additional
protection to marine mammals by
warning or providing a chance to leave
the area prior to the hammer operating
at full capacity, and typically involves
a requirement to initiate sound from the
hammer at reduced energy followed by
a waiting period. This procedure is
repeated two additional times. It is
difficult to specify the reduction in
energy for any given hammer because of
variation across drivers and, for impact
hammers, the actual number of strikes at
reduced energy will vary because
operating the hammer at less than full
power results in ‘‘bouncing’’ of the
hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting
in multiple ‘‘strikes.’’ For impact
driving, we require an initial set of three
strikes from the impact hammer at
reduced energy, followed by a thirtysecond waiting period, then two
subsequent three strike sets. Soft start
will be required at the beginning of each
day’s impact pile driving work and at
any time following a cessation of impact
pile driving of thirty minutes or longer.
We have carefully evaluated the
Navy’s proposed mitigation measures
and considered their effectiveness in
past implementation to preliminarily
determine whether they are likely to
effect the least practicable impact on the
affected marine mammal species and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46557
stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation
of potential measures included
consideration of the following factors in
relation to one another: (1) The manner
in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the
measure is expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2)
the proven or likely efficacy of the
specific measure to minimize adverse
impacts as planned; and (3) the
practicability of the measure for
applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we
prescribe should be able to accomplish,
have a reasonable likelihood of
accomplishing (based on current
science), or contribute to the
accomplishment of one or more of the
general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of
injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may
contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total
number or number at biologically
important time or location) of
individual marine mammals exposed to
stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1,
above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total
number or number at biologically
important time or location) of times any
individual marine mammal would be
exposed to stimuli expected to result in
incidental take (this goal may contribute
to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of
exposure to stimuli expected to result in
incidental take (this goal may contribute
to 1, above, or to reducing the severity
of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of
adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to
the prey base, blockage or limitation of
passage to or from biologically
important areas, permanent destruction
of habitat, or temporary disturbance of
habitat during a biologically important
time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to
mitigation, an increase in the
probability of detecting marine
mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the
mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s
proposed measures, as well as any other
potential measures that may be relevant
to the specified activity, we have
preliminarily determined that the
proposed mitigation measures provide
the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat,
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
46558
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 incidental take
authorizations must include the
suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that
will result in increased knowledge of
the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we
prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species in action area (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density).
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) Affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) Cooccurrence of marine mammal species
with the action; or (4) Biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age,
calving or feeding areas).
• Individual responses to acute
stressors, or impacts of chronic
exposures (behavioral or physiological).
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of an individual; or
(2) Population, species, or stock.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
and resultant impacts to marine
mammals.
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
The Navy’s proposed monitoring and
reporting is also described in their
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, on
the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm.
Visual Marine Mammal Observations
The Navy will collect sighting data
and behavioral responses to
construction for marine mammal
species observed in the region of
activity during the period of activity. All
observers will be trained in marine
mammal identification and behaviors
and are required to have no other
construction-related tasks while
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
conducting monitoring. The Navy will
monitor the shutdown zone and
disturbance zone before, during, and
after pile driving, with observers located
at the best practicable vantage points.
Based on our requirements, the Navy
would implement the following
procedures for pile driving:
• MMOs would be located at the best
vantage point(s) in order to properly see
the entire shutdown zone and as much
of the disturbance zone as possible.
• During all observation periods,
observers will use binoculars and the
naked eye to search continuously for
marine mammals.
• If the shutdown zones are obscured
by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile
driving at that location will not be
initiated until that zone is visible.
Should such conditions arise while
impact driving is underway, the activity
would be halted.
• The shutdown and disturbance
zones around the pile will be monitored
for the presence of marine mammals
before, during, and after any pile driving
or removal activity.
Individuals implementing the
monitoring protocol will assess its
effectiveness using an adaptive
approach. Monitoring biologists will use
their best professional judgment
throughout implementation and seek
improvements to these methods when
deemed appropriate. Any modifications
to protocol will be coordinated between
NMFS and the Navy.
Data Collection
We require that observers 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, if any. In addition, the Navy
will attempt to distinguish between the
number of individual animals taken and
the number of incidences of take. We
require that, at a minimum, the
following information be collected on
the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored
activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring
during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (e.g., percent
cover, visibility);
• Water conditions (e.g., sea state,
tide state);
• Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
travel, and if possible, the correlation to
SPLs;
• Distance from pile driving activities
to marine mammals and distance from
the marine mammals to the observation
point;
• Description of implementation of
mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown or
delay);
• Locations of all marine mammal
observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
Reporting
A draft report would 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.
Monitoring Results From Previously
Authorized Activities
The Navy complied with the
mitigation and monitoring required
under the previous authorization for the
Wharf C–2 project. Marine mammal
monitoring occurred before, during, and
after each pile driving event. During the
course of these activities, the Navy did
not exceed the take levels authorized
under the IHA. The Navy has
summarized monitoring results to date
in their application, and we will make
the required monitoring report available
to the public when submitted. Under
the terms of the previous IHA, the Navy
was required to conduct acoustic
monitoring and to submit a report
within 75 days of completion. Those
results are not yet available but will be
provided upon report submittal. As
noted previously, the Navy has
completed approximately seventy
percent of steel pile installation
required for the project, over the course
of 28 in-water work days. During this
time, 117 observations of bottlenose
dolphins have occurred within the
defined Level B harassment zone. No
Atlantic spotted dolphins, or any other
species, have been observed.
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, section
3(18) of the MMPA defines
‘‘harassment’’ as: ‘‘. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B
harassment].’’
All anticipated takes would be by
Level B harassment resulting from
vibratory and impact pile driving and
involving temporary changes in
behavior. The proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to
minimize the possibility of injurious or
lethal takes such that take by Level A
harassment, serious injury, or mortality
is considered discountable. However, it
is unlikely that injurious or lethal takes
would occur even in the absence of the
planned mitigation and monitoring
measures.
If a marine mammal responds to a
stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g.,
through relatively minor changes in
locomotion direction/speed or
vocalization behavior), the response
may or may not constitute taking at the
individual level, and is unlikely to
affect the stock or the species as a
whole. However, if a sound source
displaces marine mammals from an
important feeding or breeding area for a
prolonged period, impacts on animals or
on the stock or species could potentially
be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder,
2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given the many
uncertainties in predicting the quantity
and types of impacts of sound on
marine mammals, it is common practice
to estimate how many animals are likely
to be present within a particular
distance of a given activity, or exposed
to a particular level of sound. In
practice, depending on the amount of
information available to characterize
daily and seasonal movement and
distribution of affected marine
mammals, it can be difficult to
distinguish between the number of
individuals harassed and the instances
of harassment and, when duration of the
activity is considered, it can result in a
take estimate that overestimates the
number of individuals harassed. In
particular, for stationary activities, it is
more likely that some smaller number of
individuals may accrue a number of
incidences of harassment per individual
than for each incidence to accrue to a
new individual, especially if those
individuals display some degree of
residency or site fidelity and the
impetus to use the site (e.g., because of
foraging opportunities) is stronger than
the deterrence presented by the
harassing activity.
The turning basin is not important
habitat for marine mammals, as it is a
man-made, semi-enclosed basin with
frequent industrial activity and regular
maintenance dredging. The small area of
ensonification extending out of the
turning basin into nearshore waters is
also not believed to be of any particular
importance, nor is it considered an area
frequented by marine mammals.
Bottlenose dolphins may be observed at
any time of year in estuarine and
nearshore waters of the action area, but
sightings of other species are rare.
Therefore, behavioral disturbances that
could result from anthropogenic sound
associated with these activities are
expected to affect only a relatively small
number of individual marine mammals,
although those effects could be
recurring over the life of the project if
the same individuals remain in the
project vicinity. The Navy has requested
authorization for the incidental taking of
46559
small numbers of bottlenose dolphins
and Atlantic spotted dolphins in the
Mayport turning basin and associated
nearshore waters that may result from
pile driving during construction
activities associated with the project
described previously in this document.
In order to estimate the potential
incidents of take that may occur
incidental to the specified activity, we
must first estimate the extent of the
sound field that may be produced by the
activity and then consider in
combination with information about
marine mammal density or abundance
in the project area. We first provide
information on applicable sound
thresholds for determining effects to
marine mammals before describing the
information used in estimating the
sound fields, the available marine
mammal density or abundance
information, and the method of
estimating potential incidents of take.
Sound Thresholds
We use generic sound exposure
thresholds to determine when an
activity that produces sound might
result in impacts to a marine mammal
such that a take by harassment might
occur. To date, no studies have been
conducted that explicitly examine
impacts to marine mammals from pile
driving sounds or from which empirical
sound thresholds have been established.
These thresholds (Table 2) are used to
estimate when harassment may occur
(i.e., when an animal is exposed to
levels equal to or exceeding the relevant
criterion) in specific contexts; however,
useful contextual information that may
inform our assessment of effects is
typically lacking and we consider these
thresholds as step functions. NMFS is
working to revise these acoustic
guidelines; for more information on that
process, please visit
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/
guidelines.htm.
TABLE 2—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA
Criterion
Definition
Level A harassment (underwater) ........
Injury (PTS—any level above that
which is known to cause TTS).
Behavioral disruption ...........................
Behavioral disruption ...........................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Level B harassment (underwater) ........
Level B harassment (airborne) .............
Distance to Sound Thresholds
Underwater Sound Propagation
Formula—Pile driving generates
underwater noise that can potentially
result in disturbance to marine
mammals in the project area.
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
Threshold
180 dB (cetaceans)/190 dB (pinnipeds) (rms).
160 dB (impulsive source)/120 dB (continuous source) (rms).
90 dB (harbor seals)/100 dB (other pinnipeds) (unweighted).
in acoustic intensity as an acoustic
pressure wave propagates out from a
source. TL parameters vary with
frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth,
water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The general formula for underwater TL
is:
TL = B * log10(R1/R2),
Where:
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from
the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
46560
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
initial measurement.
This formula neglects loss due to
scattering and absorption, which is
assumed to be zero here. The degree to
which underwater sound propagates
away from a sound source is dependent
on a variety of factors, most notably the
water bathymetry and presence or
absence of reflective or absorptive
conditions including in-water structures
and sediments. Spherical spreading
occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (freefield) environment not limited by depth
or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB
reduction in sound level for each
doubling of distance from the source
(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading
occurs in an environment in which
sound propagation is bounded by the
water surface and sea bottom, resulting
in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for
each doubling of distance from the
source (10*log[range]). A practical
spreading value of fifteen is often used
under conditions, such as at the NSM
turning basin, where water increases
with depth as the receiver moves away
from the shoreline, resulting in an
expected propagation environment that
would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions.
Practical spreading loss (4.5 dB
reduction in sound level for each
doubling of distance) is assumed here.
Underwater Sound—The intensity of
pile driving sounds is greatly influenced
by factors such as the type of piles,
hammers, and the physical environment
in which the activity takes place. A
number of studies, primarily on the
west coast, have measured sound
produced during underwater pile
driving projects. However, these data
are largely for impact driving of steel
pipe piles and concrete piles as well as
vibratory driving of steel pipe piles. We
know of no existing measurements for
the specific pile types planned for use
at NSM (i.e., king piles, paired sheet
piles, plastic pipe piles), although some
data exist for single sheet piles. Results
of acoustic monitoring are not yet
available for consideration here. It was
therefore necessary to extrapolate from
available data to determine reasonable
source levels for this project.
In order to determine reasonable SPLs
and their associated effects on marine
mammals that are likely to result from
pile driving at NSM, the Navy first
compared linear lengths (in terms of
radiative surface length) of the pile
types proposed for use with those for
which measurements of underwater
SPLs exist. For example, the total linear
length of a king pile (with width of
17.87 in and height of 41.47 in) is
equivalent to the circumference (i.e.,
linear length) of a 24-in diameter pipe
pile. Please see Table 6–2 of the Navy’s
application for more detail on these
comparisons. We recognize that these
pile types may produce sound
differently, given different radiative
geometries, and that there may be
differences in the frequency spectrum
produced, but believe this to be the best
available method of determining proxy
source levels.
