Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pier Replacement Project in San Diego, CA, 36360-36384 [2017-16453]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36360
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
regulations are issued or, if the taking is
limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed authorization is provided to
the public for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth.
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’
means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill
any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, 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
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Washington Naval installations
covered by this request include Naval
Base Kitsap Bangor, Naval Base Kitsap
Bremerton, Naval Base Kitsap Keyport,
Naval Base Kitsap Manchester,
Zelatched Point, and Naval Station
Everett. To ensure continuance of
necessary missions at these
installations, the Navy must conduct
annual maintenance and repair
activities at existing marine waterfront
structures, including removal and
replacement of piles of various types
and sizes. Exact timing and amount of
necessary in-water work is unknown,
but the Navy estimates replacing up to
822 structurally unsound piles over the
5-year period, including individual
actions currently planned and estimates
for future marine structure repairs.
Construction will include use of impact
and vibratory pile driving, including
removal and installation of steel,
concrete, plastic, and timber piles.
Information Solicited
Interested persons may submit
information, suggestions, and comments
concerning the Navy’s request (see
ADDRESSES). NMFS will consider all
information, suggestions, and comments
related to the request during the
development of proposed regulations
governing the incidental taking of
marine mammals by the Navy, if
appropriate.
Dated: August 1, 2017.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–16454 Filed 8–3–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
On July 24, 2017, NMFS received an
adequate and complete application from
the Navy requesting authorization for
take of marine mammals incidental to
construction activities related to marine
structure maintenance and pile
replacement at five Naval installations
in Washington inland waters. The
requested regulations would be valid for
five years, from 2018 through 2023. The
Navy plans to conduct necessary work,
including impact and vibratory pile
driving, to repair and maintain existing
marine structures at six installations.
The proposed action may incidentally
expose marine mammals occurring in
the vicinity to elevated levels of
underwater sound, thereby resulting in
incidental take, primarily by Level B
harassment but also including some
expected potential for Level A
harassment. Therefore, the Navy
requests authorization to incidentally
take marine mammals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Specified Activities
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XF541
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to a Pier
Replacement Project in San Diego, CA
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to construction and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
demolition activities as part of a pier
replacement project. Pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to the
Navy to incidentally take marine
mammals, by Level B Harassment only,
during the specified activity. NMFS will
consider public comments prior to
making any final decision on the
issuance of the requested MMPA
authorizations and agency responses
will be summarized in the final notice
of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than September 5,
2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the
application 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.McCue@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:
Laura McCue, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as a list
of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.htm. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated
to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by
U.S. citizens who engage in a specified
activity (other than commercial fishing)
within a specified geographical region if
certain findings are made and either
regulations are issued or, if the taking is
limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed authorization is provided to
the public for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth.
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’
means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill
any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, 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).
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization)
with respect to potential impacts on the
human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in CE
B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6A, which do
not individually or cumulatively have
the potential for significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment
and for which we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies
to be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Summary of Request
On June 19, 2017, we received a
request from the Navy for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to pile
installation and demolition associated
with a pier replacement project in San
Diego Bay at Naval Base Point Loma in
San Diego, CA (NBPL), including a
separate monitoring plan. The Navy also
submitted a draft monitoring report on
June 13, 2017, pursuant to requirements
of the previous IHA. These final
application and monitoring plan were
deemed adequate and complete on July
20, 2017. The pier replacement project
is planned to occur over multiple years;
this proposed IHA would cover only the
fifth year of work and would be valid for
a period of one year from the date of
issuance. Hereafter, use of the generic
term ‘‘pile driving’’ may refer to both
pile installation and removal unless
otherwise noted. The Navy’s request is
for take of nine species of marine
mammals by Level B harassment.
Neither the Navy nor NMFS expect
mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Monitoring reports are available
online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm
and provide environmental information
related to proposed issuance of this IHA
for public review and comment.
This proposed IHA would cover one
year of a larger project for which the
Navy obtained prior IHAs and this
request for take authorization is for the
fifth year of the project, following the
IHAs issued effective from October 8,
2016, through October 7, 2017 (81 FR
66628), September 1, 2013, through
August 31, 2014 (78 FR 44539), from
October 8, 2014, through October 7,
2015 (79 FR 65378), and from October
8, 2015, through October 7, 2016 (80 FR
62032). The Navy complied with all the
requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting) of the
previous IHA. Monitoring reports are
available online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm
and provide environmental information
related to proposed issuance of this IHA
for public review and comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36361
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
NBPL provides berthing and support
services for Navy submarines and other
fleet assets. The existing fuel pier serves
as a fuel depot for loading and
unloading tankers and Navy underway
replenishment vessels that refuel ships
at sea (‘‘oilers’’), as well as transferring
fuel to local replenishment vessels and
other small craft operating in San Diego
Bay, and is the only active Navy fueling
facility in southern California. Portions
of the pier are over one hundred years
old, while the newer segment was
constructed in 1942. The pier as a whole
is significantly past its design service
life and does not meet current
construction standards.
The Navy plans to demolish and
remove the existing pier and associated
pipelines and appurtenances while
simultaneously replacing it with a
generally similar structure that meets
relevant standards for seismic strength
and is designed to better accommodate
modern Navy ships. Demolition and
construction are planned to occur in
two phases to maintain the fueling
capabilities of the existing pier while
the new pier is being constructed.
During the fifth year of construction (the
specified activity considered under this
proposed IHA), the Navy anticipates
construction at two locations: The fuel
pier area and at the Naval Mine and
Anti-Submarine Warfare Command
(NMAWC), where the Navy’s Marine
Mammal Program (MMP) was
temporarily moved during fuel pier
construction (see Figure 1–1 in the
Navy’s application). At the fuel pier, the
Navy anticipates finishing all the
demolition, including removal of 180
square precast (PC) concrete and polyconcrete piles of varying sizes up to 24in using a hydraulic pile cutter; cutting
30 66-in and 5 84-in concrete-filled steel
caissons with a diamond wire saw; and
removing 12 30-in steel piles by cutting
with a plasma torch. Only the hydraulic
pile cutting and diamond saw cutting of
caissons reach Level B acoustic
thresholds.
At the NMAWC, twenty-three 16-in
diameter PC concrete guide piles would
be driven (by vibratory and/or impact
hammer) to restore gangway access to
the recreational marina. Sixty-four 16-in
diameter round PC concrete guide piles
will be removed at NMAWC by jetting
followed by dry-pulling; dry pulling
does not reach the Level B acoustic
thresholds. Table 1 summarizes the
construction activities during the fifth
year of the Navy’s project.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36362
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 1—CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TO BE COMPLETE DURING FIFTH YEAR OF NBPL PROJECT
Location and pile type or structure
Number
Removal/Demolition
Pier 180 (Fuel Pier):
Poly-concrete and PC concrete piles up to 24-in square ............................................................................................................
66″ concrete filled steel caissons .................................................................................................................................................
84″ concrete filled steel caissons .................................................................................................................................................
30″ steel at temporary south dolphin ...........................................................................................................................................
Total—Pier 180 (Fuel Pier) ...................................................................................................................................................
NMAWC:
Extract 16″ PC round concrete ....................................................................................................................................................
180
30
5
12
227
64
Total—NMAWC .....................................................................................................................................................................
64
Total Piles Removed ......................................................................................................................................................
291
Installation
NMAWC:
16″ PC concrete guide piles ........................................................................................................................................................
23
Total Piles Removed ......................................................................................................................................................
23
Notes: PC = precast.
The proposed actions with the
potential to incidentally harass marine
mammals within the waters adjacent to
NBPL are vibratory and impact pile
installation and certain demolition (i.e.,
pile removal) techniques. Concurrent
use of multiple pile driving rigs is not
planned.
Dates and Duration
The proposed activities that would be
authorized by this IHA, during the fifth
year of work associated with the fuel
pier project, would occur for one year
from the date of issuance of this
proposed IHA. Under the terms of a
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
between the Navy and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), all noise- and
turbidity-producing in-water activities
in designated least tern foraging habitat
are to be avoided during the period
when least terns are present and
engaged in nesting and foraging (a
window from approximately May 1
through September 15). However, it is
possible that in-water work not
expected to result in production of
significant noise or turbidity (e.g.,
demolition activities) could occur at any
time during the period of validity of this
proposed IHA. The conduct of any such
work would be subject to approval from
FWS under the terms of the MOU. We
expect that in-water construction work
would primarily occur from October
through April. Pile driving would occur
during normal working hours
(approximately 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.), and
would not occur earlier than 45 minutes
after sunrise or later than 45 minutes
before sunset.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
Specific Geographic Region
NBPL is located on the peninsula of
Point Loma near the mouth and along
the northern edge of San Diego Bay (see
Figures 1–1 and 1–2 in the Navy’s
application). San Diego Bay is a narrow,
crescent-shaped natural embayment
oriented northwest-southeast with an
approximate length of 24 kilometers
(km) and a total area of roughly 4,500
hectares (ha). The width of the bay
ranges from 0.3 to 5.8 km, and depths
range from 23 meters (m) mean lower
low water (MLLW) near the tip of
Ballast Point to less than 2 m at the
southern end (see Figure 2–1 of the
Navy’s application). San Diego Bay is a
heavily urbanized area with a mix of
industrial, military, and recreational
uses. The northern and central portions
of the bay have been shaped by historic
dredging to support large ship
navigation. Dredging occurs as
necessary to maintain constant depth
within the navigation channel. Outside
the navigation channel, the bay floor
consists of platforms at depths that vary
slightly. Sediments in northern San
Diego Bay are relatively sandy as tidal
currents tend to keep the finer silt and
clay fractions in suspension, except in
harbors and elsewhere in the lee of
structures where water movement is
diminished. Much of the shoreline
consists of riprap and manmade
structures. San Diego Bay is heavily
used by commercial, recreational, and
military vessels, with an average of over
80,000 vessel movements (in or out of
the bay) per year (not including
recreational boating within the Bay) (see
Table 2–2 of the Navy’s application).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For more information about the specific
geographic region, please see section 2.3
of the Navy’s application.
Detailed Description of Activities
In order to provide context, we
described the entire project in our
Federal Register notice of proposed
authorization associated with the firstyear IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013).
Please see that document for an
overview of the entire fuel pier
replacement project, or see the Navy’s
Environmental Assessment (2013) for
more detail. Here, we provide an
overview of relevant construction
methods before describing only the
specific project portions scheduled for
completion during the fifth work
window. Please see Section 1 of the
Navy’s application for full detail of
construction scheduling for this period.
For the fifth year of work,
approximately 23 concrete piles would
be installed at NMAWC. The Navy does
not anticipate needing future IHAs
related to completion of construction at
NBPL, but would apply for a sixth IHA
if construction is not completed under
this IHA.
Methods, Pile Installation—Vibratory
hammers, which can be used to either
install or extract a pile, contain a system
of counter-rotating eccentric weights
powered by hydraulic motors and are
designed in such a way that horizontal
vibrations cancel out, while vertical
vibrations are transmitted into the pile.
The pile driving machine is lifted and
positioned over the pile by means of an
excavator or crane, and is fastened to
the pile by a clamp and/or bolts. The
vibrations produced cause liquefaction
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
of the substrate surrounding the pile,
enabling the pile to be extracted or
driven into the ground using the weight
of the pile plus the hammer. Impact
hammers use a rising and falling piston
to repeatedly strike a pile and drive it
into the ground.
Non-steel piles are typically impactdriven for their entire embedment
depth, in part because non-steel piles
are often displacement piles (as opposed
to pipe piles) and require some impact
to allow substrate penetration. However,
jetting may be used to advance
displacement piles to a certain
embedment depth. Pile jetting utilizes a
directed flow of pressurized water to
assist in pile placement. The jetting
technique liquefies the soils at the pile
tip during pile placement, reducing the
friction between adjacent sub-grade soil
particles around the water jet. This
greatly decreases the bearing capacity of
the soils below the pile tip, causing the
pile to descend toward its final tip
elevation with much less soil resistance,
largely under its own weight.
Methods, Pile Removal—There are
multiple methods for pile removal.
During previous demolition, piles were
generally removed by cutting at the
mudline, which can be accomplished in
various ways. Piles are expected to be
removed during this fifth-year IHA
primarily using a pile cutter, which is
a bladed hydraulic device that shears
the pile off. The preferred method of
removing the caisson elements is to cut
them at the mudline and then into two
sections using a diamond wire cutting
saw. Existing caisson elements would be
removed with a clamshell, which is a
dredging bucket consisting of two
similar halves that open/close at the
bottom and are hinged at the top. The
clamshell would be used to grasp and
lift large components.