We considered existing measurements
from similar physical environments
(sandy sediments and water depths
greater than 15 ft) for impact and
vibratory driving of 24-in steel pipe
piles and for steel sheet piles. These
studies, largely conducted by the
Washington State Department of
Transportation and the California
Department of Transportation, show
typical values around 160 dB for
vibratory driving of 24-in pipe piles and
sheet piles, and around 185–195 dB for
impact driving of similar pipe piles (all
measured at 10 m; e.g., Laughlin, 2005a,
2005b; Illingworth and Rodkin, 2010,
2012, 2013; CalTrans, 2012). For
vibratory driving, a precautionary value
of 163 dB (the highest representative
value; CalTrans, 2012) was selected as a
proxy source value for both sheet piles
and king piles. For impact driving of
both sheet piles and king piles (should
it be required), a proxy source value of
189 dB (CalTrans, 2012) was selected for
use in acoustic modeling based on
similarity to the physical environment
at NSM and because of the measurement
location in mid-water column.
No measurements are known to be
available for vibratory driving of plastic
polymer piles, so timber piles were
considered as likely to be the most
similar pile material. Although timber
piles are typically installed via impact
drivers, Laughlin (2011) reported a
mean source measurement (at 16 m) for
vibratory removal of timber piles. This
value (150 dB) was selected as a proxy
source value on the basis of similarity
of materials between timber and
polymer. CalTrans (2012) reports one
dataset for impact driving of plastic
piles (153 dB at 10 m). Please see Tables
6–3 and 6–4 in the Navy’s application.
All calculated distances to and the total
area encompassed by the marine
mammal sound thresholds are provided
in Table 3.
TABLE 3—DISTANCES TO RELEVANT UNDERWATER SOUND THRESHOLDS AND AREAS OF ENSONIFICATION
Pile type
Method
Steel (sheet and king piles) ...................
Vibratory ..........................
Impact ..............................
Polymeric (plastic fender piles) ..............
Distance
(m) 1
Threshold
Vibratory ..........................
Impact ..............................
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
harassment
harassment
harassment
harassment
harassment
harassment
harassment
harassment
(180
(120
(180
(160
(180
(120
(180
(160
dB)
dB)
dB)
dB)
dB)
dB)
dB)
dB)
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
n/a
7,356
40
858
n/a
1,585
n/a
3.4
Area
(sq km) 2
0
2.9
0.004
0.67
0
0.88
0
0.00004
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1 Areas presented take into account attenuation and/or shadowing by land. Calculated distances to relevant thresholds cannot be reached in
most directions form source piles. Please see Figures 6–1 through 6–3 in the Navy’s application.
The Mayport turning basin does not
represent open water, or free field,
conditions. Therefore, sounds would
attenuate as per the confines of the
basin, and may only reach the full
estimated distances to the harassment
thresholds via the narrow, east-facing
entrance channel. Distances shown in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
Table 1 are estimated for free-field
conditions, but areas are calculated per
the actual conditions of the action area.
See Figures 6–1 through 6–3 of the
Navy’s application for a depiction of
areas in which each underwater sound
threshold is predicted to occur at the
project area due to pile driving.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Marine Mammal Densities
For all species, the best scientific
information available was considered
for use in the marine mammal take
assessment calculations. Density value
for the Atlantic spotted dolphin is from
recent density estimates produced by
Roberts et al. (2015); we use the highest
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
46561
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
relevant seasonal density value (spring).
Density for bottlenose dolphins is
derived from site-specific surveys
conducted by the Navy; it is not
currently possible to identify observed
individuals to stock. This survey effort
consists of 24 half-day observation
periods covering mornings and
afternoons during four seasons
(December 10–13, 2012, March 4–7,
2013, June 3–6, 2013, and September 9–
12, 2013). During each observation
period, two observers (a primary
observer at an elevated observation
point and a secondary observer at
ground level) monitored for the
presence of marine mammals in the
turning basin (0.712 km2) and an
additional grid east of the basin
entrance. Observers tracked marine
mammal movements and behavior
within the observation area, with
observations recorded for five-minute
intervals every half-hour. Morning
sessions typically ran from 7:00–11:30
and afternoon sessions from 1:00 to
5:30.
Most observations were of individuals
or pairs, although larger groups were
occasionally observed (median number
of dolphins observed ranged from 1–3.5
across seasons). Densities were
calculated using observational data from
the primary observer supplemented
with data from the secondary observer
for grids not visible by the primary
observer. Season-specific density was
then adjusted by applying a correction
factor for observer error (i.e., perception
bias). The seasonal densities range from
1.98603 (winter) to 4.15366 (summer)
dolphins/km2. We conservatively use
the largest density value to assess take,
as the Navy does not have specific
information about when in-water work
may occur during the proposed period
of validity.
Description of Take Calculation
The following assumptions are made
when estimating potential incidents of
take:
• All marine mammal individuals
potentially available are assumed to be
present within the relevant area, and
thus incidentally taken;
• An individual can only be taken
once during a 24-h period; and,
• There will be 27 total days of
vibratory driving (seventeen days for
steel piles and ten days for plastic piles)
and twenty days of impact pile driving.
• Exposures to sound levels at or
above the relevant thresholds equate to
take, as defined by the MMPA.
The estimation of marine mammal
takes typically uses the following
calculation:
Exposure estimate = (n * ZOI) * days of
total activity
Where:
n = density estimate used for each species/
season
ZOI = sound threshold ZOI area; the area
encompassed by all locations where the
SPLs equal or exceed the threshold being
evaluated
n * ZOI produces an estimate of the
abundance of animals that could be
present in the area for exposure, and is
rounded to the nearest whole number
before multiplying by days of total
activity.
The ZOI impact area is estimated
using the relevant distances in Table 3,
taking into consideration the possible
affected area with attenuation due to the
constraints of the basin. Because the
basin restricts sound from propagating
outward, with the exception of the eastfacing entrance channel, the radial
distances to thresholds are not generally
reached.
There are a number of reasons why
estimates of potential incidents of take
may be conservative, assuming that
available density or abundance
estimates and estimated ZOI areas are
accurate. We assume, in the absence of
information supporting a more refined
conclusion, that the output of the
calculation represents the number of
individuals that may be taken by the
specified activity. In fact, in the context
of stationary activities such as pile
driving and in areas where resident
animals may be present, this number
more realistically represents the number
of incidents of take that may accrue to
a smaller number of individuals. While
pile driving can occur any day
throughout the in-water work window,
and the analysis is conducted on a per
day basis, only a fraction of that time
(typically a matter of hours on any given
day) is actually spent pile driving. The
potential effectiveness of mitigation
measures in reducing the number of
takes is typically not quantified in the
take estimation process. For these
reasons, these take estimates may be
conservative.
The quantitative exercise described
above indicates that no incidents of
Level A harassment would be expected,
independent of the implementation of
required mitigation measures. The
twenty days of contingency impact
driving considered here could include
either steel or plastic piles on any of the
days; because the ZOI for impact driving
of steel piles subsumes the ZOI for
impact driving of plastic piles, we
consider only the former here. See Table
4 for total estimated incidents of take.
TABLE 4—CALCULATIONS FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE ESTIMATION
Species
n
(animals/km2)
Activity
Bottlenose dolphin .................
4.15366 .................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin .........
0.005402 (spring) .................
Impact driving (steel) ............
Vibratory driving (steel) ........
Vibratory driving (plastic) ......
Impact driving (steel) ............
Vibratory driving (steel) ........
Vibratory driving (plastic) ......
Proposed
authorized
takes 2
n * ZOI 1
3
12
4
0
0
0
60
204
40
0
0
0
Total proposed
authorized
takes
3 304
0
1 See
Table 3 for relevant ZOIs. The product of this calculation is rounded to the nearest whole number.
product of n * ZOI is multiplied by the total number of activity-specific days to estimate the number of takes.
is impossible to estimate from available information which stock these takes may accrue to.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2 The
3 It
Analyses and Preliminary
Determinations
Negligible Impact Analysis
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘. . . an
impact resulting from the specified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely
to, adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.’’ A negligible
impact finding is based on the lack of
likely adverse effects on annual rates of
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of Level B harassment 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’’
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46562
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
through behavioral harassment, we
consider 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 the
number and nature of estimated Level A
harassment takes, the number of
estimated mortalities, and effects on
habitat.
Pile driving activities associated with
the wharf construction 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 minimized through
the construction method and the
implementation of the planned
mitigation measures. Specifically,
vibratory hammers will be the primary
method of installation (impact driving is
included only as a contingency and is
not expected to be required), and this
activity does not have the potential to
cause injury to marine mammals due to
the relatively low source levels
produced (less than 180 dB) and the
lack of potentially injurious source
characteristics. Impact pile driving
produces short, sharp pulses with
higher peak levels and much sharper
rise time to reach those peaks. If impact
driving is necessary, implementation of
soft start and shutdown zones
significantly reduces any possibility of
injury. Given sufficient ‘‘notice’’
through use of soft start (for impact
driving), marine mammals are expected
to move away from a sound source that
is annoying prior to its becoming
potentially injurious. Environmental
conditions in the confined and
protected Mayport turning basin mean
that marine mammal detection ability
by trained observers is high, enabling a
high rate of success in implementation
of shutdowns to avoid injury.
Effects on individuals that are taken
by Level B harassment, on the basis of
reports in the literature as well as
monitoring from other similar activities,
will likely be limited to reactions such
as increased swimming speeds,
increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring)
(e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; HDR,
Inc., 2012). Most likely, individuals will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
simply move away from the sound
source and be temporarily displaced
from the areas of pile driving, although
even this reaction has been observed
primarily only in association with
impact pile driving. The pile driving
activities analyzed here are similar to, or
less impactful than, numerous other
construction activities conducted in San
Francisco Bay and in the Puget Sound
region, which have taken place with no
reported injuries or mortality to marine
mammals, and no known long-term
adverse consequences from behavioral
harassment. 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.
Thus, even repeated Level B harassment
of some small subset of the overall stock
is unlikely to result in any significant
realized decrease in viability for the
affected individuals, and thus would
not result in any adverse impact to the
stock as a whole. Level B harassment
will be reduced to the level of least
practicable 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.
In summary, this negligible impact
analysis is founded on the following
factors: (1) The possibility of injury,
serious injury, or mortality may
reasonably be considered discountable;
(2) the anticipated incidents of Level B
harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior; (3)
the absence of any significant habitat
within the project area, including
known areas or features of special
significance for foraging or
reproduction; (4) the presumed efficacy
of the proposed mitigation measures in
reducing the effects of the specified
activity to the level of least practicable
impact. In addition, these stocks are not
listed under the ESA, although coastal
bottlenose dolphins are designated as
depleted under the MMPA. In
combination, we believe that these
factors, as well as the available body of
evidence from other similar activities,
demonstrate that the potential effects of
the specified activity will have only
short-term effects on individuals. The
specified activity is not expected to
impact rates of recruitment or survival
and will therefore not result in
population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, we preliminarily find that the
total marine mammal take from the
Navy’s wharf construction activities will
have a negligible impact on the affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
As described previously, of the 304
incidents of behavioral harassment
predicted to occur for bottlenose
dolphin, we have no information
allowing us to parse those predicted
incidents amongst the three stocks of
bottlenose dolphin 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 two of the bottlenose
dolphin stocks, the total predicted
number of incidents of take authorized
would be considered small—
approximately three percent for the
southern migratory stock and less than
25 percent for the northern Florida
coastal stock—even if each estimated
taking occurred to a new individual.
This is an extremely unlikely scenario
as, for bottlenose dolphins in estuarine
and nearshore waters, there is likely to
be some overlap in individuals present
day-to-day.
The total number of authorized takes
proposed for bottlenose dolphins, if
assumed to accrue solely to new
individuals of the JES stock, is higher
relative to the total stock abundance,
which is currently considered
unknown. However, these numbers
represent the estimated incidents of
take, not the number of individuals
taken. That is, it is highly likely that a
relatively small subset of JES bottlenose
dolphins would be harassed by project
activities. JES bottlenose dolphins range
from Cumberland Sound at the GeorgiaFlorida border south to approximately
Palm Coast, Florida, an area spanning
over 120 linear km of coastline and
including habitat consisting of complex
inshore and estuarine waterways. JES
dolphins, divided by Caldwell (2001)
into Northern and Southern groups,
show strong site fidelity and, although
members of both groups have been
observed outside their preferred areas, it
is likely that the majority of JES
dolphins would not occur within waters
ensonified by project activities. Further,
although the largest area of
ensonification is predicted to extend up
to 7.5 km offshore from NSM, estuarine
dolphins are generally considered as
restricted to inshore waters and only
1–2 km offshore. In summary, JES
dolphins are (1) known to form two
groups and exhibit strong site fidelity
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
(i.e., individuals do not generally range
throughout the recognized overall JES
stock range); (2) would not occur at all
in a significant portion of the larger ZOI
extending offshore from NSM; and (3)
the specified activity will be stationary
within an enclosed basin not recognized
as an area of any special significance
that would serve to attract or aggregate
dolphins. We therefore believe that the
estimated numbers of takes, were they
to occur, likely represent repeated
exposures of a much smaller number of
bottlenose dolphins and that these
estimated incidents of take represent
small numbers of bottlenose dolphins.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
mitigation and monitoring measures, we
preliminarily find that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative
to the populations of the affected
species or stocks.
adopted that EA and signed a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on
November 20, 2013.