Piles may also be removed by simply
dry pulling, or pulling after the pile has
been loosened using a vibratory hammer
or a pneumatic chipper. Jetting may be
another option to loosen piles that could
not be removed through the previous
procedures. Pile removal is not
generally expected to require the use of
vibratory extraction or pneumatic
chipping, and these methods are
considered as contingency in the event
other methods of extraction are not
successful.
Construction—Construction work
during the proposed fifth year of activity
would include driving of concrete piles
to restore dock access at NMAWC
following Navy Marine Mammal
Program (MMP) removal from NMAWC.
This work is expected to require a total
of 25 days.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
Demolition—Demolition of the old
pier will be completed now that the new
pier is operational. Much of the
demolition work will be above-water,
involving removal of the pier, pilings,
plastic camels and fenders, but in-water
structure removal will also occur, as
described above under Methods, Pile
Removal. The in-water portion of
demolition work planned during the
period of this proposed IHA is expected
to require 156 days in total.
NMAWC—As described above, the
Navy also plans to return the MMP to
its permanent location near the fuel
pier, requiring extraction and
installation of concrete piles to return
the NMAWC site to its original
condition. This work is expected to
require 15 days.
Description of Work Accomplished
During the first in-water work season
(2013–14), two primary activities were
conducted: Relocation of the MMP and
the Indicator Pile Program (IPP). During
the second in-water work season (2014–
15), the IPP was concluded and
simultaneous construction of the new
pier and demolition of the old pier
begun. Production pile driving
continued during the third in-water
work season (2015–16). During the
fourth in-water work season (2016–17)
pile driving of fender piles and
structural piles for the mooring
dolphins for the new fuel pier was
conducted, including two IPP piles,
demolition of the old fuel pier, and pile
driving and extraction at NMAWC.
The Navy MMP, administered by
Space and Naval Warfare Systems
(SPAWAR) Command Systems Center
(SSC), was moved approximately three
kilometers to the NMAWC (see Figures
1–1 and 1–2 of the Navy’s Year 1
monitoring report). Although not subject
to the MMPA, SSC’s working animals
were temporarily relocated so that they
will not be affected by the project. Over
the course of 25 in-water construction
days from January 28 to March 13, 2014,
the Navy removed thirty and installed
81 concrete piles (12- and 16-in). See
Table 3–2 of the Navy’s Year 1
monitoring report for details.
Installation was accomplished via a
D19–42 American Pile Driving
Equipment, Inc. (APE) diesel hammer
with energy capacity of 23,566–42,800
ft-lbs and fitted with a hydraulic
tripping cylinder with four adjustable
power settings that could be reset while
driving. Pile removal was accomplished
by jetting and dead pull.
The IPP was designed to validate the
length of pile required and the method
of installation (vibratory and impact) as
well as to validate acoustic sound
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36363
pressure levels of the various sizes and
locations (i.e., shallow versus deeper
water) of installed piles. Nine steel pipe
test piles were vibratory- and impactdriven over ten work days from April 28
to May 15, 2014, including two 30-in
and seven 36-in piles. All piles were
initially installed using an APE Variable
Moment 250 VM Vibratory Hammer
Extractor powered by a model 765
hydraulic power source creating a
maximum driving force of 2,389
kilonewtons (269 tons). Impact pile
driving equipment consisted of a single
acting diesel impact hammer model
D62–22 DELMAG with energy capacity
of 76,899–153,799 ft-lbs and fitted with
a hydraulic tripping cylinder with four
adjustable power settings that could be
reset while driving. One additional 36in pile was installed in Spring 2015,
under the Year 2 IHA, to conclude the
IPP.
Production pile driving associated
with construction of the new pier was
begun in Fall 2014 and continued into
Spring 2015. Both vibratory and impact
driving was used, as described above, to
install 238 steel pipe piles (four 18-in,
31 30-in, and 203 36-in diameter).
Hammers used were the same as those
described above. Demolition activity
began in Spring 2015, and included the
removal of four caissons, eighteen
concrete fender piles, and a portion of
concrete decking from the existing fuel
pier. In total, this work consisted of 100
days of activity from October 16, 2014,
through April 29, 2015. Of these 100
days of in-water work, 18 days involved
only impact driving, 15 days included
only vibratory driving, and 65 days
where both types of driving occurred.
The remaining two days involved only
demolition activities. Please see the
Year 2 monitoring report for more
information.
Production pile driving continued in
early 2016 during three distinct
construction periods from January 11
through April 30, 2016, with 161 piles
installed over the course of 50 days.
Because most structural steel pipe piles
were installed under the Year 2 IHA,
this work primarily involved placement
of non-structural concrete fender piles.
Both vibratory and impact driving was
used, as described above, to install 132
16-in polycarbonate coated concrete
fender piles and 23 24 x 30-in concrete
fender piles. In addition, six 30-in steel
pipe piles were installed as structural
elements to support a mooring dolphin.
Hammers used for the steel piles were
the same as those described above. The
16-in concrete piles were driven using
an APE single action diesel impact
hammer model D25–32, with energy
capacity of 29,484–58,245 ft-lbs and
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36364
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
fitted with a manual power level
modulator and shut off trip. The 24 x
30-in concrete piles were driven using
an APE single action diesel impact
hammer model D80–42, with energy
capacity of 127,008–198,450 ft-lbs and
fitted with a manual power level
modulator and shut off trip. No
demolition occurred during this period.
Of the 50 days of in-water work, 45 days
involved only impact driving, two days
included only vibratory driving, and
three days where both types of driving
occurred. Please see the Year 3
monitoring report for more information.
Production pile driving during Year 4
construction, from October 8, 2016 to
April 30, 2017, included 68 piles of
three types of piles driven with two
different methods over 34 days: 30-in
steel piles were driven with both
vibratory and impact hammers, and the
24 x 30-in concrete and 16-in polyconcrete piles were installed with
impact hammers. High pressure water
jetting were used to ‘‘pre-drill’’ holes for
the 24 x 30 in piles. In addition,
Structural piles were installed for two
dolphins to the south of the new fuel
pier, fender piles were installed on the
east and west sides of the new fuel pier
as well as on one of the dolphins, and
a single 16-inch poly-concrete pile
(concrete pile lined with a
polycarbonate outer sheath) was driven
on the west side of the pier.
Demolition during Year 4 included
removal of the caissons from the north
side of the old fuel pier, as well as
removal of structural and fender piles
sizes under, and adjacent to, the south
and north sections of the old pier.
Eighteen 84-in caissons were cut using
a wire saw. A total of 278 piles were
clipped, including 14-in, 18-in, and 24in fender piles and 13-in polycarbonate
and poly-concrete piles. Of the 69 days
of in-water work, 42 days involved pile
clipping and 27 days involved pile
cutting. Please see the Year 4
monitoring report for more information.
Additional work may be conducted
under the existing IHA between
September 15 and October 7, 2017, in
which case the submitted monitoring
report would be amended as necessary.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
Species with the expected potential to
be present during all or a portion of the
in-water work window include the
California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), harbor seal (Phoca
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
vitulina richardii), northern elephant
seal (Mirounga angustirostris), gray
whale (Eschrichtius robustus),
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus
truncatus), Pacific white-sided dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), Risso’s
dolphin (Grampus griseus), and either
short-beaked or long-beaked common
dolphins (Delphinus spp.). California
sea lions are present year-round and are
very common in the project area, while
bottlenose dolphins and harbor seals are
common and likely to be present yearround but with more variable
occurrence in San Diego Bay. Gray
whales may be observed in San Diego
Bay sporadically during migration
periods. The remaining species are
known to occur in nearshore waters
outside San Diego Bay, but are generally
only rarely observed near or in the bay.
However, recent observations indicate
that these species may occur in the
project area and therefore could
potentially be subject to incidental
harassment from the aforementioned
activities.
There are four marine mammal
species which are either resident or
have known seasonal occurrence in the
vicinity of San Diego Bay, including the
California sea lion, harbor seal,
bottlenose dolphin, and gray whale (see
Figures 3–1 through 3–4 and 4–1 in the
Navy’s application). In addition,
common dolphins (see Figure 3–4 in the
Navy’s application), the Pacific whitesided dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, and
northern elephant seals are known to
occur in deeper waters in the vicinity of
San Diego Bay and/or have been
observed within the bay during the
course of this project’s monitoring.
Although the latter three species of
cetacean would not generally be
expected to occur within the project
area, the potential for changes in
occurrence patterns in conjunction with
recent observations leads us to believe
that authorization of incidental take is
warranted. Common dolphins have been
documented regularly at the Navy’s
nearby Silver Strand Training Complex,
and were observed in the project area
during previous years of project activity.
The Pacific white-sided dolphin has
been sighted along a previously used
transect on the opposite side of the
Point Loma peninsula (Merkel and
Associates, 2008) and there were several
observations of Pacific white-sided
dolphins during Year 2 monitoring.
Risso’s dolphin is fairly common in
southern California coastal waters (e.g.,
Campbell et al., 2010), and could occur
in the bay. Northern elephant seals are
included based on their continuing
increase in numbers along the Pacific
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
coast (Carretta et al., 2016) and the
likelihood that animals that reproduce
on the islands offshore of Baja California
and mainland Mexico—where the
population is also increasing—could
move through the project area during
migration, as well as the observation of
a juvenile seal near the fuel pier in April
2015.
Note that common dolphins could be
either short-beaked (Delphinus delphis
delphis) or long-beaked (D. delphis
bairdii) subspecies. While it is likely
that common dolphins observed in the
project area would be long-beaked, as it
is the most frequently stranded species
in the area from San Diego Bay to the
U.S.-Mexico border (Danil and St. Leger
2011), the species distributions overlap
and it is unlikely that observers would
be able to differentiate them in the field.
Therefore, we consider that any
common dolphins observed—and any
incidental take of common dolphins—
could be either long- or short-beaked
common dolphins.
In addition, other species that occur
in the Southern California Bight may
have the potential for isolated
occurrence within San Diego Bay or just
offshore. In particular, a short-finned
pilot whale (Globicephala
macrorhynchus) was observed off
Ballast Point, and a Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis) was
seen in the project area during Year 2.
These species are not typically observed
near the project area and, unlike the
previously mentioned species, we do
not believe it likely that they will occur
in the future. Given the unlikelihood of
their exposure to sound generated from
the project, these species are not
considered further.
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history, of the potentially
affected species. Additional information
regarding population trends and threats
may be found in NMFS’s Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR;
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more
general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s
Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
species/mammals/).
Table 2 lists all marine mammal
species with expected potential for
occurrence in the vicinity of NBPL
during the project timeframe and
summarizes key information, including
regulatory status under the MMPA and
ESA and potential biological removal
(PBR), where known. See also Figures
3–1 through 3–5 of the Navy’s
application for observed occurrence of
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
marine mammals in the project area. For
taxonomy, we follow Committee on
Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the
MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing
that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as
described in NMFS’s SARs). While no
mortality is anticipated or authorized
here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources
are included here as gross indicators of
the status of the species and other
threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’s stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
36365
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’s U.S. 2016 stock assessment
report (SARs) (e.g., NMFS 2016). All
values presented in Table 2 are the most
recent available at the time of
publication and are available in the
2016 SAR (available online at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars).
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF NBPL
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 in
San Diego Bay; season
of occurrence
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Eschrichtiidae
Gray whale ....................
Eastern North Pacific ....
-; N
20,990 (0.05; 20,125;
2011).
624
132
Occasional migratory
visitor; winter.
2.7
8,393
≥2.0
≥40
Common; year-round.
Occasional; year-round
(but more common in
warm season).
Occasional; year-round
(but more common in
warm season).
Uncommon; year-round.
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae
Bottlenose dolphin .........
Short-beaked common
dolphin.
California coastal ..........
California/Oregon/Washington.
-; N
-; N
453 (0.06; 346; 2011) ...
969,861 (0.17; 839,325;
2014).
Long-beaked common
dolphin.
California .......................
-; N
101,305 (0.49; 68,432;
2014).
657
≥35.4
Pacific white-sided dolphin.
Risso’s dolphin ..............
California/Oregon/Washington.
California/Oregon/Washington.
-; N
26,814 (0.28; 21,195;
2014).
6,336 (0.32; 4,817;
2014).
191
7.5
46
≥3.7
Rare; year-round (but
more common in cool
season).
9,200
389
Abundant; year-round.
1,641
43
Common; year-round.
4,882
8.8
Rare; year-round.
-; N
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
California sea lion ..........
U.S. ...............................
-; N
296,750 (n/a; 153,337;
2011).
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
Harbor seal ....................
California .......................
-; N
Northern elephant seal ..
California breeding ........
-; N
30,968 (n/a; 27,348;
2012).
179,000 (n/a; 81,368;
2010).
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is
not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct
human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (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 certain stocks of
pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from
knowledge of the species (or similar species) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these
cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore.
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 species that could potentially
occur in the proposed survey areas are
included in Table 2. As described
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:44 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
below, all eight species (with nine
managed stocks) temporally and
spatially co-occur with the activity to
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the degree that take is reasonably likely
to occur, and we have proposed
authorizing it.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36366
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
Gray Whale
Two populations of gray whales are
recognized, Eastern and Western North
Pacific (ENP and WNP). The two
populations have historically been
considered geographically isolated from
each other; however, recent data from
satellite-tracked whales indicates that
there is some overlap between the
stocks. Two WNP whales were tracked
from Russian foraging areas along the
Pacific rim to Baja California (Mate et
al., 2011), and, in one case where the
satellite tag remained attached to the
whale for a longer period, a WNP whale
was tracked from Russia to Mexico and
back again (IWC, 2012). Between 22–24
WNP whales are known to have
occurred in the eastern Pacific through
comparisons of ENP and WNP photoidentification catalogs (IWC 2012;
Weller et al., 2011; Burdin et al., 2011),
and WNP animals comprised 8.1
percent of gray whales identified during
a recent field season off of Vancouver
Island (Weller et al., 2012). In addition,
two genetic matches of WNP whales
have been recorded off of Santa Barbara,
CA (Lang et al., 2011). More recently,
Urban et al. (2013) compared catalogs of
photo-identified individuals from
Mexico with photographs of whales off
Russia and reported a total of 21
matches. Therefore, a portion of the
WNP population is assumed to migrate,
at least in some years, to the eastern
Pacific during the winter breeding
season.
However, only ENP whales are
expected to occur in the project area.
The likelihood of any gray whale being
exposed to project sound to the degree
considered in this document is already
low, as it would require a migrating
whale to linger for an extended period
of time, or for multiple migrating whales
to linger for shorter periods of time.
While such an occurrence is not
unknown, it is uncommon. Further, of
the approximately 20,000 gray whales
migrating through the Southern
California Bight, it is extremely unlikely
that one found in San Diego Bay would
be one of the approximately twenty
WNP whales that have been
documented in the eastern Pacific (less
than one percent probability). The
likelihood that a WNP whale would be
exposed to elevated levels of sound
from the specified activities is
insignificant and discountable and WNP
whales are not considered further in this
document.
Gray whale transitory occurrence
inside San Diego Bay is sporadic and
unpredictable. A mean group size of 2.9
gray whales was reported for both
coastal (16 groups) and non-coastal (15
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
groups) areas around Southern
California Bight. The largest group
reported was nine animals. The largest
group reported by U.S. Navy (in 1998)
was 27 animals (Carretta et al., 2000).
Gray whales are not expected in the
project area except during the
northward migration, when they are
closest to the coast (Rice et al., 1981).
Bottlenose Dolphin
The California coastal stock of
bottlenose dolphin is distinct from the
offshore population and is resident in
the immediate (within 1 km of shore)
coastal waters, occurring primarily
between Point Conception, California,
and San Quintin, Mexico. Occasionally,
during warm-water incursions such as
˜
during the 1982–1983 El Nino events,
their range extends as far north as San
Francisco Bay (Carretta et al., 2017).
They are commonly found in groups of
2 to 15 individuals and in larger groups
offshore.
Coastal bottlenose dolphins have
occurred sporadically and in highly
variable numbers and locations in San
Diego Bay. Navy surveys showed that
bottlenose dolphins were most
commonly sighted in April, and there
were more dolphins observed during El
˜
Nino years.
between the coast and at least 300 nmi
offshore. In contrast, long-beaked
common dolphins generally occur
within 50 nmi of shore. Both species of
common dolphin appear to shift their
distributions seasonally and annually in
response to oceanographic conditions
and prey availability (Carretta et al.,
2016). The long-beaked species
apparently prefers shallower, warmer
water than the short-beaked common
dolphin (Perrin 2009). Both tend to be
more abundant in coastal waters during
warm-water months (Bearzi 2005).
The occurrence of common dolphins
inside San Diego Bay is uncommon
(NAVFAC SW and POSD 2013). Small
groups were observed briefly on several
occasions in the northern part of the bay
by Navy monitors during the IPP (May
2014). The animals were moving swiftly
and could not be distinguished as to
species, but the weight of evidence
based on distributions of the two
species and previous sightings of the
long-beaked species near San Diego is
that they were probably long-beaked
common dolphins.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins are
endemic to temperate waters of the
North Pacific Ocean, and are common
both on the high seas and along the
continental margins (Carretta et al.,
2014). Off the U.S. west coast, Pacific
white-sided dolphins occur primarily in
shelf and slope waters. Sighting patterns
from aerial and shipboard surveys
conducted in California, Oregon and
Washington suggest seasonal northsouth movements, with animals found
primarily off California during the
colder water months and shifting
northward into Oregon and Washington
as water temperatures increase in late
spring and summer (Carretta et al.,
2014).
Pacific white-sided dolphins are
uncommon in San Diego Bay, but
observations of this species increased
˜
during El Nino years. Monitoring during
the Year 2 IHA documented 7 sightings
of Pacific white-sided dolphins,
comprising 27 individuals, with a mean
group size of 3.85 individuals per
sighting and an average of 0.28
individuals sighted per day of
monitoring.
California Sea Lion
The entire population of California
sea lions cannot be counted because all
age and sex classes are never ashore at
the same time. In lieu of counting all sea
lions, pups are counted when all are
ashore, in July during the breeding
season, and the number of births is
estimated from pup counts (Carretta et
al., 2016). The size of the population is
then estimated from the number of
births and the proportion of pups in the
population. Based on these censuses,
the U.S. stock has generally increased
from the early 1900s, to a current
estimate of 296,750 (Carretta et al.,
2016). There are indications that the
California sea lion may have reached or
is approaching carrying capacity,
although more data are needed to
confirm that leveling in growth persists
(Carretta et al., 2016).
The California sea lion is by far the
most commonly-sighted pinniped
species at sea or on land in the vicinity
of NBPL and northern San Diego Bay.
The Navy has conducted numerous
marine mammal surveys overlapping
the north San Diego Bay project area
and the potential ZOI for impact and
vibratory pile driving operations.
California sea lions regularly occur on
rocks, buoys and other structures, and
especially on bait barges, although
numbers vary greatly.
Common Dolphin
Short-beaked common dolphins are
the most abundant cetacean off
California and are widely distributed
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are considered abundant
throughout most of their range from Baja
California to the eastern Aleutian
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
Islands. Peak numbers of harbor seals
haul-out on land during late May to
early June, which coincides with the
peak of their molt. Harbor seals do not
make extensive pelagic migrations, but
do travel hundreds of km on occasion to
find food or suitable breeding areas
(Carretta et al., 2016). Based on likely
foraging strategies, Grigg et al. (2009)
reported seasonal shifts in harbor seal
movements based on prey availability.
In relationship to the entire California
stock, harbor seals do not have a
significant mainland California
distribution south of Point Mugu.
Harbor seals are relatively uncommon
within San Diego Bay. Sightings in the
Navy transect surveys of northern San
Diego Bay through March 2012, and
were limited to individuals outside of
the ZOI, on the south side of Ballast
Point (TDI 2012b; Jenkins 2012).
However, Navy marine mammal
monitoring for another project
conducted intermittently at Pier 122
from 2010–2014 documented from zero
to 4 harbor seals near Pier 122 (within
the ZOI) at various times, with the
greatest number of sightings during
April and May (Jenkins 2012; Bowman
2014). An individual harbor seal was
also frequently sighted near NMAWC
during 2014 (McConchie 2014).
Northern Elephant Seal
A complete population count of
elephant seals is not possible because
all age classes are not ashore
simultaneously. The population is
estimated to have grown at 3.8%
annually since 1988 (Lowry et al.,
2014). Northern elephant seals breed
and give birth in California (U.S.) and
Baja California (Mexico), primarily on
offshore islands. Populations of
northern elephant seals in the U.S. and
Mexico have recovered after being
reduced to near extinction by hunting,
undergoing a severe population
bottleneck and loss of genetic diversity
with the population reduced to only an
estimated 10–30 individuals.
Northern elephant seals occur in the
southern California bight, and have the
potential to occur in San Diego Bay
(NAVFAC SW and POSD 2013), but the
only recent documentation of
occurrence was of a single distressed
juvenile observed on the beach south
and inshore of the Fuel Pier during the
second year IHA. Given the continuing,
long-term increase in the population of
northern elephant seals (Lowry et al.,
2014), there is an increasing possibility
of occurrence in the project area.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. Current data indicate
that not all marine mammal species
have equal hearing capabilities (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten 1999; Au and Hastings 2008). To
reflect this, Southall et al. (2007)
recommended that marine mammals be
divided into functional hearing groups
based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral response data, audiograms
derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. The
functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (note
that these frequency ranges correspond
to the range for the composite group,
with the entire range not necessarily
reflecting the capabilities of every
species within that group):
• Low-frequency cetaceans
(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with
best hearing estimated to be from 100
Hz to 8 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger
toothed whales, beaked whales, and
most delphinids): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz,
with best hearing from 10 to less than
100 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans
(porpoises, river dolphins, and members
of the genera Kogia and
Cephalorhynchus; including two
members of the genus Lagenorhynchus,
on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true
seals): Generalized hearing is estimated
to occur between approximately 50
hertz (Hz) to 86 kilohertz (kHz), with
best hearing between 1–50 kHz;
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36367
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae
(eared seals): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between 60 Hz and
39 kHz, with best hearing between 2–48
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 and Holt 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2016) for a review of
available information. Nine marine
mammal species (six cetacean and three
pinniped (1 otariid and 2 phocid
species)) have the reasonable potential
to co-occur with the proposed survey
activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present,
one is classified as low-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species),
and five are classified as mid-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid
species and the sperm whale).
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
of the specified activity may impact
marine mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment section later in this
document includes a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment section,
and the Proposed Mitigation section, to
draw conclusions regarding the likely
impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and how those impacts on
individuals are likely to impact marine
mammal species or stocks.
We provided discussion of the
potential effects of the specified activity
on marine mammals and their habitat in
our Federal Register notices of
proposed authorization associated with
the first- and second-year IHAs (78 FR
30873; May 23, 2013 and 79 FR 53026;
September 5, 2014). The specified
activity associated with this proposed
IHA is substantially similar to those
considered for the first- and second-year
IHAs and the potential effects of the
specified activity are the same as those
identified in those documents.
Therefore, we do not reprint the
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36368
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
information here but refer the reader to
those documents.
In the aforementioned Federal
Register notices, we also provided
general background information on
sound and marine mammal hearing and
a description of sound sources and
ambient sound and refer the reader to
those documents. However, because
certain terms are used frequently in this
document, we provide brief definitions
of relevant acoustic terminology below:
• Sound pressure level (SPL): Sound
pressure is the force per unit area,
usually expressed in microPascals (mPa),
where one Pascal equals one Newton
exerted over an area of one square
meter. The SPL is expressed in dB as
twenty times the logarithm to the base
ten of the ratio between the pressure
exerted by the sound to a referenced
sound pressure. SPL is the quantity that
is directly measured by a sound level
meter. For underwater sound, SPL in dB
is referenced to one microPascal (re 1
mPa), unless otherwise stated. For
airborne sound, SPL in dB is referenced
to 20 microPascals (re 20 mPa), unless
otherwise stated.
• Frequency: Frequency is expressed
in terms of oscillations, or cycles, per
second. Cycles per second are
commonly referred to as Hz. Typical
human hearing ranges from 20 Hz to 20
kHz.
• Peak sound pressure: The
instantaneous maximum of the absolute
positive or negative pressure over the
frequency range from 20 Hz to 20 kHz
and presented in dB.
• Root mean square (rms) SPL: For
impact pile driving, overall dB rms
levels are characterized by integrating
sound for each waveform across ninety
percent of the acoustic energy in each
wave and averaging all waves in the pile
driving event. This value is referred to
as the rms 90 percent. With this method,
the time averaging per pulse varies.
• Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A
measure of energy, specifically the dB
level of the time integral of the squaredinstantaneous sound pressure,
normalized to a one second period. It is
a useful metric for assessing cumulative
exposure because it enables sounds of
differing duration, to be compared in
terms of total energy. The accumulated
SEL (SELcum) is used to describe the SEL
from multiple events (e.g., many pile
strikes). This can be calculated directly
as a logarithmic sum of the individual
single-strike SELs for the pile strikes
that were used to install the pile.
• Level Z weighted (unweighted),
equivalent (LZeq): LZeq is a value
recorded by the SLM that represents
SEL SPL over a specified time period or
interval. The LZeq is most typically
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
referred to in one-second intervals or
over an entire event.