We have reviewed the Navy’s
application for a renewed IHA for
ongoing construction activities for
2015–16 and preliminary results of
required marine mammal monitoring.
Based on that review, we have
determined that the proposed action is
very similar to that considered in the
previous IHA. In addition, no significant
new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns
have been identified. Thus, we have
determined preliminarily that the
preparation of a new or supplemental
NEPA document is not necessary, and
will, after review of public comments
determine whether or not to reaffirm our
2013 FONSI. The 2013 NEPA
documents are available for review at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.htm.
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of marine mammals implicated by this
action. Therefore, we have determined
that the total taking of affected species
or stocks would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, we propose to authorize
the take of marine mammals incidental
to the Navy’s wharf project, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. Specific language from
the proposed IHA is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the
IHA. The wording contained in this
section is proposed for inclusion in the
IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) is valid for one year
from the date of issuance.
2. This IHA is valid only for pile
driving activities associated with the
Wharf C–2 Recapitalization Project at
Naval Station Mayport, Florida.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the
possession of the Navy, its designees,
and work crew personnel operating
under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking
is the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus).
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment
only, is limited to the species listed in
condition 3(b). See Table 1 for numbers
of take authorized.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
No marine mammal species listed
under the ESA are expected to be
affected by these activities. Therefore,
we have determined that section 7
consultation under the ESA are not
required.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by
the regulations published by the
Council on Environmental Quality (40
CFR parts 1500–1508), the Navy
prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA) to consider the direct, indirect and
cumulative effects to the human
environment resulting from the pier
maintenance project. NMFS made the
Navy’s EA available to the public for
review and comment, in relation to its
suitability for adoption by NMFS in
order to assess the impacts to the human
environment of issuance of an IHA to
the Navy. Also in compliance with
NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well
as NOAA Administrative Order 216–6,
NMFS has reviewed the Navy’s EA,
determined it to be sufficient, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
Proposed Authorization
TABLE 1—AUTHORIZED TAKE
NUMBERS
Authorized
take
Species
Bottlenose dolphin ................
304
(d) The taking by injury (Level A
harassment), serious injury, or death of
the species listed in condition 3(b) of
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46563
the Authorization or any taking of any
other species of marine mammal is
prohibited and may result in the
modification, suspension, or revocation
of this IHA.
(e) The Navy shall conduct briefings
between construction supervisors and
crews, marine mammal monitoring
team, and Navy staff prior to the start of
all pile driving activity, and when new
personnel join the work, in order to
explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures.
4. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization is
required to implement the following
mitigation measures:
(a) For all pile driving, the Navy shall
implement a minimum shutdown zone
of 15 m radius around the pile. If a
marine mammal comes within or
approaches the shutdown zone, such
operations shall cease. For impact
driving of steel piles, the minimum
shutdown zone shall be of 40 m radius.
(b) The Navy shall establish
monitoring locations as described
below. Please also refer to the Marine
Mammal Monitoring Plan (Monitoring
Plan; attached).
i. For all pile driving activities, a
minimum of two observers shall be
deployed, with one positioned to
achieve optimal monitoring of the
shutdown zone and the second
positioned to achieve optimal
monitoring of surrounding waters of the
turning basin, the entrance to that basin,
and portions of the Atlantic Ocean. If
practicable, the second observer should
be deployed to an elevated position,
preferably opposite Wharf C–2 and with
clear sight lines to the wharf and out the
entrance channel.
ii. These observers shall record all
observations of marine mammals,
regardless of distance from the pile
being driven, as well as behavior and
potential behavioral reactions of the
animals. Observations within the
turning basin shall be distinguished
from those in the entrance channel and
nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
iii. All observers shall be equipped for
communication of marine mammal
observations amongst themselves and to
other relevant personnel (e.g., those
necessary to effect activity delay or
shutdown).
(c) Monitoring shall take place from
fifteen minutes prior to initiation of pile
driving activity through thirty minutes
post-completion of pile driving activity.
Pre-activity monitoring shall be
conducted for fifteen minutes to ensure
that the shutdown zone is clear of
marine mammals, and pile driving may
commence when observers have
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46564
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
declared the shutdown zone clear of
marine mammals. In the event of a delay
or shutdown of activity resulting from
marine mammals in the shutdown zone,
animals shall be allowed to remain in
the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of
their own volition) and their behavior
shall be monitored and documented.
Monitoring shall occur throughout the
time required to drive a pile. The
shutdown zone must be determined to
be clear during periods of good visibility
(i.e., the entire shutdown zone and
surrounding waters must be visible to
the naked eye).
(d) If a marine mammal approaches or
enters the shutdown zone, all pile
driving activities at that location shall
be halted. If pile driving is halted or
delayed due to the presence of a marine
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.
(e) Monitoring shall be conducted by
qualified observers, as described in the
Monitoring Plan. Trained observers
shall be placed from the best vantage
point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement
shutdown or delay procedures when
applicable through communication with
the equipment operator. Observer
training must be provided prior to
project start and in accordance with the
monitoring plan, and shall include
instruction on species identification
(sufficient to distinguish the species
listed in 3(b)), description and
categorization of observed behaviors
and interpretation of behaviors that may
be construed as being reactions to the
specified activity, proper completion of
data forms, and other basic components
of biological monitoring, including
tracking of observed animals or groups
of animals such that repeat sound
exposures may be attributed to
individuals (to the extent possible).
(f) The Navy shall use soft start
techniques recommended by NMFS 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.
(g) Pile driving shall only be
conducted during daylight hours.
5. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization is
required to conduct marine mammal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
monitoring during pile driving activity.
Marine mammal monitoring and
reporting shall be conducted in
accordance with the Monitoring Plan.
(a) The Navy shall collect sighting
data and behavioral responses to pile
driving for marine mammal species
observed in the region of activity during
the period of activity. All observers
shall be trained in marine mammal
identification and behaviors, and shall
have no other construction-related tasks
while conducting monitoring.
(b) For all marine mammal
monitoring, the information shall be
recorded as described in the Monitoring
Plan.
6. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is
required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all
monitoring conducted under the IHA
within ninety days of the completion of
marine mammal monitoring, or sixty
days prior to the issuance of any
subsequent IHA for projects at NSM,
whichever comes first. A final report
shall be prepared and submitted within
thirty days following resolution of
comments on the draft report from
NMFS. This report must contain the
informational elements described in the
Monitoring Plan, at minimum (see
attached), and shall also include:
i. Detailed information about any
implementation of shutdowns,
including the distance of animals to the
pile and description of specific actions
that ensued and resulting behavior of
the animal, if any.
ii. Description of attempts to
distinguish between the number of
individual animals taken and the
number of incidents of take, such as
ability to track groups or individuals.
iii. An estimated total take estimate
extrapolated from the number of marine
mammals observed during the course of
construction activities, if necessary.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine
mammals:
i. In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by this IHA, such as an
injury (Level A harassment), serious
injury, or mortality, Navy shall
immediately cease the specified
activities and report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the Southeast Regional Stranding
Coordinator, NMFS. The report must
include the following information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
D. Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
E. Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
F. Fate of the animal(s); and
G. Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS
is able to review the circumstances of
the prohibited take. NMFS will work
with Navy to determine what measures
are necessary to minimize the likelihood
of further prohibited take and ensure
MMPA compliance. Navy may not
resume their activities until notified by
NMFS.
ii. In the event that Navy discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines that the
cause of the injury or death is unknown
and the death is relatively recent (e.g.,
in less than a moderate state of
decomposition), Navy shall immediately
report the incident to the Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
Southeast Regional Stranding
Coordinator, NMFS.
The report must include the same
information identified in 6(b)(i) of this
IHA. Activities may continue while
NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with Navy to
determine whether additional
mitigation measures or modifications to
the activities are appropriate.
iii. In the event that Navy discovers
an injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines that the
injury or death is not associated with or
related to the activities authorized in the
IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal,
carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, scavenger damage),
Navy shall report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the Southeast Regional Stranding
Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of
the discovery. Navy shall provide
photographs or video footage or other
documentation of the stranded animal
sighting to NMFS.
7. This Authorization may be
modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the
conditions prescribed herein, or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking
is having more than a negligible impact
on the species or stock of affected
marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the draft authorization, and any other
aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHAs
for Navy’s wharf construction activities.
Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
help inform our final decision on Navy’s
request for an MMPA authorization.
Dated: July 31, 2015.
Angela Somma,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–19184 Filed 8–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE029
Pacific Islands Pelagic Fisheries;
American Samoa Longline Limited
Entry Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; availability of permits.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces that 12
American Samoa pelagic longline
limited entry permits in three vessel
size classes are available for 2015.
NMFS is accepting applications for
these available permits.
DATES: NMFS must receive completed
permit applications and payment by
December 3, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Request a blank application
form from the NMFS Pacific Islands
Regional Office (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd.,
Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, or the
PIR Web site https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/
Library/SFD/Samoa_LE_App_Fillable_
02Feb15.pdf. Mail your completed
application and payment to: ASLE
Permits, NOAA NMFS PIR, 1845 Wasp
Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Walter Ikehara, Sustainable Fisheries,
NMFS PIR, tel 808–725–5175, fax 808–
725–5215, or email PIRO-permits@
noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal
regulations at 50 CFR 665.816 allow
NMFS to issue new permits for the
American Samoa pelagic longline
limited entry program if the number of
permits in a size class falls below the
maximum allowed. At least 12 permits
are available for issuance, as follows:
• Nine in Class A (vessels less than or
equal to 40 ft in overall length);
• Two in Class B (over 40 ft to 50 ft);
and
• One in Class D (over 70 ft).
Please note that the number of available
permits may change before the
application period closes.
Each application must be complete for
NMFS to consider it. An application
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
must include the completed and signed
application form, evidence of
documented participation in the fishery,
and non-refundable payment for the
application-processing fee.
If NMFS receives more completed
applications than the available permits
for a given permit class, NMFS will
prioritize applicants using only the
information in the applications and
documentation provided by the
applicants. If an applicant requests
NMFS, in writing, that NMFS use NMFS
longline logbook data as evidence of
documented participation, the applicant
must specify the qualifying vessel,
official number, and month and year of
the logbook records. NMFS will not
conduct an unlimited search for records.
Applicants with the earliest
documented participation in the fishery
on a Class A sized vessel will receive
the highest priorities for obtaining
permits in any size class, followed by
applicants with the earliest documented
participation in Classes B, C, and D, in
that order. In the event of a tie in the
priority ranking between two or more
applicants, NMFS will rank higher in
priority the applicant whose second
documented participation is earlier.
Detailed criteria for prioritization of
eligible applicants are in the regulations
at 50 CFR 665.816(g).
NMFS must receive applications by
December 3, 2015 to be considered for
a permit (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will
not accept applications received after
that date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 30, 2015.
Emily H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–19102 Filed 8–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XD330
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to a Breakwater
Replacement Project in Eastport,
Maine
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; revision of an incidental
harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that we
have revised an incidental harassment
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46565
authorization (IHA) issued to the Maine
Department of Transportation (ME DOT)
to incidentally harass, by Level B
harassment only, small numbers of four
species of marine mammals during
construction activities associated with a
breakwater replacement project in
Eastport, Maine. The project has been
delayed and the effective dates revised
accordingly.
DATES: This authorization is now
effective from July 20, 2015, through
July 19, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 21, 2014, NMFS received
an application from ME DOT requesting
an IHA for the take, by Level B
harassment, of small numbers of harbor
seals (Phoca vitulina), gray seals
(Halichoerus grypus), harbor porpoises
(Phocoena phocoena), and Atlantic
white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus
acutus) incidental to in-water
construction activities in Eastport,
Maine. On July 31, 2014, NMFS
published a Federal Register notice (FR
79 44407) for the proposed IHA, and
subsequently published final notice of
our issuance of the IHA on October 1,
2014 (79 FR 59247), effective from
October 1, 2014, through September 30,
2015. In June 2015, ME DOT informed
NMFS that no work had occurred
relevant to the IHA specified activity
due to difficulties in developing a
passive acoustic monitoring plan for
sound source verification of test pile
driving. Accordingly, ME DOT
requested that NMFS revise the effective
date of the IHA to a one-year period
beginning on July 20, 2015, to
accommodate the delayed schedule,
with no other changes.
Summary of the Activity
The proposed Eastport breakwater
replacement project will replace an
open pier that is supported by 151 piles,
consisting of steel pipe piles, reinforced
concrete pile caps, and a pre-stressed
plank deck with structural overlay. The
proposed approach pier will be 40 ft by
300 ft and the proposed main pier
section that would be parallel to the
shoreline will be 50 ft by 400 ft.
The replacement pier will consist of
two different sections. The approach
pier will be replaced in kind by placing
fill inside of a sheet pile enclosure,
supported by driven piles. The
approach section will consist of sheet
piles that are driven just outside of the
existing sheet piles. The sheet piles can
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46545-46565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19184]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE056
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Wharf Recapitalization Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction
activities as part of a wharf recapitalization project. Pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting public comment
on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA)
to the Navy to take, by Level B harassment only, during the specified
activity.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than
September 4, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal 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 ITP.Laws@noaa.gov.
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 to the Internet at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm 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: Ben Laws, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the Navy's application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact listed above.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA; 2013) for this
project. We subsequently adopted the EA and signed our own Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to
[[Page 46546]]
issuing the first IHA for this project, in accordance with NEPA and the
regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality.
Information in the Navy's application, the Navy's EA, and this notice
collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed
issuance of this IHA for public review and comment. All documents are
available at the aforementioned Web site. We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice as we complete the NEPA process,
including a decision of whether to reaffirm the existing FONSI, prior
to a final decision on the incidental take authorization request.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional,
taking of small numbers of marine mammals, providing that certain
findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.
The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be
allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary)
finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the
specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species
or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking
must be set forth, either in specific regulations or in an
authorization.
The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A),
by harassment, serious injury, death, or a combination thereof,
requires that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of
Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established
in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be
consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under
the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may
authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not
more than one year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained
within an IHA. The establishment of prescriptions through either
specific regulations or an authorization requires notice and
opportunity for public comment.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . .
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.'' Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(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].''
Summary of Request
On January 28, 2015, we received a request from the Navy for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving in
association with the Wharf C-2 recapitalization project at Naval
Station Mayport, Florida (NSM). That request was modified on April 17
and the Navy submitted a revised version of the request on July 24,
2015, which we deemed adequate and complete. In-water work associated
with the project is expected to be completed within the one-year
timeframe of the proposed IHA, which would be valid for one year from
the date of issuance.
The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving is expected to
produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in
behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Two species of marine mammal
have the potential to be affected by the specified activities:
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus truncatus) and Atlantic spotted
dolphin (Stenella frontalis). These species may occur year-round in the
action area. However, we have determined that incidental take of
spotted dolphins is not reasonably likely and do not propose to
authorize such take.
This is expected to be the second and final year of in-water work
associated with the Wharf C-2 project. This would be the second such
IHA, if issued, following the IHA issued effective from September 1,
2014, through August 31, 2015 (78 FR 71566; November 29, 2013). Please
note that the previous IHA was initially issued with effective dates
from December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014. However, no work was
conducted during this period and the effective dates were changed to
those stated above (79 FR 27863; May 15, 2014).
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
Wharf C-2 is a single level, general purpose berthing wharf
constructed in 1960. The wharf is one of NSM's two primary deep-draft
berths and is one of the primary ordnance handling wharfs. The wharf is
a diaphragm steel sheet pile cell structure with a concrete apron,
partial concrete encasement of the piling and an asphalt paved deck.
The wharf is currently in poor condition due to advanced deterioration
of the steel sheeting and lack of corrosion protection, and this
structural deterioration has resulted in the institution of load
restrictions within 60 ft of the wharf face. The purpose of this
project is to complete necessary repairs to Wharf C-2. Please refer to
Appendix A of the Navy's application for photos of existing damage and
deterioration at the wharf, and to Appendix B for a contractor
schematic of the project plan.
Dates and Duration
The total project was expected to require a maximum of fifty days
of in-water vibratory pile driving work over a twelve-month period,
with an additional twenty days of impact pile driving included in the
specified activity as a contingency for a total of seventy days in-
water pile driving. Based on work completed to date and in
consideration of the number of piles yet to be driven and pile
production rates to date, the Navy estimates that remaining work may
require 47 days in total.
Specific Geographic Region
NSM is located in northeastern Florida, at the mouth of the St.
Johns River and adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2
of the Navy's application). The St. Johns River is the longest river in
Florida, with the final 35 mi flowing through the city of Jacksonville.
This portion of the river is significant for commercial shipping and
military use. At the mouth of the river, near the action area, the
Atlantic Ocean is the dominant influence and typical salinities are
above 30 ppm. Outside the river mouth, in nearshore waters, moderate
oceanic currents tend to flow southward parallel to the coast. Sea
surface temperatures range from around 16 [deg]C in winter to 28 [deg]C
in summer.
The specific action area consists of the NSM turning basin, an area
of approximately 2,000 by 3,000 ft containing ship berthing facilities
at sixteen locations along wharves around
[[Page 46547]]
the basin perimeter. The basin was constructed during the early 1940s
by dredging the eastern part of Ribault Bay (at the mouth of the St.
Johns River), with dredge material from the basin used to fill parts of
the bay and other low-lying areas in order to elevate the land surface.
The basin is currently maintained through regular dredging at a depth
of 50 ft, with depths at the berths ranging from 30-50 ft. The turning
basin, connected to the St. Johns River by a 500-ft-wide entrance
channel, will largely contain sound produced by project activities,
with the exception of sound propagating east into nearshore Atlantic
waters through the entrance channel (see Figure 2-2 of the Navy's
application). Wharf C-2 is located in the northeastern corner of the
Mayport turning basin.
Detailed Description of Activities
In order to rehabilitate Wharf C-2, the Navy proposes to install a
new steel king pile/sheet pile (SSP) bulkhead, consisting of large
vertical king piles with paired steel sheet piles driven between and
connected to the ends of the king piles. Over the course of the entire
project, the Navy will install approximately 120 single sheet piles and
119 king piles (all steel) to support the bulkhead wall, as well as
fifty polymeric (plastic) fender piles. The SSP wall is anchored at the
top and filled behind the wall before a concrete cap is formed along
the top and outside face to tie the entire structure together and
provide a berthing surface for vessels. The new bulkhead will be
designed for a fifty-year service life.
Installation of approximately seventy percent of steel piles (84 of
120 sheet piles and 81 of 119 king piles) has been completed as of July
2015, and the Navy expects that all installation of steel piles may be
complete by the expiration of the current IHA. However, we include here
as a contingency the installation of 25 percent of steel piles in the
event that there is a work stoppage or other unforeseen delay prior to
expiration of the current IHA. All fifty plastic fender piles would be
installed during the period of validity of the proposed IHA.
All piles would be driven by vibratory hammer, although impact pile
driving may be used as a contingency in cases when vibratory driving is
not sufficient to reach the necessary depth. In the unlikely event that
impact driving is required, either impact or vibratory driving could
occur on a given day, but concurrent use of vibratory and impact
drivers would not occur. Including the installation of 25 percent of
steel piles as a contingency, the Navy estimates that 47 in-water work
days may be required to complete pile driving activity, including ten
days for vibratory driving of plastic piles, seventeen days for
contingency vibratory driving of steel piles, and twenty days for
contingency impact driving, if necessary.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
There are four marine mammal species which may inhabit or transit
through the waters nearby NSM at the mouth of the St. Johns River and
in nearby nearshore Atlantic waters. These include the bottlenose
dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, North Atlantic right whale
(Eubalaena glacialis), and humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
Multiple additional cetacean species occur in South Atlantic waters but
would not be expected to occur in shallow nearshore waters of the
action area. Table 1 lists the marine mammal species with expected
potential for occurrence in the vicinity of NSM during the project
timeframe and summarizes key information regarding stock status and
abundance. Taxonomically, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2014).
Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of these stocks'
status and abundance. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) 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 (DoN,
2008). The document is publicly available at www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html (accessed July 16, 2015).
In the species accounts provided here, we offer a brief
introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available
information regarding population trends and threats, and describe any
information regarding local occurrence. Multiple stocks of bottlenose
dolphins may be present in the action area, either seasonally or year-
round, and are described further below. We first address the two large
whale species that may occur in the action area.
Table 1--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of NSM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale......... Western North Atlantic E/D; Y............... 465 (n/a; 2013)....... 0.9 4.75 Rare inshore, regular
\5\. near/offshore; Nov-
Apr.
Humpback whale..................... Gulf of Maine......... E/D; Y............... 823 (n/a; 2008)....... 2.7 10.15 Rare; Fall-Spring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common bottlenose dolphin.......... Western North Atlantic -; N................. 77,532 (0.4; 56,053; 561 45.1 Rare; year-round.
Offshore. 2011).
Common bottlenose dolphin.......... Western North Atlantic -/D; Y............... 9,173 (0.46; 6,326; 63 2.6-16.5 Possibly common; \8\
Coastal, Southern 2010-11). Jan-Mar.
Migratory.
Common bottlenose dolphin.......... Western North Atlantic -/D; Y............... 1,219 (0.67; 730; 2010- 7 unk Possibly common; \8\
Coastal, Northern 11).\9\ year-round.
Florida.
[[Page 46548]]
Common bottlenose dolphin.......... Jacksonville Estuarine -; Y................. 412 \7\ (0.06; unk; undet. unk Possibly common; \8\
System.\6\ 1994-97). year-round.
Atlantic spotted dolphin........... Western North Atlantic -; N................. 44,715 (0.43; 31,610; 316 0 Rare; year-round.
2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 killer whales, the
abundance values represent direct counts of individually identifiable animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated
CV. 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 2014 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 2014 SARs. This information was made available
for public comment and is currently under review and therefore may be revised prior to finalizing the 2014 SARs. However, we consider this information
to be the best available for use in this document.
\6\ Abundance estimates for these stocks 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.
Right whales occur in sub-polar to temperate waters in all major
ocean basins in the world with a clear migratory pattern, occurring in
high latitudes in summer (feeding) and lower latitudes in winter
(breeding). North Atlantic right whales exhibit extensive migratory
patterns, traveling along the eastern seaboard from calving grounds off
Georgia and northern Florida to northern feeding areas off of the
northeast U.S. and Canada in March/April and returning in November/
December. Migrations are typically within 30 nmi of the coastline and
in waters less than 50 m deep. Although this migratory pattern is well-
known, winter distribution for most of the population--the non-calving
portion--is poorly known, as many whales are not observed on the
calving grounds. It is unknown where these animals spend the winter,
although they may occur further offshore or may remain on foraging
grounds during winter (Morano et al., 2012). During the winter calving
period, right whales occur regularly in offshore waters of northeastern
Florida. Critical habitat for right whales in the southeast (as
identified under the ESA) is designated to protect calving grounds, and
encompasses waters from the coast out to 15 nmi offshore from Mayport.
More rarely, right whales have been observed entering the mouth of the
St. Johns River for brief periods of time (Schweitzer and Zoodsma,
2011). Right whales are not present in the region outside of the winter
calving season.
Humpback whales are a cosmopolitan species that migrate seasonally
between warm-water (tropical or sub-tropical) breeding and calving
areas in winter months and cool-water (temperate to sub-Arctic/
Antarctic) feeding areas in summer months (Gendron and Urban, 1993).