• Level Z weighted (unweighted), fast
(LZFmax): LZFmax is a value recorded by
the SLM that represents the maximum
rms value recorded for any 125
millisecond time frame during each
individual recording.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through this IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of whether the number of
takes is ‘‘small’’ and the negligible
impact determination. Harassment is the
only type of take expected to result from
these activities. Except with respect to
certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines
‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of pursuit,
torment, or annoyance which (i) has the
potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level
A harassment); or (ii) has the potential
to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration,
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B
harassment only, in the form of
disruption of behavioral patterns for
individual marine mammals resulting
from exposure to acoustic sources.
Based on the nature of the activity and
the anticipated effectiveness of the
mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown, soft
start, etc.—discussed in detail below in
Proposed Mitigation section), Level A
harassment is neither anticipated nor
proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no mortality
is anticipated or proposed to be
authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we
estimate take by considering: (1)
Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS
believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be
behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing
impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above
these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within
these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the
number of days of activities. Below, we
describe these components in more
detail and present the proposed take
estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science,
NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
level of underwater sound above which
exposed marine mammals would be
reasonably expected to be behaviorally
harassed (equated to Level B
harassment) or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007). Based on what the available
science indicates and the practical need
to use a threshold based on a factor that
is both predictable and measurable for
most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on
received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts
that marine mammals are likely to be
behaviorally harassed in a manner we
consider Level B harassment when
exposed to underwater anthropogenic
noise above received levels of 120 dB re
1 mPa (rms) for continuous (e.g.
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and
above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile
driving) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources.
The Navy’s proposed activity includes
the use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving, demolition) and impulsive
(impact pile driving) sources, and
therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa
(rms) are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive
sources—NMFS’s Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (NOAA 2016)
identifies dual criteria to assess auditory
injury (Level A harassment) to five
different marine mammal groups (based
on hearing sensitivity) as a result of
exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The Navy’s construction
project includes the use of impulsive
(impact pile driving) and non-impulsive
(vibratory pile driving) sources.
These thresholds were developed by
compiling and synthesizing the best
available science and soliciting input
multiple times from both the public and
peer reviewers to inform the final
product, and are provided in the table
below. The references, analysis, and
methodology used in the development
of the thresholds are described in NMFS
2016 Technical Guidance, which may
be accessed at: https://
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36369
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/
guidelines.htm.
TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
(received level)
Hearing Group
Impulsive
Low-frequency cetaceans ...............
Mid-frequency cetaceans ................
High-frequency cetaceans ..............
Phocid Pinnipeds (underwaters) .....
Otariid Pinnipeds (underwater) .......
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
1:
3:
5:
7:
9:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
219
230
202
218
232
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
Non-impulsive
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .........................................
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................................
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB .........................................
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ........................................
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB .......................................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
NMFS 2016.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that will feed into identifying the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds.
The intensity of pile driving or
sounds is greatly influenced by factors
such as the type of piles, hammers, and
the physical environment in which the
activity takes place. For the installation
of 30-in steel piles and pile cutting
activities, acoustic monitoring during
the first and second IHA periods
(NAVFAC 2015) resulted in empirical
data that are directly applicable to the
fifth IHA period in terms of the
activities and the location, depth, sizes
and types of piles.
Table 4 identifies the sound source
levels that are used in evaluating impact
and vibratory pile driving and
extraction in the current IHA
application. Sound levels for the
hydraulic pile cutter, diamond saw
caisson cutting, and pile jetting were
measured during the fourth IHA period
(NAVFAC SW 2017). No acoustic data
are available from the vibratory driving
of 16-in concrete piles, so the data for
vibratory installation of 30-in steel piles
from the second IHA period are used as
a conservative proxy (NAVFAC SW
2015). Finally, SPLs were measured for
the impact driving of 16-in polyconcrete piles during the third IHA
monitoring period (NAVFAC SW
2016a), and are used in this application
for the same activities.
TABLE 4—UNDERWATER SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS FROM SIMILAR IN SITU MONITORED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FROM
PREVIOUS YEARS
Project and location
Pile size and type
Method
Water depth
Measured sound pressure
levels (rms) at 10 m
(dB re 1 μPa)
Mean 1
NBPL
NBPL
NBPL
NBPL
NBPL
Fuel
Fuel
Fuel
Fuel
Fuel
Pier,
Pier,
Pier,
Pier,
Pier,
San
San
San
San
San
Diego,
Diego,
Diego,
Diego,
Diego,
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
13 to 24-in concrete ..........
66- and 84-in steel caisson
24-in concrete ....................
30-in Steel Pipe .................
16-in Poly-Concrete ...........
Hydraulic pile cutting .........
Diamond saw cutting .........
Jetting ................................
Vibratory ............................
Impact ................................
9
9
9
9
9
m
m
m
m
m
(30
(30
(30
(30
(30
ft)
ft)
ft)
ft)
ft)
145
149
155
162.5
188.9
Max 2
165.3
155.6
159.9
3 162.5
4 195
1 Mean source levels used from data from previous monitoring reports (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017). Mean source levels were used to
calculate Level B ZOIs.
2 Maximum source levels used from data from previous monitoring reports (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017). Max source levels were used to
calculate Level A ZOIs. Maximum source levels used were proposed by the Navy.
3 Mean source levels for 30-in steel pipe piles were used as a proxy to calculate ZOIs for vibratory driving of 16-in concrete guide piles
(NAVFAC SW 2015).
4 The maximum source level is included for reference only. The distance to the Level B ZOI is based on in situ data collected for 16-in polyconcrete piles and was documented in NAVFAC SW (2016a).
Scarce data exists on airborne and
underwater noise levels associated with
vibratory hammer extraction. However,
it can reasonably be assumed that
vibratory extraction emits SPLs that are
no higher than SPLs caused by vibratory
hammering of the same materials, and
results in lower SPLs than caused by
impact hammering comparable piles.
For this application, the same value
(162.5 dB re 1mPa) that was obtained for
vibratory hammering of the 30-in steel
piles at the Fuel Pier (NAVFAC SW
2015) is used for the vibratory
hammering of 16-in round concrete
piles at NMAWC. None of the peak SPLs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
for the various sound sources reach the
injury thresholds identified in the new
NMFS (2016) Technical Guidance;
therefore, injury from peak sound levels
is not considered further.
Table 6 provides the calculated areas
of Level A and Level B ZOIs associated
with the impulsive and continuous
sounds that are anticipated during the
fifth-year IHA period. Table 5 provides
the data that were used to calculate the
distances to the Level A and B ZOIs
presented in Table 6. It should be noted
that the ZOI for Level A harassment
would be closely monitored and subject
to shutdowns if a marine mammal
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
enters the area. The ZOI areas and
maximum distances for the activities at
the fuel pier and NMAWC are shown in
Figures 6–1 and 6–2, respectively of the
Navy’s application. The figures reflect
the conventional assumption that the
natural or manmade shoreline acts as a
barrier to underwater sound. It is
generally accepted practice to model
underwater sound propagation from pile
driving as continuing in a straight line
past a shoreline projection such as
Ballast Point (Dahl 2012). Similarly, it is
reasonable to assume that project sound
would not propagate east of Zuniga Jetty
(Dahl 2012).
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36370
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
most conservative and this method was
subsequently used to determine the
distances to the Level A ZOIs (Table 5).
In all Level A ZOI calculations, the
default values for the weighting factor
adjustment and practical spreading for
propagation loss were used (see
Appendix A of the Navy’s application).
shutdown zone. For impact pile driving
at NMAWC, two methods identified in
NMFS (2016) were evaluated to
determine the most conservative
distances to the Level A ZOIs using: (1)
rms SPL source levels; and (2) single
strike equivalent SEL. The calculations
showed that the first method was the
All of the ZOIs for potential Level A
acoustic harassment (Table 6) would be
buffered and encompassed by a larger
shutdown zone. For example, the ZOIs
for potential Level A acoustic
harassment to pinnipeds from impact
pile driving (Table 6) would be
contained within a 60 m (196 ft)
TABLE 5—DATA USED TO CALCULATE DISTANCES TO LEVEL B ZOIS
Activity
Impact pile driving
References for Source
Level and Duration.
Size & Type of Piles
used for Source
Data.
Source Level (rms
SPL).
Distance to Level B
ZOI (m).
Vibratory pile driving
Pile jetting
Caisson cutting
Pile clipping
Year 3 report #1
(NAVFAC SW
2016a).
16-in poly-concrete
piles.
Year 2 report
(NAVFAC SW
2015).
30-in steel piles .........
Year 4 report
(NAVFAC SW
2017).
24x30-in concrete
piles.
Year 3 report #1
(NAVFAC SW
2016a).
84-in caissons ...........
Year 4 report
(NAVFAC SW
2017).
24-in concrete piles.
188.9 .........................
162.5 .........................
159.9 .........................
155.6 .........................
165.3.
270 ............................
1,848 .........................
1,165 .........................
631 ............................
2,511.
The Level B ZOIs and distances are
based on the validated SPLs directly
measured during the IHA monitoring
(NAVFAC SW 2014–2017), as available.
For example, the distance to the Level
B ZOI for impact driving of 16-in polyconcrete piles was 270 m (886 ft) during
Year 3 monitoring (NAVFAC SW
2016a). In cases where monitoring data
are not available to empirically measure
source declines to ambient. Because the
mean ambient sound levels in San Diego
Bay range from approximately 128 to
130 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), the
120 dB acoustic threshold for the Level
B ZOIs are based on an approximate
value between 128 and 129 dB. The
distances for all activities producing
sound at NMAWC will be verified via
hydrophone during project activities.
the extent of the Level B ZOI (activities
at NMAWC), ‘‘practical spreading loss’’
from the source at 10 m has been
assumed (15 log[distance/10]) and used
to calculate the maximum extent of the
ZOI based on the applicable threshold.
Computed distances to the threshold for
acoustic disturbance from nonimpulsive sources are based on the
distances at which the project sound
TABLE 6—CALCULATED MAXIMUM AREAS OF ZOIS AND DISTANCES TO RELEVANT THRESHOLDS
Measured/calculated distances to thresholds (m) and areas of ZOIs
(m2 or km2)
Underwater
Activity
Airborne
Level A 1 2 3
LF
MF
Level B 4
PW
OW
160 dB
120
Level B
dB 5
100 dB 6
90 dB 6
Old Fuel Pier and Temporary Mooring Dolphin Demolition
66-inch and 84-inch caissons (Diamond saw
cutting).
Concrete piles (Pile clipping) ........................
3.6 m
41 m2
1.2 m
4 m2
0.3 m
<1 m2
0.1 m
<1 m2
2.2 m
15 m2
0.7 m
< 1 m2
0.2m
<1 m2
0.0 m
0 m2
N/A
16-inch concrete piles (Vibratory extraction/
driving) 8.
16-inch concrete piles (Impact driving) 9 ......
8.3 m
216 m2
63.4 m
0.0126 km2
0.7 m
<1 m2
2.3 m
17 m2
5.1 m
82 m2
33.9 m
3,610 m2
0.4 m
<1 m2
2.5 m
20 m2
N/A
16-inch concrete piles (Jetting pile extraction).
3.9 m
47.8 m2
0.3 m
<1 m2
2.4 m
18 m2
0.2 m
<1 m2
N/A
N/A
631 m
0.7157 km2
2,511 m
4.4512 km2
N/A
NMAWC Construction and Demolition
270 m
0.1408 km2
1,848 m
2.4473 km2
N/A
1,165m
1.4268 km2
1 If
42 m
5,503 m2
149 m
69,646 m2
N/A
measured value thresholds are less than 10 m (33 ft), a minimum monitoring distance of 10 m (33 ft) would be implemented.
on measured mean source levels. The relevant data have been included in Appendix A of the Navy’s application, which provides information from previous
years’ data collected as part of the Fuel Pier Project (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017).
3 LF = Low-frequency cetaceans; MF = Mid-frequency cetaceans; PW = Phocid pinnipeds; OW = Otariid pinnipeds. The high-frequency cetacean hearing group
(HF) is omitted, because no species in the hearing group occur in, or around, the Project area.
4 Based on measured maximum source levels, unless otherwise stated. The relevant data have been included in Appendix A, which provides information from previous years’ data collected as part of the Fuel Pier Project (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017).
5 Average ambient sound levels in San Diego Bay are approximately 128 to 130 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), and all 120 dB Level B ZOIs are based on an approximate value between 128 and 129, which represents ambient levels in the Bay.
6 Airborne ZOIs based on conservative representative data (collected during 30-inch vibratory pile driving from IHA #4). Airborne noise levels did not exceed thresholds during IHA #4 monitoring of demolition activities.
7 Plasma torch noise levels are not expected to exceed underwater or airborne regulatory thresholds.
8 Based on conservative representative source levels of 162.5 dB rms (30-inch steel vibratory pile driving, NAVFAC SW 2015).
2 Based
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36371
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
Airborne Sound
Although sea lions are known to haulout regularly on man-made objects in
the vicinity of the project site (see
Figure 4–1 of the Navy’s application),
and harbor seals are occasionally
observed hauled out on rocks along the
shoreline in the vicinity of the project
site, none of these are within the ZOIs
for airborne sound, and we believe that
incidents of take resulting solely from
airborne sound are unlikely. The zones
for sea lions are within the minimum
shutdown zone defined for underwater
sound and, although the zones for
harbor seals are larger, they have not
been observed to haul out as readily on
man-made structure in the immediate
vicinity of the project site. There is a
possibility that an animal could surface
in-water, but with head out, within one
of the defined zones and thereby be
exposed to levels of airborne sound that
we associate with harassment, but any
such occurrence would likely be
accounted for in our estimation of
incidental take from underwater sound.
We generally recognize that pinnipeds
occurring within an estimated airborne
harassment zone, whether in the water
or hauled out, could be exposed to
airborne sound that may result in
behavioral harassment. However, any
animal exposed to airborne sound above
the behavioral harassment threshold is
likely to also be exposed to underwater
sound above relevant thresholds (which
are typically in all cases larger zones
than those associated with airborne
sound). Thus, the behavioral harassment
of these animals is already accounted
for in these estimates of potential take.
Multiple incidents of exposure to sound
above NMFS’ thresholds for behavioral
harassment are not believed to result in
increased behavioral disturbance, in
either nature or intensity of disturbance
reaction. Therefore, we do not believe
that authorization of incidental take
resulting from airborne sound for
pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne
sound is not discussed further here.
Distances associated with airborne
sound and shown in Table 5 are for
reference only.
When NMFS Technical Guidance
(2016) was published, in recognition of
the fact that ensonified area/volume
could be more technically challenging
to predict because of the duration
component in the new thresholds, we
developed a User Spreadsheet that
includes tools to help predict a simple
isopleth that can be used in conjunction
with marine mammal density or
occurrence to help predict takes. We
note that because of some of the
assumptions included in the methods
used for these tools, we anticipate that
isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree,
which will result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A take. However,
these tools offer the best way to predict
appropriate isopleths when more
sophisticated 3D modeling methods are
not available, and NMFS continues to
develop ways to quantitatively refine
these tools, and will qualitatively
address the output where appropriate.
For stationary sources such as vibratory
pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet
predicts the closest distance at which, if
a marine mammal remained at that
distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs
used in the User Spreadsheet, and the
resulting isopleths are reported below.
TABLE 7—LEVEL A USER SPREADSHEET INPUT
Impact pile driving
Vibratory pile driving
Caisson cutting
Pile clipping
References for Source
Level and Duration.
Spreadsheet Tab Used ...
Year 3 report #1
(NAVFAC SW 2016a).
(E.1) Impact pile driving
Source Level (Single
Strike/shot SEL).
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz).
(a) Activity Duration (h)
within 24-h period.
Propagation (xLogR) .......
Distance of source level
measurement (m).
Pulse duration (sec) 1 ......
Number of strikes in 1 h ..
188.9 ...............................
Year 2 report (NAVFAC
SW 2015).
(A.) Non-Impulse StatCont.
162.5 ...............................
Year 3 report #1
(NAVFAC SW 2016a).
(A.) Non-Impulse StatCont.
149 ..................................
Year 4 report (NAVFAC
SW 2017).
(A.) Non-Impulse StatCont.
145 ..................................
Year 4 report (NAVFAC
SW 2017).
(A.) Non-Impulse StatCont.
155.
2 ......................................
2.5 ...................................
2.5 ...................................
2.5 ...................................
2.5.
0.71 .................................
0.95 .................................
6 ......................................
2.82 .................................
1.74.
15 ....................................
10 ....................................
15 ....................................
10 ....................................
15 ....................................
10 ....................................
15 ....................................
10 ....................................
15.
10.
0.03 .................................
193 ..................................
n/a ...................................
n/a ...................................
n/a ...................................
n/a ...................................
n/a ...................................
n/a ...................................
n/a.
n/a.
1 Pulse
Pile jetting
duration was measured in previous construction years and the average pulse duration was 0.03 at 10 m (NAVFAC SW 2016a).
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the
information about the presence, density,
or group dynamics of marine mammals
that will inform the take calculations.
For all species, the best scientific
information available was considered
for use in the marine mammal take
assessment calculations. Although
various regional offshore surveys for
marine mammals have been conducted,
it is unlikely that these data would be
representative of the species or numbers
that may be encountered in San Diego
Bay. However, the Navy has conducted
a large number of ongoing site-specific
marine mammal surveys during
appropriate seasons (e.g., Merkel and
Associates 2008; Johnson 2010, 2011;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
Lerma 2012, 2014). Whereas analyses
for the first-year IHA relied on surveys
conducted from 2007–12, continuing
surveys by the Navy have generally
indicated increasing abundance of all
species and the second-year IHA relied
on 2012–14 survey data. In addition, the
Navy has developed estimates of marine
mammal densities in waters associated
with training and testing areas
(including Hawaii-Southern California)
for the Navy Marine Species Density
Database (NMSDD). A technical report
(Hanser et al., 2015) describes
methodologies and available
information used to derive these
densities, which are based upon the best
available information, except where
specific local abundance information is
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
available and applicable to a specific
action area. The document is publicly
available online at: nwtteis.com/
DocumentsandReferences/
NWTTDocuments/
SupportingTechnicalDocuments.aspx
(accessed July 13, 2017).
Year 2 project monitoring showed
even greater abundance of certain
species, and we consider all of these
data in order to provide the most up-todate estimates for marine mammal
abundances during the period of this
proposed IHA. Although Years 3 and 4
project monitoring showed declines in
marine mammal abundance in the
vicinity of the project, we retain prior
density estimates as a conservative
measure for estimating exposure.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36372
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
Density information is shown in Table
9. These data are from dedicated linetransect surveys, required project
marine mammal monitoring,
opportunistic observations for more
rarely observed species (see Figures 3–
1 through 3–5 of the Navy’s
application), or the NMSDD.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information
provided above is brought together to
produce a quantitative take estimate.
The following assumptions are made
when estimating potential incidences 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;
• The assumed ZOIs and days of
activity are as shown in Table 5; and,
• Exposures to sound levels at or
above the relevant thresholds equate to
take, as defined by the MMPA.
In this case, the estimation of marine
mammal takes 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.
The ZOI impact area is estimated
using the relevant distances in Table 5,
assuming that sound radiates from a
central point in the water column
slightly offshore of the existing pier and
taking into consideration the possible
affected area due to topographical
constraints of the action area (i.e., radial
distances to thresholds are not always
reached).
TABLE 8—AREAS OF ACOUSTIC INFLUENCE AND DAYS OF ACTIVITY
Number of
days
Activity
66-inch and 84-inch caissons (Diamond saw cutting) ............................................................................................
Concrete piles (Pile clipping) ...................................................................................................................................
16-inch concrete piles (Vibratory extraction/driving) 1 .............................................................................................
16-inch concrete piles (Jetting pile extraction) ........................................................................................................
50
100
25
15
ZOI
(km2)
0.7157
4.4512
2.4473
1.4268
1 We assume that impact driving of 16-in concrete piles would always occur on the same day as vibratory driving of the same piles. Therefore,
the impact driving ZOI (0.1408 km2) would always be subsumed by the vibratory driving ZOI.
There are a number of reasons why
estimates of potential incidents of take
may be conservative, assuming that
available density 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 period of validity, 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. See Table 9 for total
estimated incidents of take.
California Sea Lion
During the second IHA period, an
average of 90.35 California sea lions
were seen per day within the maximum
ZOI for pile driving, an area of 5.6752
km2 extending 3,000 m from the Fuel
Pier. This equates to a density of
15.9201/km2. This density is used to
estimate numbers of takes within the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 8,971
Level B takes for this species. The
maximum extents of the potential
acoustic Level A ZOIs for cumulative
exposure from all of the activities are
much less than 10 m from the source,
and therefore the 60-m shutdown zone
will reduce the chance for Level A take.
As a result, no Level A take of California
sea lions is anticipated nor proposed to
be authorized.
Harbor Seal
Sightings of harbor seals averaged
2.83 individuals per day during the
period of the second IHA (NAVFAC SW
2015), a density of 0.4987/km2 within
the maximum ZOI for pile driving. This
density is used to estimate numbers of
takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS
estimates 281 Level B takes for this
species. The maximum extent of the
potential acoustic Level A ZOI for
cumulative exposure from impact pile
driving extends 34 m from the source;
for all other activities, the Level A ZOIs
are much less than 10 m from the
source, therefore a 60-m shutdown zone
will be in place to avoid Level A takes
to harbor seals. Level A takes are not
anticipated nor proposed for
authorization.
Northern Elephant Seal
Only a single individual elephant seal
was sighted during the second IHA
period (NAVFAC SW 2015), but with
increasing numbers (Carretta et al.,
2016), they are considered a reasonable
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
possibility to occur more frequently
during the fifth IHA period. The
regional density estimate of 0.0760/km2
(Navy 2017) is assumed for the project
area. This density is used to estimate
numbers of takes within the different
ZOIs. NMFS estimates 43 Level B takes
for this species. Potential takes would
likely involve single individuals that are
on the shoreline or structures at the
identified location, or swimming in the
vicinity, most likely near the mouth of
the bay. The maximum extent of the
potential acoustic Level A ZOI for
cumulative exposure from impact pile
driving extends 34 m from the source;
for all other activities, the Level A ZOIs
are much less than 10 m from the
source, therefore a shutdown will be in
place to avoid Level A takes to harbor
seals. Level A takes are not anticipated
nor proposed for authorization.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Coastal bottlenose dolphins can occur
at any time of year in northern San
Diego Bay. Numbers sighted have been
highly variable but have increased in
recent years (NAVFAC SW 2014, 2015).
During the second IHA period, an
average of 7.09 individuals was seen per
day, a density of 1.2493/km2. This
density is used to estimate numbers of
takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS
estimates 704 Level B takes for this
species. The maximum extents of the
potential acoustic Level A ZOIs for
cumulative exposure from all of the
activities are much less than 10 m from
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36373
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
the source, and therefore the minimum
10 m shutdown will reduce the chance
for Level A take. As a result, no Level
A take of bottlenose dolphins is
anticipated nor proposed to be
authorized.
Common Dolphin
An average of 8.67 common dolphins
was seen per day, a density of 1.5277/
km2 within the maximum ZOI, during
the second IHA period (NAVFAC SW
2015). This density is considerably
higher than the regional density
estimate for long-beaked common
dolphins—the species most likely to
occur (Navy 2017), but is reasonable for
the project area given the group sizes
observed for these species. Barlow
(2010) reported average group sizes in
southern California of 122 for shortbeaked common dolphins and 195 for
long-beaked common dolphins, and
during the second IHA period, groups of
approximately 170 and 300 individuals
entered the project area on different
occasions (NAVFAC SW 2015).
Considering the possibility for one or
more large groups of common dolphins
to enter San Diego Bay during in-water
activities and the fact that the Level B
ZOIs will extend completely across the
bay during pile driving, the density
estimate is considered appropriate. A
density of 1.5277/km2 is used to
estimate numbers of takes within the
different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 861
Level B takes for this species. The
maximum extents of the potential
acoustic Level A ZOIs for cumulative
exposure from all of the activities are
much less than 10 m from the source,
and therefore the shutdown will reduce
the chance for Level A take. As a result,
no Level A take of bottlenose dolphins
is anticipated nor proposed to be
authorized.
activities are much less than 10 m from
the source, and therefore the shutdown
will reduce the chance for Level A take.
As a result, no Level A take of
bottlenose dolphins is anticipated nor
proposed to be authorized.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins are more
commonly seen offshore, but were
documented in the project area on
several occasions during the second IHA
period. An average of 0.28 individuals
per day was seen during the second IHA
period (NAVFAC SW 2015), a density of
0.0493/km2 within the maximum ZOI.
This density is used to estimate
numbers of takes within the different
ZOIs. NMFS estimates 28 Level B takes
for this species. The maximum extents
of the potential acoustic Level A ZOIs
for cumulative exposure from all of the
activities are much less than 10 m from
the source, and therefore the shutdown
will reduce the chance for Level A take.
As a result, no Level A take of
bottlenose dolphins is anticipated nor
proposed to be authorized.
Risso’s Dolphin
While there have been no sightings of
Risso’s dolphin within the project area,
the species is considered a reasonable
possibility for the fifth IHA period given
˜
recent El Nino conditions (Shane 1995)
and its abundance in Southern
California coastal waters (Jefferson et al.