They tend to occupy shallow, coastal waters, although migrations are
undertaken through deep, pelagic waters. In the North Atlantic,
humpback whales are known to aggregate in six summer feeding areas
representing relatively discrete subpopulations (Clapham and Mayo,
1987), which share common wintering grounds in the Caribbean (and to a
lesser extent off of West Africa) (Winn et al., 1975; Mattila et al.,
1994; Palsb[oslash]ll et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1999; Stevick et al.,
2003; Cerchio et al., 2010). These populations or aggregations range
from the Gulf of Maine in the west to Norway in the east, and the
migratory range includes the east coast of the U.S. and Canada. The
only managed stock in U.S. waters is the Gulf of Maine feeding
aggregation, although other stocks occur in Canadian waters (e.g., Gulf
of St. Lawrence feeding aggregation), and it is possible that whales
from other stocks could occur in U.S. waters. Significant numbers of
whales do remain in mid- to high-latitude waters during the winter
months (Clapham et al., 1993; Swingle et al., 1993), and there have
been a number of humpback sightings in coastal waters of the
southeastern U.S. during the winter (Wiley et al., 1995; Laerm et al.,
1997; Waring et al., 2014). According to Waring et al. (2014), it is
unclear whether the increased numbers of sightings represent a
distributional change, or are simply due to an increase in sighting
effort and/or whale abundance. These factors aside, the humpback whale
remains relatively rare in U.S. coastal waters south of the mid-
Atlantic region, and is considered rare to extralimital in the action
area. Any occurrences in the region would be expected in fall, winter,
and spring during migration, as whales are unlikely to occur so far
south during the summer feeding season.
Neither the humpback whale nor the right whale would occur within
the turning basin, and only the right whale has been observed to occur
as far inshore as the mouth of the St. Johns River. Therefore, the only
potential for interaction with these species is likely to be within the
narrow sliver of ensonified area expected to extend eastward from the
entrance channel during vibratory driving of steel piles (see Figure 6-
1 of the application). As described above, humpback whales are
considered rare in the region, and, when considering frequency of
occurrence, size of ensonified area (approximately 2.9 km\2\ during
vibratory driving of steel
[[Page 46549]]
piles but less than one square kilometer during vibratory driving of
plastic piles), and duration (likely ten days, but no greater than
approximately fifty days), we consider the possibility for harassment
of humpback whales to be discountable. For right whales, due to the
greater potential for interaction during the calving season we
considered available density information, including abundance data from
NMFS surveys, as analyzed for use in Navy environmental compliance
efforts (Roberts et al., 2015), to produce a representative estimate
for the specific action area. Use of this estimate (0.045028/km\2\)
resulted in zero estimated exposures of right whales to sound produced
by project activities. Therefore, the humpback whale and right whale
are excluded from further analysis and are not discussed further in
this document.
The following summarizes the population status and abundance of the
remaining species.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Bottlenose dolphins are found worldwide in tropical to temperate
waters and can be found in all depths from estuarine inshore to deep
offshore waters. Temperature appears to limit the range of the species,
either directly, or indirectly, for example, through distribution of
prey. Off North American coasts, common bottlenose dolphins are found
where surface water temperatures range from about 10 [deg]C to 32
[deg]C. In many regions, including the southeastern U.S., separate
coastal and offshore populations are known. There is significant
genetic, morphological, and hematological differentiation evident
between the two ecotypes (e.g., Walker, 1981; Duffield et al., 1983;
Duffield, 1987; Hoelzel et al., 1998), which correspond to shallow,
warm water and deep, cold water. Both ecotypes have been shown to
inhabit the western North Atlantic (Hersh and Duffield, 1990; Mead and
Potter, 1995), where the deep-water ecotype tends to be larger and
darker. In addition, several lines of evidence, including photo-
identification and genetic studies, support a distinction between
dolphins inhabiting coastal waters near the shore and those present in
the inshore waters of bays, sounds and estuaries. This complex
differentiation of bottlenose dolphin populations is observed
throughout the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts where bottlenose
dolphins are found, although estuarine populations have not been fully
defined.
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 any regular foraging opportunities or
habitat characteristics of any importance in the basin. Based on
currently available information, it is not possible to determine which
stock dolphins occurring in the action area may belong to. 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 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, in water depths of 13 m
just south of Cape Lookout (Garrison et al., 2003). The maximum radial
distance for the largest ZOI is approximately 7.4 km (Table 3);
therefore, while possible, it is unlikely that any individuals of the
offshore morphotype would be affected by project activities. In terms
of water depth, the affected area is generally in the range of the
shallower depth reported for offshore dolphins by Garrison et al.
(2003), but is far shallower than the depths reported by Torres et al.
(2003). South of Cape Lookout, the zone of spatial overlap between
offshore and coastal ecotypes is generally considered to occur in water
depths between 20-100 m (Waring et al., 2014), which is generally
deeper than waters in the action area. 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 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., 2003; 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 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
[[Page 46550]]
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 only.
Bottlenose dolphins are ubiquitous in coastal waters from the mid-
Atlantic through the Gulf of Mexico, and therefore interact with
multiple coastal fisheries, including gillnet, trawl, and trap/pot
fisheries. Stock-specific total fishery-related mortality and serious
injury cannot be directly estimated because of the spatial overlap
among stocks of bottlenose dolphins, as well as because of unobserved
fisheries. The primary known source of fishery mortality for the
southern migratory stock is the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery (Waring et
al., 2014). Between 2004 and 2008, 588 bottlenose dolphins stranded
along the Atlantic coast between Florida and Maryland that could
potentially be assigned to the southern migratory stock, although the
assignment of animals to a particular stock is impossible in some
seasons and regions due to spatial overlap amongst stocks (Waring et
al., 2014). Many of these animals exhibited some evidence of human
interaction, such as line/net marks, gunshot wounds, or vessel strike.
In addition, nearshore and estuarine habitats occupied by the coastal
morphotype are adjacent to areas of high human population and some are
highly industrialized. It should also be noted that stranding data
underestimate the extent of fishery-related mortality and serious
injury because not all of the marine mammals that die or are seriously
injured in fishery interactions are discovered, reported or
investigated, nor will all of those that are found necessarily show
signs of entanglement or other fishery interaction. The level of
technical expertise among stranding network personnel varies widely as
does the ability to recognize signs of fishery interactions. Finally,
multiple resident populations of bottlenose dolphins have been shown to
have high concentrations of organic pollutants (e.g., Kuehl et al.,
1991) and, despite little study of contaminant loads in migrating
coastal dolphins, exposure to environmental pollutants and subsequent
effects on population health is an area of concern and active research.
Western North Atlantic Coastal, Northern Florida--Please see above
for description of the differences between coastal and offshore
ecotypes and the delineation of coastal dolphins into management
stocks. The northern Florida coastal stock is one of five stocks of
coastal dolphins and one of three known resident stocks (other resident
stocks include South Carolina/Georgia and central Florida dolphins).
The spatial extent of these stocks, their potential seasonal movements,
and their relationships with estuarine stocks are poorly understood.
During summer months, when the migratory stocks are known to be in
North Carolina waters and further north, bottlenose dolphins are still
seen in coastal waters of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida,
indicating the presence of additional stocks of coastal animals.
Speakman et al. (2006) documented dolphins in coastal waters off
Charleston, South Carolina, that are not known resident members of the
estuarine stock, and genetic analyses indicate significant differences
between coastal dolphins from northern Florida, Georgia and central
South Carolina (NMFS, 2001; Rosel et al., 2009). The northern Florida
stock is thought to be present from approximately the Georgia-Florida
border south to 29.4[deg] N.
The northern Florida coastal stock is susceptible to interactions
with similar fisheries as those described above for the southern
migratory stock, including gillnet, trawl, and trap/pot fisheries. From
2004-08, 78 stranded dolphins were recovered in northern Florida
waters, although it was not possible to determine whether there was
evidence of human interaction for the majority of these (Waring et al.,
2014). The same concerns discussed above regarding underestimation of
mortality hold for this stock and, as for southern migratory dolphins,
pollutant loading is a concern.
Jacksonville Estuarine System--Please see above for description of
the differences between coastal and offshore ecotypes and the
delineation of coastal dolphins into management stocks primarily
inhabiting nearshore waters. The coastal morphotype of bottlenose
dolphin is also resident to certain inshore estuarine waters (Caldwell,
2001; Gubbins, 2002; Zolman, 2002; Gubbins et al., 2003). Multiple
lines of evidence support demographic separation between coastal
dolphins found in nearshore waters and those in estuarine waters, as
well as between dolphins residing within estuaries along the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts (e.g., Wells et al., 1987; Scott et al., 1990; Wells et
al., 1996; Cortese, 2000; Zolman, 2002; Speakman, et al. 2006; Stolen
et al., 2007; Balmer et al., 2008; Mazzoil et al., 2008). In
particular, a study conducted near Jacksonville demonstrated
significant genetic differences between coastal and estuarine dolphins
(Caldwell, 2001; Rosel et al., 2009). Despite evidence for genetic
differentiation between estuarine and nearshore populations, the degree
of spatial overlap between these populations remains unclear. Photo-
identification studies within estuaries demonstrate seasonal
immigration and emigration and the presence of transient animals (e.g.,
Speakman et al., 2006). In addition, the degree of movement of resident
estuarine animals into coastal waters on seasonal or shorter time
scales is poorly understood (Waring et al., 2014).
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
[[Page 46551]]
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.
The JES stock is susceptible to similar fisheries interactions as
those described above for coastal stocks, although only trap/pot
fisheries are likely to occur in estuarine waters frequented by the
stock. Only one dolphin carcass bearing evidence of fisheries
interaction was recovered during 2003-07 in the JES area, and an
additional sixteen stranded dolphins were recovered during this time,
but no determinations regarding human interactions could be made for
the majority (Waring et al., 2014). The same concerns discussed above
regarding underestimation of mortality hold for this stock and, as for
stocks discussed above, pollutant loading is a concern. Although no
contaminant analyses have yet been conducted in this area, the JES
stock inhabits areas with significant drainage from industrial and
urban sources, and as such is exposed to contaminants in runoff from
these. In other estuarine areas where such analyses have been
conducted, exposure to anthropogenic contaminants has been found to
likely have an effect (Hansen et al. 2004; Schwacke et al., 2004; Reif
et al., 2008).
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. However, Scott et al. (1988)
suggested that dolphins residing in the bays, sounds and estuaries
adjacent to these coastal waters were not affected by the mortality
event and these animals were explicitly excluded from the depleted
listing (Waring et al., 2014). Gubbins et al. (2003), using data from
Caldwell (2001), estimated the stock size to be 412 (CV = 0.06).
However, NMFS considers abundance unknown because this estimate likely
includes an unknown number of non-resident and seasonally-resident
dolphins. It nevertheless represents the best available information
regarding stock size. Because the stock size is likely small, and
relatively few mortalities and serious injuries would exceed PBR, the
stock is considered to be a strategic stock (Waring et al., 2014).
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Atlantic spotted dolphins are distributed in tropical and warm
temperate waters of the western North Atlantic predominantly over the
continental shelf and upper slope, from southern New England through
the Gulf of Mexico (Leatherwood et al., 1976). Spotted dolphins in the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico are managed as separate stocks. The
Atlantic spotted dolphin occurs in two forms which may be distinct sub-
species (Perrin et al., 1987; Rice, 1998); a larger, more heavily
spotted form inhabits the continental shelf inside or near the 200-m
isobath and is the only form that would be expected to occur in the
action area. Although typically observed in deeper waters, spotted
dolphins of the western North Atlantic stock do occur regularly in
nearshore waters south of the Chesapeake Bay (Mullin and Fulling,
2003). Specific data regarding seasonal occurrence in the region of
activity is lacking, but higher numbers of individuals have been
reported to occur in nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico from
November to May, suggesting seasonal migration patterns (Griffin and
Griffin, 2003).
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals. This
discussion also includes reactions that we consider to rise to the
level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level
of a take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of
studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting
barely measurable avoidance). This section is intended as a background
of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner
in which this activity will be carried out or the mitigation that will
be implemented, and how either of those will shape the anticipated
impacts from this specific activity. The Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment section later in this document will include a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by
this activity. The Negligible Impact Analyses section will include the
analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and
will consider the content of this section, the Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment section, the Proposed Mitigation section, and the
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat section to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on
the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. In the following
discussion, we provide general background information on sound and
marine mammal hearing before considering potential effects to marine
mammals from sound produced by vibratory and impact pile driving.