2014). The upper limit of the regional
density estimate, 0.2029/km2 (Navy
2017), is used to estimate numbers of
takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS
estimates 114 Level B takes for this
species. The maximum extents of the
potential acoustic Level A ZOIs for
cumulative exposure from all of the
Gray Whale
Gray whale occurrence within
northern San Diego Bay is sporadic and
would likely consist of one-few
individuals that venture close to, or
enter the bay for a brief period, and then
continue on their migration. A density
estimate based on the rare sightings of
gray whales near the mouth of the bay
during the second IHA period (NAVFAC
SW 2015), would be less than 0.01/km2,
which is slightly less than the regional
density estimate of 0.0179/km2 in
southern California waters during
winter-spring (Navy 2017). The regional
density estimate is applied here as a
reasonable estimate given the possibility
of animals moving closer to shore and
entering the mouth of the bay during the
fifth IHA period. This density is used to
estimate numbers of takes within the
different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 10 Level
B takes for this species. The maximum
extent of the potential acoustic Level A
ZOI for cumulative exposure from
impact pile driving extends 63 m from
the source; for all other activities, the
Level A ZOIs are much less than 10 m
from the source. Gray whales are not
expected to occur that close to the
source; however, the Navy has proposed
a minimum of 10 m (100 m for impact
driving) shutdown will be in place to
avoid Level A takes to gray whales.
Level A takes are not anticipated nor
proposed for authorization.
TABLE 9—CALCULATIONS FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE ESTIMATION
Species
Density
California sea lion ........
Harbor seal ..................
Northern elephant seal
Bottlenose dolphin .......
Common dolphin ..........
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...........................
Risso’s dolphin .............
Gray whale ...................
Diamond saw
cutting of 66inch and 84inch caissons
Pile clipping
concrete piles
Vibratory
extraction/
driving of 16inch concrete
piles
Jetting pile extraction of 16
in concrete
piles
Total Level B
takes *
Total proposed
authorized
takes
(% of total
stock)
15.9201
0.4987
0.076
1.2493
1.5277
570
18
3
45
55
7086
222
34
556
680
974
31
5
76
93
341
11
2
27
33
8,971
281
43
704
861
3.023
0.907
0.024
2 155
3 0.088; 4 0.85
0.0493
0.2027
0.0179
2
7
1
22
90
8
3
12
1
1
4
0
28
114
10
0.104
1.799
0.048
* Due to rounding of takes to the nearest whole number of animals, (which occurs at the very end, not per activity), totals may not always
equal the sum of the takes from individual activities.
1 We assume that impact driving of steel piles would occur on the same day as vibratory driving of the same piles and that the zone for vibratory driving would always subsume the zone for impact driving. Therefore, separate estimates are not provided for impact driving of steel piles.
2 The proposed numbers of authorized take for bottlenose dolphins are higher relative to the total stock abundance estimate and would not
represent small numbers if a significant portion of the take was for a new individual. However, these numbers represent the estimated incidents
of take, not the number of individuals taken. That is, it is likely that a relatively small subset of California coastal bottlenose dolphins would be incidentally harassed by project activities.
3 SB = short-beaked common dolphin.
4 LB = long-beaked common dolphin.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36374
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on such species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses
(latter not applicable for this action).
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting such activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, we carefully consider two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned) the likelihood
of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned). And;
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
The mitigation strategies described
below largely follow those required and
successfully implemented under the
first four IHAs associated with this
project. For this proposed IHA, data
from acoustic monitoring conducted
during the first four years of work was
used to estimate zones of influence
(ZOIs; see Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment); these values were used to
develop mitigation measures for pile
driving activities at NBPL. The ZOIs
effectively represent the mitigation zone
that would be established around each
pile to minimize Level A harassment to
marine mammals, while providing
estimates of the areas within which
Level B harassment might occur. In
addition, the Navy has defined buffers
to the estimated Level A harassment
zones to further reduce the potential for
Level A harassment. In addition to the
measures described later in this section,
the Navy would conduct briefings
between construction supervisors and
crews, marine mammal monitoring
team, acoustic monitoring team, and
Navy staff prior to the start of all pile
driving activity, and when new
personnel join the work, in order to
explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures.
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
and removal activities, the Navy will
establish a shutdown zone intended to
contain the area in which SPLs equal or
exceed the calculated Level A zones
(refer to table). 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
(serious injury or death are unlikely
outcomes even in the absence of
mitigation measures). Estimated radial
distances to the relevant thresholds are
shown in Table 5. For certain activities,
the shutdown zone would not exist
because source levels indicate that the
radial distance to the threshold would
be less than 10 m. However, a minimum
shutdown zone of 10 m will be
established during all pile driving and
removal activities, regardless of the
estimated zone. In addition the Navy
proposes to effect a buffered shutdown
zone that is intended to significantly
reduce the potential for Level A
harassment given that, in particular,
California sea lions are quite abundant
in the project area and bottlenose
dolphins may surface unpredictably and
move erratically in an area with a large
amount of construction equipment.
These buffers are approximately double
the distance to the Level A ZOI. These
zones are also shown in Table 10. These
precautionary measures are intended to
prevent the already unlikely possibility
of physical interaction with
construction equipment and to establish
a precautionary minimum zone with
regard to acoustic effects.
TABLE 10—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR LEVEL A ZOIS AND MONITORING ZONES FOR LEVEL B ZONES
Monitored distances to thresholds (meters [feet])
Underwater
Activity
Level A (shutdown)
LF 1
MF 1
Level B
PW 1
OW 1
160 dB
120 dB 2
Old Fuel Pier and Temporary Mooring Dolphin Demolition
66-inch and 84-inch caissons (Diamond saw cutting) .....
10
N/A
631
Concrete piles (Pile clipping) ...........................................
10
N/A
2,511
NMAWC Construction and Demolition
16-inch concrete piles (Vibratory extraction/driving) .......
20 4
10
N/A
1,848
16-inch concrete piles (Impact driving) ............................
100 5
60 6
857.7
N/A
N/A
1,165
16-inch concrete piles (Jetting pile extraction) ................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
10
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36375
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 10—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR LEVEL A ZOIS AND MONITORING ZONES FOR LEVEL B ZONES—Continued
Monitored distances to thresholds (meters [feet])
Underwater
Activity
Level A (shutdown)
LF 1
MF 1
16-inch concrete piles (Pile dead-pull) ............................
Level B
PW 1
OW 1
10
120 dB 2
160 dB
N/A
1 LF
= Low-frequency cetaceans; MF = Mid-frequency cetaceans; PW = Phocid pinnipeds; OW = Otariid pinnipeds. The high-frequency cetacean hearing group (HF) is omitted, because no species in the hearing group occur in, or around, Project area.
2 Mean ambient sound levels in San Diego Bay are approximately 128 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), and all 120 dB Level B ZOIs are based on
the ambient value. The distances for all activities producing sound at NMAWC will be verified via hydrophone during project activities.
3 Airborne noise levels did not exceed regulatory thresholds during previous IHAs. No airborne monitoring will take place for diamond saw cutting of caissons, plasma torch cutting of temporary mooring dolphin 30-inch steel piles, jetting or dead-pull extraction of concrete piles.
4 Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 20 m (65.6 ft).
5 Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 100 m (328 ft).
6 Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 60 m (328 ft).
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
10.
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. If acoustic monitoring is being
conducted for that pile, a received SPL
may be estimated, or the received level
may be estimated on the basis of past or
subsequent acoustic monitoring. It may
then be determined whether the animal
was exposed to sound levels
constituting incidental harassment in
post-processing of observational and
acoustic data, and a precise accounting
of observed incidences of harassment
created. Therefore, although the
predicted distances to behavioral
harassment thresholds are useful for
estimating incidental harassment for
purposes of authorizing levels of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
incidental take, actual take may be
determined in part through the use of
empirical data.
Acoustic measurements will continue
during the fifth year of project activity
and zones would be adjusted as
indicated by empirical data. Please see
the Navy’s Acoustic and Marine Species
Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan;
available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm)
for full details.
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 remove a single pile
or series of piles, as long as the time
elapsed between uses of the pile driving
equipment is no more than thirty
minutes. Please see the Monitoring Plan
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
(as defined in the Monitoring Plan) to
monitor for marine mammals and
implement shutdown/delay procedures
when applicable by calling for the
shutdown to the hammer operator.
Qualified observers are trained
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
biologists, with the following minimum
qualifications:
(a) 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;
(b) Ability to conduct field
observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols;
(c) Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of
behaviors;
(d) Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
(e) 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
(f) Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving
activity, the shutdown zone will be
monitored for 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
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36376
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
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 small
cetaceans or pinnipeds and 30 minutes
for gray whales. Monitoring will be
conducted throughout the time required
to drive a pile and for thirty minutes
following the conclusion of pile driving.
Sound Attenuation Devices
The use of bubble curtains to reduce
underwater sound from impact pile
driving was considered prior to the start
of the project but was determined to not
be practicable. Use of a bubble curtain
in a channel with substantial current
may not be effective, as unconfined
bubbles are likely to be swept away and
confined curtain systems may be
difficult to deploy effectively in high
currents. Data gathered during
monitoring of construction on the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge indicated
that no reduction in the overall linear
sound level resulted from use of a
bubble curtain in deep water with
relatively strong current (Illingworth &
Rodkin 2001). During project
monitoring for pile driving associated
with the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge,
also in San Francisco Bay, it was
observed that performance in moderate
current was significantly reduced
(Oestman et al., 2009). Lucke et al.
(2011) also note that the effectiveness of
most currently used curtain designs may
be compromised in stronger currents
and greater water depths. We believe
that conditions (relatively deep water
and strong tidal currents of up to 3
knots (kn)) at the project site would
disperse the bubbles and compromise
the effectiveness of sound attenuation.
Timing Restrictions
In-order to avoid impacts to least tern
populations when they are most likely
to be foraging and nesting, in-water
work will be concentrated from October
1–April 1 or, depending on
circumstances, to April 30. However,
this limitation is in accordance with
agreements between the Navy and FWS,
and is not a requirement of this
proposed IHA. All in-water construction
activities would occur only from 45
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
minutes after sunrise to 45 minutes
before sunset.
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.’’ The project will
utilize soft start techniques for impact
pile driving. We require an initial set of
three strikes from the impact hammer at
reduced energy, followed by a 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;
the requirement to implement soft start
for impact driving is independent of
whether vibratory driving has occurred
within the prior thirty minutes.
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,
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.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density).
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) Affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) Cooccurrence of marine mammal species
with the action; or (4) Biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age,
calving or feeding areas).
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or impacts
from multiple stressors.
• 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
(e.g. marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat).
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Please see the Monitoring Plan
(available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm)
for full details of the requirements for
monitoring and reporting. Notional
monitoring locations (for biological and
acoustic monitoring) are shown in
Figures 3–1 and 3–2 of the Plan. The
purpose of this Plan is to provide
protocols for acoustic and marine
mammal monitoring implemented
during pile driving and removal
activities. We have preliminarily
determined this monitoring plan, which
is summarized here and which largely
follows the monitoring strategies
required and successfully implemented
under the previous IHAs, to be
sufficient to meet the MMPA’s
monitoring and reporting requirements.
The previous monitoring plan was
modified to integrate adaptive changes
to the monitoring methodologies as well
as updates to the scheduled
construction activities. Monitoring
objectives are as follows:
• Monitor in-water construction
activities, including the implementation
of in-situ acoustic monitoring efforts to
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
continue to measure SPLs from in-water
construction and demolition activities
not previously monitored or validated
during the previous IHAs. This would
include collection of acoustic data for
activities and pile types for which
sufficient data has not previously been
collected, including for diamond saw
cutting of caissons and pile clipping of
the concrete piles during fuel pier
demolition. The Navy also plans to
collect acoustic data for vibratory
extraction and/or driving, impact
driving, jetting pile extraction and pile
dead-pull of the concrete piles at
NMAWC.
• Monitor marine mammal
occurrence and behavior during inwater construction activities to
minimize marine mammal impacts and
effectively document marine mammals
occurring within ZOI boundaries.
Collection of ambient underwater
sound measurements in the absence of
project activities has been concluded, as
a rigorous baseline dataset for the
project area has been developed.
Acoustic Measurements
The primary purpose of acoustic
monitoring is to empirically verify
modeled injury and behavioral
disturbance zones (defined at radial
distances to NMFS-specified thresholds;
see Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment). For non-pulsed sound,
distances will continue to be evaluated
for attenuation to the point at which
sound becomes indistinguishable from
background levels. Empirical acoustic
monitoring data will be used to
document transmission loss values
determined from past measurements
and to examine site-specific differences
in SPL and affected ZOIs on an as
needed basis.
Should monitoring results indicate it
is appropriate to do so, marine mammal
mitigation zones may be revised as
necessary to encompass actual ZOIs.
Acoustic monitoring will be conducted
as specified in the approved Monitoring
Plan. Please see Table 2–2 of the Plan
for a list of equipment to be used during
acoustic monitoring. Monitoring
locations will be determined based on
results of previous acoustic monitoring
effort and the best professional
judgment of acoustic technicians.
For activities such as demolition of
the old fuel pier and temporary mooring
dolphin, the Navy will continue to
collect in situ acoustic data to validate
source levels and ZOIs. Environmental
data would be collected including but
not limited to: Wind speed and
direction, air temperature, humidity,
surface water temperature, water depth,
wave height, weather conditions and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
other factors that could contribute to
influencing the airborne and underwater
sound levels (e.g., aircraft, boats). Full
details of acoustic monitoring
requirements may be found in section
4.2 of the Navy’s Monitoring Plan.
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 as described under
Proposed Mitigation and in the
Monitoring Plan, with observers located
at the best practicable vantage points.
Notional monitoring locations are
shown in Figures 3–3 and 3–4 of the
Navy’s Plan. Please see that plan,
available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm, for
full details of the required marine
mammal monitoring. Section 3.2 of the
Plan and Section 13 of the Navy’s
application offer more detail regarding
monitoring protocols. 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.
One MMO will be placed in the most
effective position near the active
construction/demolition platform in
order to observe the respective
shutdown zones for vibratory and
impact pile driving or for applicable
demolition activities. Monitoring would
be primarily dedicated to observing the
shutdown zone; however, MMOs would
record all marine mammal sightings
beyond these distances provided it did
not interfere with their effectiveness at
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36377
carrying out the shutdown procedures.
Additional land, pier, or vessel-based
MMOs will be positioned to monitor the
shutdown zones and the buffer zones, as
notionally indicated in Figures 3–3 and
3–4 of the Navy’s application.
For all pile driving and applicable
demolition activities, a minimum of one
observer shall monitor the shutdown
zones. However, any action requiring
the impact or vibratory hammer will
necessitate two MMOs. For impact and
vibratory pile driving of 16-in concrete
piles, two observers shall be positioned
for optimal monitoring of the
surrounding waters.
The MMOs will record all visible
marine mammal sightings. Confirmed
takes will be registered once the
sightings data has been overlaid with
the isopleths identified in Table 5 and
visualized in Figures 6–2, 6–3, and 6–
4 of the Navy’s application, or based on
refined acoustic data, if amendments to
the ZOIs are needed. Acousticians on
duty may be noting SPLs in real-time,
but, to avoid biasing the observations,
will not communicate that information
directly to the MMOs. These platforms
may move closer to, or farther from, the
source depending on whether received
SPLs are less than or greater than the
regulatory threshold values. All MMOs
will be in radio communication with
each other so that the MMOs will know
when to anticipate incoming marine
mammal species and when they are
tracking the same animals observed
elsewhere.
If any species for which take is not
authorized is observed by a MMO
during applicable construction or
demolition activities, all construction
will be stopped immediately. Pile
driving will commence if the animal has
not been seen inside the Level B ZOI for
at least one hour of observation. If the
animal is resighted again, pile driving
will be stopped and a boat-based MMO
(if available) will follow the animal
until it has left the Level B ZOI. If the
animal is resighted again, pile driving
will be stopped and a boat-based MMO
(if available) will follow the animal
until it has left the Level B ZOI.
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
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36378
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
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 incidents 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 distance from pile driving activity,
and if possible, the correlation to
measured 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.
In addition, photographs would be
taken of any gray whales observed.
These photographs would be submitted
to NMFS’ West Coast Regional Office for
comparison with photo-identification
catalogs to determine whether the whale
is a member of the WNP population.
Reporting
A draft report would be submitted to
NMFS within 45 calendar days of the
completion of marine mammal
monitoring, or 60 days prior to the
issuance of any subsequent IHA for this
project, whichever comes first. The
report will include marine mammal
observations pre-activity, duringactivity, 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. A final report would be
prepared and submitted within thirty
days following resolution of comments
on the draft report. Required contents of
the monitoring reports are described in
more detail in the Navy’s Acoustic and
Marine Species Monitoring Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
Monitoring Results From Previously
Authorized Activities
The Navy complied with the
mitigation and monitoring required
under the previous authorizations for
this project. Acoustic and marine
mammal monitoring was implemented
as required, with marine mammal
monitoring occurring before, during,
and after each pile driving event. During
the course of Year 4 activities, the Navy
did not exceed the take levels
authorized under the IHA (please see
the Navy’s monitoring report for more
details and below for further
discussion).
The general objectives of the
monitoring plan were similar to those
described above for the Year 5
monitoring plan. For acoustic
monitoring, the primary goal was to
continue to collect in situ data towards
validation of the acoustic ZOIs defined
based on previous data collection efforts
and using the transmission loss
modeling effort conducted prior to the
start of the project, and to continue
collection of data on background noise
conditions in San Diego Bay.
Acoustic Monitoring Results—For a
full description of acoustic monitoring
methodology, please see section 2.3 of
the Navy’s monitoring report, including
Figure 2–3 for representative monitoring
locations. Results from Years 1–4 are
displayed in Table 11. Please see our
notices of proposed IHAs for the Years
2, 3, and 4 IHAs (79 FR 53026,
September 5, 2014; 80 FR 53115,
September 2, 2015; and 81 FR 66628,
September 28, 2016) or the Navy’s Year
1 and 2 monitoring reports for more
detailed description of monitoring
accomplished during the first two years
of the project.
For acoustic monitoring associated
with impact pile driving, continuous
hydroacoustic monitoring systems were
positioned at source (10 m from the
pile) and opportunistically at predicted
160-dB Level B ZOIs. The far-field data
collections were conducted at multiple
locations during impact driving of 16-in
concrete-filled poly piles and 24 x 30in concrete fender piles, i.e.,
approximately 20 to 550 m from source.
Hydrophones were deployed from the
dock, barge, or moored vessel at half the
water depth. The SPLs for driving of 30in steel pipe piles were measured
intermittently and archived (but not
reported) because associated SPLs for
the size, type, and location of the piles
were previously validated. Source SPLs
were recorded and analyzed for a
minimum of five piles for each of the
concrete pile types. Additional
measurements were archived.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SPLs of pile driving and demolition
activities conducted during Year 2 fell
within expected levels but varied
spatially relative to the existing fuel pier
structure and maximum source levels
for individual piles (Table 11). For both
vibratory and impact pile driving
methods, results from the IPP (Year 1)
and 2014/2015 production pile driving
(Year 2) showed that transmission loss
for piles driven in shallow water inside
of the existing fuel pier was greater than
piles driven in deep water outside of the
existing pier. Differences in depth,
sediment type, and existing in-water
pier/wharf structures likely accounted
for variations in transmission loss and
measured differences in SPLs recorded
at the shutdown and far-field locations
for shallow versus deep piles of the
same type and size. SPLs documented
during vibratory and impact pile driving
of shallow and deep steel pipe piles of
the same size displayed notable
differences in SPLs at shutdown range
and to a lesser extent at source.
Measurements of impact driving of
concrete piles conducted during Year 3
produced greater than expected SPLs at
source. Differences in the subsurface
conditions may account for the
discrepancy, as a hardened layer is
found at approximately 20–40 m below
the mudline. SPLs documented during
driving of 16-in piles generally
displayed relatively low sound source
levels during initial driving then
appreciable increases observed once the
piles interacted with this layer.
Measurements from driving of the
square concrete piles showed greatest
sound source levels during initial
impact pile driving, which then
decreased once the piles transitioned
through the hardened layer. While
source SPLs were observed to be greater
than expected for both pile types,
attenuation was also greater. Despite
greater than expected source levels, the
measured isopleth distances were
similar to modeled predictions. Far-field
impact pile driving results varied
substantially between piles and
locations for the various pile sizes,
types, and locations. Both pile types
were driven adjacent to the new fuel
pier and source SPLs were subject to a
wide variety of boundary conditions
from recently driven piles and
associated pier infrastructure. Further
detail and discussion is provided in the
Navy’s report.
During Year 4, measurements were
conducted for pile clipping, caisson
cutting, pile jetting, and airborne
vibratory and impact driving. The
average SPLs for pile clipping at source
ranged from 138.0 to 144.6 dB rms, with
maximum SPLs at source ranging from
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36379
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
156.1 to 165.3 dB rms (see Table 6–3 of
the Navy’s monitoring report).
Measurements were conducted on eight
piles and took one to three minutes to
cut.
Caisson demolition was conducted on
18 84-in concrete-filled caissons, with
an average duration of approximately 6
hours per caisson. Underwater acoustic
data was collected for seven caissons
using the vibratory setting. For some of
the recordings, there were two caissons
being cut simultaneously and the
acousticians captured the SPLs for
comparison between a single cutter
versus two cutters. If two cutters were
running, the distance measured was
from the closest caisson to the location.
Average SPLs at source for a single
cutter were 136.1 and 141.4 dB rms.
Maximum SPLs at source for a single
cutter were 140.9 and 146.5 dB rms.
Average SPLs at source for two cutters
running simultaneously were 146.5 and
149.0 dB rms. Maximum SPLs at source
for two cutters running simultaneously
were 149.0 and 155.6 dB rms. On
average, there was a 10 dB difference
between a single cutter and two at
source. Far-field recordings for a single
cutter were collected at far-field
locations ranging from 20 to 430 m (66
to 1,411 ft), with documented maximum
SPL values from 136.6 to 145.5 dB rms.
Far-field recordings for two cutters were
also collected at far-field locations
ranging from 85 to 810 m (279 to 2,657
ft), with documented maximum SPL
values from 133.2 to 146.8 dB rms.
SPLs of pile installation activities for
the 24 x 30 concrete piles had not been
previously documented. The only
jetting data collected during the Project
was at NMAWC during the removal of
12-inch and 16-inch concrete piles. A
total of sixteen 24 x 30 concrete nonstructural fender piles were driven
using two techniques: (1) Method 1 (M1)
utilized a custom-made spud jet with
four nozzles welded to the tip that used
a high-pressure water system (900
gallons per minute with a maximum
pounds per square inch [psi] of 300), to
make the initial break through the bay
point formation sediment layer; and (2)
Method 2 (M2) used the 24 x 30 pile,
outfitted with two pipes inside the full
length of the pile, which then used a
high-pressure water system (maximum
psi of 300) to remove sediment and
place the pile. Pile jetting averaged 24.5
minutes per pile and acoustic
recordings were collected for the entire
duration. Collection of underwater
acoustic data were completed on six
piles using the vibratory setting. For M1,
the average sound pressure levels (SPL)
at source ranged from 152.6 dB rms to
155.1 dB rms, and maximum SPLs at
source ranged from 156.5 dB rms to
159.9 dB rms. For M2, the average SPL
at source ranged from 133.0 dB to 149.8
dB and maximum SPLs at source ranged
from 137.1 dB to 153.2 dB rms. A vessel
based drift method was used to obtain
far-field recordings during M1 and M2
jetting techniques; the vessel was
initially positioned at the closest
feasible distance to source, and then the
allowed to drift on the natural tidal
current until near ambient sound
pressure levels were obtained. The SPLs
at far-field for the first drift during
jetting M1 reached near ambient at 165
m (541 ft) from pile with an SPL of
128.0 dB. The SPLs at far-field for the
first drift during pile jetting M2 reached
near ambient at 80 m (262 ft) from pile
with an SPL of 127.6 dB. Recordings
during the vessel drifts showed that
jetting reached near ambient levels for
both methods between 80 m (262 ft) and
165 m (541 ft; M1 and M2, respectively).
Airborne sound levels were recorded
during vibratory pile driving on
fourteen 30-inch steel piles. The
maximum recorded airborne dB rms
values at source was 106.3 dB re 20 mPa,
and average values ranged from 96.0 to
102.7 dB re 20 mPa. Airborne sound
levels were recorded during impact pile
driving on sixteen 30-inch steel piles.
The maximum recorded airborne dB
values at source was 118.5 dB re 20 mPa,
and average values ranged from 105.8 to
112.5 dB re 20 mPa. Further detail and
discussion is provided in the Navy’s
report.
TABLE 11—ACOUSTIC MONITORING RESULTS FOR YEAR 4
Average
underwater
SPL at 10 m
(dB rms)
Number
of piles
measured
Average
airborne SPL
(LZFmax) 1
Location
Activity
Pile type
Fuel Pier (Year 4) ..................
Pile Clipping ..........................
Caisson Demolition (1 cutter)
Caisson Demolition (2 cutters).