Description of Sound Sources
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the
distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have
longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate
(decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically
measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a
measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a
constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a
logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude;
therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large
changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels
(SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the
context of underwater sound pressure to 1 muPascal ([mu]Pa). One pascal
is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an
area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound
level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note
that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a
pressure of 1 [mu]Pa and all airborne sound levels in this document are
referenced to a pressure of 20 [mu]Pa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square
root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and
negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so
that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all
directions
[[Page 46552]]
away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond),
except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and
decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in
pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as
hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g.,
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic
sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of
sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following
(Richardson et al., 1995):
Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of
naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50
kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase
with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band
during heavy surf conditions.
Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the
water surface can become an important component of total noise at
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times.
Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to
ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band
for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100
kHz.
Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human
activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft),
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise
typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20
and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are
below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they
attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable
anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a
passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound, as opposed to
ambient sound.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
The underwater acoustic environment in the Mayport turning basin is
likely to be dominated by noise from day-to-day port and vessel
activities. The basin is sheltered from most wave noise, but is a high-
use area for naval ships, tugboats, and security vessels. When
underway, these sources can create noise between 20 Hz and 16 kHz
(Lesage et al., 1999), with broadband noise levels up to 180 dB. While
there are no current measurements of ambient noise levels in the
turning basin, it is likely that levels within the basin periodically
exceed the 120 dB threshold and, therefore, that the high levels of
anthropogenic activity in the basin create an environment far different
from quieter habitats where behavioral reactions to sounds around the
120 dB threshold have been observed (e.g., Malme et al., 1984, 1988).
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
include impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. The sounds
produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types:
Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction
between these two sound types is important because they have differing
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to
hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see
Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) and
occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed
sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient
pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period
that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and
minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce
physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g.,
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems (such as
those used by the U.S. Navy). The duration of such sounds, as received
at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a
pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact
hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a
potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005).
Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the
weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers
produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be
180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs
generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et
al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity
of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of
time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals,
and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the
frequency ranges marine
[[Page 46553]]
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on measured or estimated hearing
ranges on the basis of available behavioral data, audiograms derived
using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. The lower and/or upper frequencies for some of these
functional hearing groups have been modified from those designated by
Southall et al. (2007). The functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges do
not necessarily correspond to the range of best hearing, which varies
by species):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Functional hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz (extended
from 22 kHz; Watkins, 1986; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein, 2007;
Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; now considered to
include two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus on the basis of recent
echolocation data and genetic data [May-Collado and Agnarsson, 2006;
Kyhn et al. 2009, 2010; Tougaard et al. 2010]): Functional hearing is
estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
Pinnipeds in water: Functional hearing is estimated to
occur between approximately 75 Hz to 100 kHz for Phocidae (true seals)
and between 100 Hz and 40 kHz for Otariidae (eared seals), with the
greatest sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz. The
pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al.,
2013).
Two cetacean species are expected to potentially be affected by the
specified activity. The bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins are
classified as mid-frequency cetaceans.
Acoustic Effects, Underwater
Potential Effects of Pile Driving Sound--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., 2004; 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 are typically more structurally
complex, which leads to rapid sound attenuation. In addition,
substrates that are soft (e.g., sand) 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 the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species would be
expected to result from physiological and behavioral responses to both
the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008).
The type and severity of behavioral impacts are more difficult to
define due to limited studies addressing the behavioral effects of
impulsive sounds on marine mammals. Potential effects from impulsive
sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral
disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury
of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
et al., 1973).
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--Marine mammals
exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt
et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be permanent (PTS),
in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not recoverable, or
temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Marine mammals depend on
acoustic cues for vital biological functions, (e.g., orientation,
communication, finding prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS may result
in reduced fitness in survival and reproduction. However, this depends
on the frequency and duration of TTS, as well as the biological context
in which it occurs. TTS of limited duration, occurring in a frequency
range that does not coincide with that used for recognition of
important acoustic cues, would have little to no effect on an animal's
fitness. Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. PTS
constitutes injury, but TTS does not (Southall et al., 2007). The
following subsections discuss in somewhat more detail the possibilities
of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical effects.
Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter,
1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound
must be stronger in order to be heard. In terrestrial mammals, TTS can
last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). For sound
exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity
in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure
to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to
elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the
published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of
sound. Available data on TTS in marine mammals are summarized in
Southall et al. (2007).
Given the available data, the received level of a single pulse
(with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re
1 [mu]Pa\2\-s (i.e., 186 dB sound exposure level [SEL] or approximately
221-226 dB p-p [peak]) in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to
several strong pulses that each have received levels near 190 dB rms
(175-180 dB SEL) might result in cumulative exposure of approximately
186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS
threshold is (to a first approximation) a function of the total
received pulse energy.
The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies
on
[[Page 46554]]
the bottlenose dolphin and beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). There
is no published TTS information for other species of cetaceans.
However, preliminary evidence from a harbor porpoise exposed to pulsed
sound suggests that its TTS threshold may have been lower (Lucke et
al., 2009). As summarized above, data that are now available imply that
TTS is unlikely to occur unless odontocetes are exposed to pile driving
pulses stronger than 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms.
Permanent Threshold Shift--When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be
total or partial deafness, while in other cases the animal has an
impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter,
1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of sound
can cause PTS in any marine mammal. However, given the possibility that
mammals close to a sound source might incur TTS, there has been further
speculation about the possibility that some individuals might incur
PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of
permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single
exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit
PTS.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and
other terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at a received sound level at
least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS if the animal were
exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise time. Based on data from
terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS
threshold for impulse sounds (such as pile driving pulses as received
close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on
a peak-pressure basis and probably greater than 6 dB (Southall et al.,
2007). On an SEL basis, Southall et al. (2007) estimated that received
levels would need to exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for
there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for cetaceans, Southall et al. (2007)
estimate that the PTS threshold might be an M-weighted SEL (for the
sequence of received pulses) of approximately 198 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s
(15 dB higher than the TTS threshold for an impulse). Given the higher
level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is
considerably less likely that PTS could occur.
Measured source levels from impact pile driving can be as high as
214 dB rms. Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience
TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities,
captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in
behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds (Finneran et al., 2000,
2002, 2005). The animals tolerated high received levels of sound before
exhibiting aversive behaviors. Experiments on a beluga whale showed
that exposure to a single watergun impulse at a received level of 207
kPa (30 psi) p-p, which is equivalent to 228 dB p-p, resulted in a 7
and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively.
Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within
four minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). Although the
source level of pile driving from one hammer strike is expected to be
much lower than the single watergun impulse cited here, animals being
exposed for a prolonged period to repeated hammer strikes could receive
more sound exposure in terms of SEL than from the single watergun
impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s) in the aforementioned
experiment (Finneran et al., 2002). However, in order for marine
mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the animals have to be close enough
to be exposed to high intensity sound levels for a prolonged period of
time. Based on the best scientific information available, these SPLs
are far below the thresholds that could cause TTS or the onset of PTS.
Non-auditory Physiological Effects--Non-auditory physiological
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals
exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological
effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ
or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). Studies
examining such effects are limited. In general, little is known about
the potential for pile driving to cause auditory impairment or other
physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such
effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short
distances from the sound source and to activities that extend over a
prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a
specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be
expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful quantitative
predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be
affected in those ways. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance
of pile driving, including some odontocetes and some pinnipeds, are
especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or non-auditory
physical effects.
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes
in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement.
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific
and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007).
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. Behavioral state may affect the type of response as well. For
example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in
response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly
motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995;
NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed
pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound
sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources
(typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices, but also
including pile driving) have been varied but often consist of avoidance
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and
Symonds, 2002; Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004;
Wartzok et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Responses to continuous
sound, such as vibratory pile installation, have not been documented as
well as responses to pulsed sounds.
With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of
pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes in an
animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These
behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995): Changing
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke
[[Page 46555]]
slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are
located; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water
from haul-outs or rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out
time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006).
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant
behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on
growth, survival, or reproduction include:
Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as
those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic
environment; and
Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to
predict (Southall et al., 2007).
Auditory Masking
Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or
interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to hear other sounds.
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 important to distinguish TTS
and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which
occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in
TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not
considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral
effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound
generated from in-water pile driving is mostly concentrated at low
frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency
echolocation sounds made by porpoises. However, lower frequency man-
made sounds are more likely to affect detection of communication calls
and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey
sound. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near
the sound band and thus reduce the communication space of animals
(e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g.,
Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
Masking has the potential to impact species at the population or
community levels as well as at individual levels. Masking affects both
senders and receivers of the signals and can potentially have long-term
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent
research suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have
increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL)
in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and that most of
these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All
anthropogenic sound sources, such as those from vessel traffic, pile
driving, and dredging activities, contribute to the elevated ambient
sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
The most intense underwater sounds in the proposed action are those
produced by impact pile driving. Given that the energy distribution of
pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these
sources would likely be within the audible range of marine mammals
present in the project area. Impact pile driving activity is relatively
short-term, with rapid pulses occurring for approximately fifteen
minutes per pile. The probability for impact pile driving resulting
from this proposed action masking acoustic signals important to the
behavior and survival of marine mammal species is likely to be
negligible. Vibratory pile driving is also relatively short-term, with
rapid oscillations occurring for approximately one and a half hours per
pile. It is possible that vibratory pile driving resulting from this
proposed action may mask acoustic signals important to the behavior and
survival of marine mammal species, but the short-term duration and
limited affected area would result in insignificant impacts from
masking. 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 NSM would not result in permanent
impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, but may have
potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish 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 in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the main
impact issue associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily
elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine
mammals, as discussed previously in this document. The most likely
impact to marine mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on
likely marine mammal prey (i.e., fish) near NSM and minor impacts to
the immediate substrate during installation and removal of piles during
the wharf construction project.
Pile Driving Effects on Potential Prey (Fish)
Construction activities may produce both pulsed (i.e., impact pile
driving) and continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving) sounds. Fish
react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-
frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or
subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. Hastings and
Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate
to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have
documented effects of pile driving (or other types of sounds) on fish,
although several are based on studies in support of large, multiyear
bridge construction projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper
and Hastings, 2009). Sound pulses at received levels of 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa may cause subtle changes in fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may
cause noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et
al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury
to fish and fish mortality. The most likely impact to fish from pile
driving activities at the project
[[Page 46556]]
area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration
of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but
a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is
anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are
expected to be minor and temporary due to the short timeframe for the
project.
Pile Driving Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat
The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small
compared to the available habitat in nearshore and estuarine waters in
the region. Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) of the immediate
area due to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is also
possible. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile
driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment,
distribution and behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by
fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas
of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity.
In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being
affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action
are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat,
or populations of fish species. Therefore, pile driving is not likely
to have a permanent, adverse effect on marine mammal foraging habitat
at the project area. 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.
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.
Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with
practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment); these values were used to
develop mitigation measures for pile driving activities at NSM. The
ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone that would be
established around each pile to prevent Level A harassment to marine
mammals, while providing estimates of the areas within which Level B
harassment might occur. In addition to the specific measures described
later in this section, the Navy would conduct briefings between
construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and
Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when
new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and
operational procedures.
Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving
The following measures would apply to the Navy's mitigation through
shutdown and disturbance zones:
Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities, the Navy will
establish a shutdown zone intended to contain the area in which SPLs
equal or exceed the 190 dB rms acoustic injury criteria. The purpose of
a shutdown zone is to define an area within which shutdown of activity
would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an
animal entering the defined area), thus preventing injury of marine
mammals (as described previously under Potential Effects of the
Specified Activity on Marine Mammals, serious injury or death are
unlikely outcomes even in the absence of mitigation measures). Modeled
radial distances for shutdown zones are shown in Table 3. However, a
minimum shutdown zone of 15 m (which is larger than the maximum
predicted injury zone) will be established during all pile driving
activities, regardless of the estimated zone. Vibratory pile driving
activities are not predicted to produce sound exceeding the 190-dB
Level A harassment threshold, but these precautionary measures are
intended to prevent the already unlikely possibility of physical
interaction with construction equipment and to further reduce any
possibility of acoustic injury. For impact driving of steel piles, if
necessary, the radial distance of the shutdown would be established at
40 m.
Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs
equal or exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for impulse and continuous sound,
respectively). Disturbance zones provide utility for monitoring
conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by
establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown
zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of
and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area but
outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of
activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring
is for documenting incidents of Level B harassment; disturbance zone
monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting). Nominal radial distances for disturbance
zones are shown in Table 3. Given the size of the disturbance zone for
vibratory pile driving, it is impossible to guarantee that all animals
would be observed or to make comprehensive observations of fine-scale
behavioral reactions to sound, and only a portion of the zone (e.g.,
what may be reasonably observed by visual observers stationed within
the turning basin) would be observed.
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors
record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The
observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven,
is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a
distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from
the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to
sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of
predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of
observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed
incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to
extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of
actual total takes.
Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring would be conducted before, during,
and after pile driving activities. In addition, observers shall record
all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from
activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with
distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the
shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile segment would be
completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the
shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities would be
halted. Monitoring will take place from fifteen minutes prior to
initiation through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving
activities. Pile driving activities include the time to install or
remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed
between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than
[[Page 46557]]
thirty minutes. Please see the Monitoring Plan (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm), developed by the Navy in
agreement with NMFS, for full details of the monitoring protocols.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable
by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers
are typically trained biologists, with the following minimum
qualifications:
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
Advanced education in biological science, wildlife
management, mammalogy, or related fields (bachelor's degree or higher
is required);
Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience);
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
For this project, we waive the requirement for advanced education,
as the observers will be personnel hired by the engineering contractor
that may not have backgrounds in biological science or related fields.
These observers will be required to watch the Navy's Marine Species
Awareness Training video and shall receive training sufficient to
achieve all other qualifications listed above (where relevant).
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone
will be monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure that it is clear of
marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have
declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be
allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own
volition) and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The
shutdown zone may only be declared clear, and pile driving started,
when the entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by
dark, rain, fog, etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise
during impact pile driving that is already underway, the activity would
be halted.
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone
during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted
and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been
visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have
passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted
throughout the time required to drive a pile.
Soft Start
The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional
protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave
the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically
involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced
energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two
additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy
for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for
impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will
vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in
``bouncing'' of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in
multiple ``strikes.'' For impact driving, we require an initial set of
three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a
thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets.
Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile
driving work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile
driving of thirty minutes or longer.
We have carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures
and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to
preliminarily determine whether they are likely to effect the least
practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1)
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts
to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific
measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the
practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment
only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat
during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as
any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified
activity, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation
measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on
marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat,
[[Page 46558]]
paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result
in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g.,
presence, abundance, distribution, density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population,
species, or stock.
Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to
marine mammals.
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Navy's proposed monitoring and reporting is also described in
their Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, on the Internet at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.
Visual Marine Mammal Observations
The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to
construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of
activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained
in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have
no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The
Navy will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before,
during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best
practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, the Navy would
implement the following procedures for pile driving:
MMOs would be located at the best vantage point(s) in
order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the
disturbance zone as possible.
During all observation periods, observers will use
binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.
If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting
conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until
that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving
is underway, the activity would be halted.
The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be
monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after
any pile driving or removal activity.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its
effectiveness using an adaptive approach. Monitoring biologists will
use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek
improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any
modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the
Navy.
Data Collection
We require that observers 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, if any. In addition, the Navy will attempt to
distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the
number of incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the
following information be collected on the sighting forms:
Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel, and if possible,
the correlation to SPLs;
Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
Description of implementation of mitigation measures
(e.g., shutdown or delay);
Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
Other human activity in the area.
Reporting
A draft report would 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.
Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities
The Navy complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under
the previous authorization for the Wharf C-2 project. Marine mammal
monitoring occurred before, during, and after each pile driving event.
During the course of these activities, the Navy did not exceed the take
levels authorized under the IHA. The Navy has summarized monitoring
results to date in their application, and we will make the required
monitoring report available to the public when submitted. Under the
terms of the previous IHA, the Navy was required to conduct acoustic
monitoring and to submit a report within 75 days of completion. Those
results are not yet available but will be provided upon report
submittal. As noted previously, the Navy has completed approximately
seventy percent of steel pile installation required for the project,
over the course of 28 in-water work days. During this time, 117
observations of bottlenose dolphins have occurred within the defined
Level B harassment zone. No Atlantic spotted dolphins, or any other
species, have been observed.
[[Page 46559]]
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment];
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from
vibratory and impact pile driving and involving temporary changes in
behavior. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected
to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take
by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality is considered
discountable. However, it is unlikely that injurious or lethal takes
would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and
monitoring measures.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior
(e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed
or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute
taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or
the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged
period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially
be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given
the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts
of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many
animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a
given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. In practice,
depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily
and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it
can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals
harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the
activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that
overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In particular, for
stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of
individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per
individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual,
especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or
site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of
foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by
the harassing activity.
The turning basin is not important habitat for marine mammals, as
it is a man-made, semi-enclosed basin with frequent industrial activity
and regular maintenance dredging. The small area of ensonification
extending out of the turning basin into nearshore waters is also not
believed to be of any particular importance, nor is it considered an
area frequented by marine mammals. Bottlenose dolphins may be observed
at any time of year in estuarine and nearshore waters of the action
area, but sightings of other species are rare. Therefore, behavioral
disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with
these activities are expected to affect only a relatively small number
of individual marine mammals, although those effects could be recurring
over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the
project vicinity. The Navy has requested authorization for the
incidental taking of small numbers of bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic
spotted dolphins in the Mayport turning basin and associated nearshore
waters that may result from pile driving during construction activities
associated with the project described previously in this document.
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur
incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent
of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then
consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or
abundance in the project area. We first provide information on
applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals
before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields,
the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the
method of estimating potential incidents of take.
Sound Thresholds
We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an
activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal
such that a take by harassment might occur. To date, no studies have
been conducted that explicitly examine impacts to marine mammals from
pile driving sounds or from which empirical sound thresholds have been
established. These thresholds (Table 2) are used to estimate when
harassment may occur (i.e., when an animal is exposed to levels equal
to or exceeding the relevant criterion) in specific contexts; however,
useful contextual information that may inform our assessment of effects
is typically lacking and we consider these thresholds as step
functions. NMFS is working to revise these acoustic guidelines; for
more information on that process, please visit www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
Table 2--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion Definition Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment Injury (PTS-- 180 dB (cetaceans)/190
(underwater). any level dB (pinnipeds) (rms).
above that
which is known
to cause TTS).
Level B harassment Behavioral 160 dB (impulsive
(underwater). disruption. source)/120 dB
(continuous source)
(rms).
Level B harassment (airborne) Behavioral 90 dB (harbor seals)/100
disruption. dB (other pinnipeds)
(unweighted).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to Sound Thresholds
Underwater Sound Propagation Formula--Pile driving generates
underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine
mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in
acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a
source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater
TL is:
TL = B * log10(R1/R2),
Where:
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the
[[Page 46560]]
initial measurement.
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is
assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface,
resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of
distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs
in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water
surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level
for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A
practical spreading value of fifteen is often used under conditions,
such as at the NSM turning basin, where water increases with depth as
the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected
propagation environment that would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss (4.5 dB
reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance) is assumed
here.
Underwater Sound--The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly
influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the
physical environment in which the activity takes place. A number of
studies, primarily on the west coast, have measured sound produced
during underwater pile driving projects. However, these data are
largely for impact driving of steel pipe piles and concrete piles as
well as vibratory driving of steel pipe piles. We know of no existing
measurements for the specific pile types planned for use at NSM (i.e.,
king piles, paired sheet piles, plastic pipe piles), although some data
exist for single sheet piles. Results of acoustic monitoring are not
yet available for consideration here. It was therefore necessary to
extrapolate from available data to determine reasonable source levels
for this project.
In order to determine reasonable SPLs and their associated effects
on marine mammals that are likely to result from pile driving at NSM,
the Navy first compared linear lengths (in terms of radiative surface
length) of the pile types proposed for use with those for which
measurements of underwater SPLs exist. For example, the total linear
length of a king pile (with width of 17.87 in and height of 41.47 in)
is equivalent to the circumference (i.e., linear length) of a 24-in
diameter pipe pile. Please see Table 6-2 of the Navy's application for
more detail on these comparisons. We recognize that these pile types
may produce sound differently, given different radiative geometries,
and that there may be differences in the frequency spectrum produced,
but believe this to be the best available method of determining proxy
source levels.
We considered existing measurements from similar physical
environments (sandy sediments and water depths greater than 15 ft) for
impact and vibratory driving of 24-in steel pipe piles and for steel
sheet piles. These studies, largely conducted by the Washington State
Department of Transportation and the California Department of
Transportation, show typical values around 160 dB for vibratory driving
of 24-in pipe piles and sheet piles, and around 185-195 dB for impact
driving of similar pipe piles (all measured at 10 m; e.g., Laughlin,
2005a, 2005b; Illingworth and Rodkin, 2010, 2012, 2013; CalTrans,
2012). For vibratory driving, a precautionary value of 163 dB (the
highest representative value; CalTrans, 2012) was selected as a proxy
source value for both sheet piles and king piles. For impact driving of
both sheet piles and king piles (should it be required), a proxy source
value of 189 dB (CalTrans, 2012) was selected for use in acoustic
modeling based on similarity to the physical environment at NSM and
because of the measurement location in mid-water column.
No measurements are known to be available for vibratory driving of
plastic polymer piles, so timber piles were considered as likely to be
the most similar pile material. Although timber piles are typically
installed via impact drivers, Laughlin (2011) reported a mean source
measurement (at 16 m) for vibratory removal of timber piles. This value
(150 dB) was selected as a proxy source value on the basis of
similarity of materials between timber and polymer. CalTrans (2012)
reports one dataset for impact driving of plastic piles (153 dB at 10
m). Please see Tables 6-3 and 6-4 in the Navy's application. All
calculated distances to and the total area encompassed by the marine
mammal sound thresholds are provided in Table 3.
Table 3--Distances to Relevant Underwater Sound Thresholds and Areas of Ensonification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance (m) Area (sq km)
Pile type Method Threshold \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel (sheet and king piles)...... Vibratory............ Level A harassment n/a 0
(180 dB).
Level B harassment 7,356 2.9
(120 dB).
Impact............... Level A harassment 40 0.004
(180 dB).
Level B harassment 858 0.67
(160 dB).
Polymeric (plastic fender piles).. Vibratory............ Level A harassment n/a 0
(180 dB).
Level B harassment 1,585 0.88
(120 dB).
Impact............... Level A harassment n/a 0
(180 dB).
Level B harassment 3.4 0.00004
(160 dB).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas presented take into account attenuation and/or shadowing by land. Calculated distances to relevant
thresholds cannot be reached in most directions form source piles. Please see Figures 6-1 through 6-3 in the
Navy's application.
The Mayport turning basin does not represent open water, or free
field, conditions. Therefore, sounds would attenuate as per the
confines of the basin, and may only reach the full estimated distances
to the harassment thresholds via the narrow, east-facing entrance
channel. Distances shown in Table 1 are estimated for free-field
conditions, but areas are calculated per the actual conditions of the
action area. See Figures 6-1 through 6-3 of the Navy's application for
a depiction of areas in which each underwater sound threshold is
predicted to occur at the project area due to pile driving.
Marine Mammal Densities
For all species, the best scientific information available was
considered for use in the marine mammal take assessment calculations.
Density value for the Atlantic spotted dolphin is from recent density
estimates produced by Roberts et al. (2015); we use the highest
[[Page 46561]]
relevant seasonal density value (spring). Density for bottlenose
dolphins is derived from site-specific surveys conducted by the Navy;
it is not currently possible to identify observed individuals to stock.
This survey effort consists of 24 half-day observation periods covering
mornings and afternoons during four seasons (December 10-13, 2012,
March 4-7, 2013, June 3-6, 2013, and September 9-12, 2013). During each
observation period, two observers (a primary observer at an elevated
observation point and a secondary observer at ground level) monitored
for the presence of marine mammals in the turning basin (0.712 km\2\)
and an additional grid east of the basin entrance. Observers tracked
marine mammal movements and behavior within the observation area, with
observations recorded for five-minute intervals every half-hour.
Morning sessions typically ran from 7:00-11:30 and afternoon sessions
from 1:00 to 5:30.
Most observations were of individuals or pairs, although larger
groups were occasionally observed (median number of dolphins observed
ranged from 1-3.5 across seasons). Densities were calculated using
observational data from the primary observer supplemented with data
from the secondary observer for grids not visible by the primary
observer. Season-specific density was then adjusted by applying a
correction factor for observer error (i.e., perception bias). The
seasonal densities range from 1.98603 (winter) to 4.15366 (summer)
dolphins/km\2\. We conservatively use the largest density value to
assess take, as the Navy does not have specific information about when
in-water work may occur during the proposed period of validity.
Description of Take Calculation
The following assumptions are made when estimating potential
incidents of take:
All marine mammal individuals potentially available are
assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally
taken;
An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period;
and,
There will be 27 total days of vibratory driving
(seventeen days for steel piles and ten days for plastic piles) and
twenty days of impact pile driving.
Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant
thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following
calculation:
Exposure estimate = (n * ZOI) * days of total activity
Where:
n = density estimate used for each species/season
ZOI = sound threshold ZOI area; the area encompassed by all
locations where the SPLs equal or exceed the threshold being
evaluated
n * ZOI produces an estimate of the abundance of animals that could
be present in the area for exposure, and is rounded to the nearest
whole number before multiplying by days of total activity.
The ZOI impact area is estimated using the relevant distances in
Table 3, taking into consideration the possible affected area with
attenuation due to the constraints of the basin. Because the basin
restricts sound from propagating outward, with the exception of the
east-facing entrance channel, the radial distances to thresholds are
not generally reached.
There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents
of take may be conservative, assuming that available density or
abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate. We assume, in
the absence of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that
the output of the calculation represents the number of individuals that
may be taken by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of
stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident
animals may be present, this number more realistically represents the
number of incidents of take that may accrue to a smaller number of
individuals. While pile driving can occur any day throughout the in-
water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis,
only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given
day) is actually spent pile driving. The potential effectiveness of
mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not
quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these
take estimates may be conservative.
The quantitative exercise described above indicates that no
incidents of Level A harassment would be expected, independent of the
implementation of required mitigation measures. The twenty days of
contingency impact driving considered here could include either steel
or plastic piles on any of the days; because the ZOI for impact driving
of steel piles subsumes the ZOI for impact driving of plastic piles, we
consider only the former here. See Table 4 for total estimated
incidents of take.
Table 4--Calculations for Incidental Take Estimation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Total proposed
Species n (animals/ Activity n * ZOI \1\ authorized authorized
km\2\) takes \2\ takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin........... 4.15366......... Impact driving 3 60 \3\ 304
(steel).
Vibratory 12 204
driving
(steel).
Vibratory 4 40
driving
(plastic).
Atlantic spotted dolphin..... 0.005402 Impact driving 0 0 0
(spring). (steel).
Vibratory 0 0
driving
(steel).
Vibratory 0 0
driving
(plastic).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Table 3 for relevant ZOIs. The product of this calculation is rounded to the nearest whole number.
\2\ The product of n * ZOI is multiplied by the total number of activity-specific days to estimate the number of
takes.
\3\ It is impossible to estimate from available information which stock these takes may accrue to.
Analyses and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact Analysis
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . .
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.'' A negligible impact finding is based on the
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of
Level B harassment 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''
[[Page 46562]]
through behavioral harassment, we consider 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 the number and nature of estimated Level A
harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on
habitat.
Pile driving activities associated with the wharf construction
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 minimized through the construction method and the
implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically,
vibratory hammers will be the primary method of installation (impact
driving is included only as a contingency and is not expected to be
required), and this activity does not have the potential to cause
injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels
produced (less than 180 dB) and the lack of potentially injurious
source characteristics. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp
pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach
those peaks. If impact driving is necessary, implementation of soft
start and shutdown zones significantly reduces any possibility of
injury. Given sufficient ``notice'' through use of soft start (for
impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound
source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious.
Environmental conditions in the confined and protected Mayport turning
basin mean that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is
high, enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to
avoid injury.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff,
2006; HDR, Inc., 2012). Most likely, individuals will simply move away
from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of
pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily
only in association with impact pile driving. The pile driving
activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than,
numerous other construction activities conducted in San Francisco Bay
and in the Puget Sound region, which have taken place with no reported
injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse
consequences from behavioral harassment. 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. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small
subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant
realized decrease in viability for the affected individuals, and thus
would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B
harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable 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.
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the
following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or
mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the
anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant
habitat within the project area, including known areas or features of
special significance for foraging or reproduction; (4) the presumed
efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of
the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In
addition, these stocks are not listed under the ESA, although coastal
bottlenose dolphins are designated as depleted under the MMPA. In
combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available
body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the
potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term
effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to
impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result
in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal
take from the Navy's wharf construction activities will have a
negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
As described previously, of the 304 incidents of behavioral
harassment predicted to occur for bottlenose dolphin, we have no
information allowing us to parse those predicted incidents amongst the
three stocks of bottlenose dolphin 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 two of the bottlenose
dolphin stocks, the total predicted number of incidents of take
authorized would be considered small--approximately three percent for
the southern migratory stock and less than 25 percent for the northern
Florida coastal stock--even if each estimated taking occurred to a new
individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario as, for bottlenose
dolphins in estuarine and nearshore waters, there is likely to be some
overlap in individuals present day-to-day.
The total number of authorized takes proposed for bottlenose
dolphins, if assumed to accrue solely to new individuals of the JES
stock, is higher relative to the total stock abundance, which is
currently considered unknown. However, these numbers represent the
estimated incidents of take, not the number of individuals taken. That
is, it is highly likely that a relatively small subset of JES
bottlenose dolphins would be harassed by project activities. JES
bottlenose dolphins range from Cumberland Sound at the Georgia-Florida
border south to approximately Palm Coast, Florida, an area spanning
over 120 linear km of coastline and including habitat consisting of
complex inshore and estuarine waterways. JES dolphins, divided by
Caldwell (2001) into Northern and Southern groups, show strong site
fidelity and, although members of both groups have been observed
outside their preferred areas, it is likely that the majority of JES
dolphins would not occur within waters ensonified by project
activities. Further, although the largest area of ensonification is
predicted to extend up to 7.5 km offshore from NSM, estuarine dolphins
are generally considered as restricted to inshore waters and only 1-2
km offshore. In summary, JES dolphins are (1) known to form two groups
and exhibit strong site fidelity
[[Page 46563]]
(i.e., individuals do not generally range throughout the recognized
overall JES stock range); (2) would not occur at all in a significant
portion of the larger ZOI extending offshore from NSM; and (3) the
specified activity will be stationary within an enclosed basin not
recognized as an area of any special significance that would serve to
attract or aggregate dolphins. We therefore believe that the estimated
numbers of takes, were they to occur, likely represent repeated
exposures of a much smaller number of bottlenose dolphins and that
these estimated incidents of take represent small numbers of bottlenose
dolphins.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures, we preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals
will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or
stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated
by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of
affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be
affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that
section 7 consultation under the ESA are not required.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the
Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct,
indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from
the pier maintenance project. NMFS made the Navy's EA available to the
public for review and comment, in relation to its suitability for
adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the human
environment of issuance of an IHA to the Navy. Also in compliance with
NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6, NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA, determined it to be sufficient, and
adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
on November 20, 2013.
We have reviewed the Navy's application for a renewed IHA for
ongoing construction activities for 2015-16 and preliminary results of
required marine mammal monitoring. Based on that review, we have
determined that the proposed action is very similar to that considered
in the previous IHA. In addition, no significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns have been identified.
Thus, we have determined preliminarily that the preparation of a new or
supplemental NEPA document is not necessary, and will, after review of
public comments determine whether or not to reaffirm our 2013 FONSI.
The 2013 NEPA documents are available for review at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to
authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's wharf
project, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated. Specific language from the
proposed IHA is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA. The wording contained in
this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid for one
year from the date of issuance.
2. This IHA is valid only for pile driving activities associated
with the Wharf C-2 Recapitalization Project at Naval Station Mayport,
Florida.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the Navy, its
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of
this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking is the bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus).
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species listed in condition 3(b). See Table 1 for numbers of take
authorized.
Table 1--Authorized Take Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized
Species take
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin...................................... 304
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or
death of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or
any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may
result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(e) The Navy shall conduct briefings between construction
supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and Navy staff
prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel
join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational
procedures.
4. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measures:
(a) For all pile driving, the Navy shall implement a minimum
shutdown zone of 15 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes
within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease.
For impact driving of steel piles, the minimum shutdown zone shall be
of 40 m radius.
(b) The Navy shall establish monitoring locations as described
below. Please also refer to the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan
(Monitoring Plan; attached).
i. For all pile driving activities, a minimum of two observers
shall be deployed, with one positioned to achieve optimal monitoring of
the shutdown zone and the second positioned to achieve optimal
monitoring of surrounding waters of the turning basin, the entrance to
that basin, and portions of the Atlantic Ocean. If practicable, the
second observer should be deployed to an elevated position, preferably
opposite Wharf C-2 and with clear sight lines to the wharf and out the
entrance channel.
ii. These observers shall record all observations of marine
mammals, regardless of distance from the pile being driven, as well as
behavior and potential behavioral reactions of the animals.
Observations within the turning basin shall be distinguished from those
in the entrance channel and nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
iii. All observers shall be equipped for communication of marine
mammal observations amongst themselves and to other relevant personnel
(e.g., those necessary to effect activity delay or shutdown).
(c) Monitoring shall take place from fifteen minutes prior to
initiation of pile driving activity through thirty minutes post-
completion of pile driving activity. Pre-activity monitoring shall be
conducted for fifteen minutes to ensure that the shutdown zone is clear
of marine mammals, and pile driving may commence when observers have
[[Page 46564]]
declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals. In the event of a
delay or shutdown of activity resulting from marine mammals in the
shutdown zone, animals shall be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone
(i.e., must leave of their own volition) and their behavior shall be
monitored and documented. Monitoring shall occur throughout the time
required to drive a pile. The shutdown zone must be determined to be
clear during periods of good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown zone
and surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye).
(d) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, all
pile driving activities at that location shall be halted. If pile
driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine 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.
(e) Monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers, as
described in the Monitoring Plan. Trained observers shall be placed
from the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine
mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable
through communication with the equipment operator. Observer training
must be provided prior to project start and in accordance with the
monitoring plan, and shall include instruction on species
identification (sufficient to distinguish the species listed in 3(b)),
description and categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation
of behaviors that may be construed as being reactions to the specified
activity, proper completion of data forms, and other basic components
of biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or
groups of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to
individuals (to the extent possible).
(f) The Navy shall use soft start techniques recommended by NMFS
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.
(g) Pile driving shall only be conducted during daylight hours.
5. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine
mammal monitoring during pile driving activity. Marine mammal
monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the
Monitoring Plan.
(a) The Navy shall collect sighting data and behavioral responses
to pile driving for marine mammal species observed in the region of
activity during the period of activity. All observers shall be trained
in marine mammal identification and behaviors, and shall have no other
construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
(b) For all marine mammal monitoring, the information shall be
recorded as described in the Monitoring Plan.
6. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA
within ninety days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or
sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for projects at
NSM, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and
submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the
draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational
elements described in the Monitoring Plan, at minimum (see attached),
and shall also include:
i. Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns,
including the distance of animals to the pile and description of
specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if
any.
ii. Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of
individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take, such as
ability to track groups or individuals.
iii. An estimated total take estimate extrapolated from the number
of marine mammals observed during the course of construction
activities, if necessary.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
i. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA,
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality,
Navy shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Southeast
Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the
following information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
E. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
F. Fate of the animal(s); and
G. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Navy to
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Navy may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS.
ii. In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less
than a moderate state of decomposition), Navy shall immediately report
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i)
of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Navy to determine
whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the
activities are appropriate.
iii. In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, scavenger damage), Navy shall report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Southeast Regional
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. Navy
shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHAs for Navy's wharf
construction activities. Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to
[[Page 46565]]
help inform our final decision on Navy's request for an MMPA
authorization.
Dated: July 31, 2015.
Angela Somma,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-19184 Filed 8-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P