Vibratory ...............................
Vibratory ...............................
Impact ...................................
Impact ...................................
Pile Jetting ............................
24-in square concrete pile ....
84-in caisson ........................
84-in caisson ........................
4
10
8
141
136
138
........................
........................
........................
30-in steel (at source) ..........
30-in steel (far field) .............
30-in steel (at source) ..........
30-in steel (far field) .............
24x30 ....................................
7
7
9
7
10
........................
........................
........................
........................
147
100
86
110
88
........................
NMAWC (Year 4) ..................
1 Measured
from Source (15.2 m) and Far-field Distances for 30-inch Steel Piles.
Marine Mammal Monitoring Results—
Marine mammal monitoring was
conducted as required under the IHA
and as described in the Year 4
monitoring plan and in our Federal
Register notice of proposed
authorization associated with the Year 4
IHA. For a full description of
monitoring methodology, please see
section 2 of the Navy’s monitoring
report, including Figure 2–1, 2–2, and
2–7 for representative monitoring
locations and Figures 2–2 through 2–5
for monitoring zones. Monitoring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
protocols were managed adaptively
during the course of the fourth-year
IHA. Multiple shutdowns were
implemented due to marine mammals
being observed within buffered
shutdown zones, but no animals were
observed within actual predicted Level
A harassment zones while pile driving
was occurring (one harbor seal was seen
within the Level A ZOI after a shutdown
of construction had been implemented).
Monitoring results are presented in
Table 12. The Navy recorded all
observations of marine mammals,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
including pre- and post-construction
monitoring efforts. Animals observed
during these periods or that were
determined to be outside relevant ZOIs
were not considered to represent
incidents of take. Please see Figures 3–
11, 3–12, 3–22, 3–23, 3–30, and 3–31 of
the Navy’s Monitoring Report for
locations of observations and incidents
of take relative to the project sites. Take
authorization for the second-year
authorization was informed by an
assumption that 115 days of in-water
construction would occur, whereas only
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36380
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
fifty total days actually occurred.
However, the actual observed rates per
day were in all cases lower than what
was assumed. Therefore, we expect that
the Navy would not have exceeded the
take allowances even if the full 115 days
had been reached.
There were considerably fewer
individuals and sightings during the
Year 3 IHA when compared to the same
months during the Year 2 IHA, and only
three species were observed. This may
be due to environmental fluctuations as
˜
part of the on-going El Nino event.
Water temperatures during Year 3 were
warmer than during the same months
during Year 2. Although the
temperatures were still higher than the
average water temperatures for the
˜
region prior to the current El Nino
event, it shows that the event may have
been dissipating. In addition, California
sea lion strandings decreased. No
evidently significant behavioral changes
were reported.
Similar to Year 3, there were
considerably fewer individuals and
sightings during the Year 4 IHA when
compared to the same months during
the Year 2 IHA, and only four species
were observed. This may be due to
environmental fluctuations as part of
˜
the on-going El Nino event. Water
temperatures during Year 4 were
slightly warmer than during the same
months during Year 2. Although the
temperatures were still higher than the
average water temperatures for the
˜
region prior to the current El Nino
event, it shows that the event may have
been dissipating. In addition, California
sea lion strandings decreased, but may
be returning to numbers more
commonly observed. No evidently
significant behavioral changes were
reported.
TABLE 12—MARINE MAMMAL MONITORING RESULTS FOR YEAR 4
Total
sightings
Species
California sea lion ................................................................
Harbor seal ..........................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ...............................................................
Gray whale ...........................................................................
Total
individuals
717
87
18
1
Observed
incidents
of Level B
take
2,037
102
45
1
156
21
4
0
Extrapolated
incidents of
Level B
take 1
1,835
57
144
13
Total
estimated
Level B take
1,991
78
148
13
1 Assumed density and unmonitored area of assumed Level B ZOI used with actual pile driving time to generate assumed take for unmonitored
areas.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
A negligible impact finding is based on
the lack of likely adverse effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(i.e., population-level effects). An
estimate of the number of takes alone is
not enough information on which to
base an impact determination. In
addition to considering estimates of the
number of marine mammals that might
be ‘‘taken’’ through harassment, NMFS
considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g.,
intensity, duration), the context of any
responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, migration), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely
effectiveness of the mitigation. We also
assess the number, intensity, and
context of estimated takes by evaluating
this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’s implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Construction and demolition
activities associated with the pier
replacement 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 or removal is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality
is anticipated given the nature of the
activity 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. Impact pile driving
produces short, sharp pulses with
higher peak levels and much sharper
rise time to reach those peaks. When
impact driving is necessary, required
measures (implementation of buffered
shutdown zones) significantly reduce
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
injurious. The likelihood that marine
mammal detection ability by trained
observers is high under the
environmental conditions described for
San Diego Bay (approaching 100 percent
detection rate, as described by trained
biologists conducting site-specific
surveys) further enables the
implementation of shutdowns to avoid
injury, serious injury, or mortality.
Effects on individuals that are taken
by Level B harassment, on the basis of
reports in the literature as well as
monitoring from past years of this
project and 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, 2012;
Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals
will simply move away from the sound
source and be temporarily displaced
from the areas of pile driving, although
even this reaction has been observed
primarily only in association with
impact pile driving. In response to
vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which
may become somewhat habituated to
human activity in industrial or urban
waterways) have been observed to orient
towards and sometimes move towards
the sound. 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
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
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 fitness 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
project area while the activity is
occurring.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our preliminary determination that the
impacts resulting from this activity are
not expected to adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
• The anticipated incidents of Level B
harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior;
• The absence of any significant
habitat within the project area,
including rookeries, significant haulouts, or known areas or features of
special significance for foraging or
reproduction; and
• The presumed efficacy of the
proposed mitigation measures in
reducing the effects of the specified
activity to the level of least practicable
impact.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
for specified activities other than
military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so,
in practice, where estimated numbers
are available, NMFS compares the
number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
the relevant species or stock in our
determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
The number of incidents of take
proposed for authorization for these
stocks, with the exception of the coastal
bottlenose dolphin (see below), would
be considered small relative to the
relevant stocks or populations (see
Table 9) even if each estimated taking
occurred to a new individual. This is an
extremely unlikely scenario as, for
pinnipeds occurring at the NBPL
waterfront, there will almost certainly
be some overlap in individuals present
day-to-day and in general, there is likely
to be some overlap in individuals
present day-to-day for animals in
estuarine/inland waters.
The proposed numbers of authorized
take for bottlenose dolphins are higher
relative to the total stock abundance
estimate and would not represent small
numbers if a significant portion of the
take was for a new individual. However,
these numbers represent the estimated
incidents of take, not the number of
individuals taken. That is, it is likely
that a relatively small subset of
California coastal bottlenose dolphins
would be incidentally harassed by
project activities. California coastal
bottlenose dolphins range from San
Francisco Bay to San Diego (and south
into Mexico) and the specified activity
would be stationary within an enclosed
water body that is not recognized as an
area of any special significance for
coastal bottlenose dolphins (and is
therefore not an area of dolphin
aggregation, as evident in Navy
observational records). 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, based on the limited region of
exposure in comparison with the known
distribution of the coastal bottlenose
dolphin, these estimated incidents of
take represent small numbers of
bottlenose dolphins.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36381
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action.
Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the total taking of
affected species or stocks would not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of such species or stocks
for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this
case with the ESA Interagency
Cooperation Division, whenever we
propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
The Navy initiated informal
consultation under section 7 of the ESA
with NMFS Southwest Regional Office
(now West Coast Regional Office) on
March 5, 2013. NMFS concluded on
May 16, 2013, that the proposed action
may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect, WNP gray whales. The Navy has
not requested authorization of the
incidental take of WNP gray whales and
no such authorization is proposed, and
there are no other ESA-listed marine
mammals found in the action area.
Therefore, no consultation under the
ESA is required.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to the Navy for conducting the
described pier replacement activities in
San Diego Bay, for a period of one year
from the date of issuance, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. This section contains
a draft of the IHA itself. The wording
contained in this section is proposed for
inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) is valid from
October 8, 2017, through October 7,
2018.
2. This IHA is valid only for pile
driving and removal activities
associated with the Fuel Pier
Replacement Project at the Naval
Station Point Loma in San Diego Bay,
California.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36382
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
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
are the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina
richardii), California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus truncatus), common
dolphin (Delphinus delphis), northern
elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris),
Pacific white-sided dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), Risso’s
dolphin (Grampus griseus), and gray
whale (Eschrichtius robustus).
(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, BY SPECIES
Authorized
take
Species
California sea lion .................
Harbor seal ...........................
Northern elephant seal .........
California coastal bottlenose
dolphin ...............................
Common dolphin ..................
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...
Risso’s dolphin .....................
Gray whale ...........................
8,971
281
43
704
861
28
114
10
(d) The taking by injury (Level A
harassment), serious injury, or death of
any 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, acoustic monitoring team, and
Navy staff prior to the start of all pile
driving activity, and when new
personnel join the work, in order to
explain responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures.
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 10 m radius around the pile. If a
marine mammal comes within or
approaches the shutdown zone, such
operations shall cease. See Table 2 for
minimum radial distances required for
shutdown zones.
TABLE 2—RADIAL DISTANCE TO SHUTDOWN AND DISTURBANCE ZONES ASSOCIATED WITH RELEVANT THRESHOLDS,
INCLUDING BUFFERS
Monitored distances to thresholds
(meters)
Underwater
Activity
Airborne
Level A
LF 1
MF 1
Level B
PW 1
OW 1
Level B
120 dB 2
160 dB
100 dB
90 dB
Old Fuel Pier and Temporary Mooring Dolphin Demolition
66-inch and 84-inch caissons (Diamond saw
cutting) ..........................................................
10
N/A
631
Concrete piles (Pile clipping) ...........................
10
N/A
2,511
30-inch steel piles (Plasma torch cutting) .......
10
N/A 3
N/A
NMAWC Construction and Demolition
16-inch concrete piles (Vibratory extraction/
driving) ..........................................................
20 4
10
N/A
1,848
16-inch concrete piles (Impact driving) ............
100 5
60 6
270
N/A
N/A
1,165
16-inch concrete piles (Jetting pile extraction)
10
16-inch concrete piles (Pile dead-pull) ............
10
42
149
N/A 3
N/A
1 LF
= Low-frequency cetaceans; MF = Mid-frequency cetaceans; PW = Phocid pinnipeds; OW = Otariid pinnipeds. The high-frequency cetacean hearing group (HF) is omitted, because no species in the hearing group occur in, or around, Project area.
2 Mean ambient sound levels in San Diego Bay are approximately 128 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), and all 120 dB Level B ZOIs are based on
the ambient value.
3 Airborne noise levels did not exceed regulatory thresholds during previous IHAs. No airborne monitoring will take place for diamond saw cutting of caissons, plasma torch cutting of temporary mooring dolphin 30-inch steel piles, jetting or dead-pull extraction of concrete piles.
4 Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 20 m (65.6 ft).
5 Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 100 m (328 ft).
6 Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 60 m (197 ft).
(b) The Navy shall shutdown activity
as appropriate upon observation of any
species for which take is not authorized.
Activity shall not be resumed until
those species have been observed to
leave the relevant zone or until one hour
has elapsed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
(c) The Navy shall deploy marine
mammal observers as described below
and as indicated in the Acoustic and
Marine Species Monitoring Plan
(Monitoring Plan; attached).
i. For all pile driving and applicable
demolition activities, a minimum of one
observer shall monitor the shutdown
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
zones. However, any action requiring
the impact or vibratory hammer will
necessitate two MMOs.
ii. For impact and vibratory pile
driving of 16-in concrete piles, two
observers shall be positioned for
optimal monitoring of the surrounding
waters.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
iii. 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.
iv. 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).
(d) 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
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).
(e) 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 30 minutes have
passed without re-detection of gray
whales or 15 minutes for all other
animals.
(f) 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.
(g) The Navy shall use soft start
techniques recommended by NMFS for
impact pile driving. Soft start for impact
drivers requires contractors to provide
an initial set of strikes at reduced
energy, followed by a thirty-second
waiting period, then two subsequent
reduced energy strike sets. Soft start
shall be implemented at the start of each
day’s impact pile driving and at any
time following cessation of impact pile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
driving for a period of 30 minutes or
longer.
(h) 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.
(c) The Navy shall conduct acoustic
monitoring for representative scenarios
of pile driving activity, 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 45 calendar days of the
completion of marine mammal and
acoustic monitoring, or 60 days prior to
the issuance of any subsequent IHA for
this project, 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 incidences of take, such as
ability to track groups or individuals.
iii. Results of acoustic monitoring,
including the information described in
in the Monitoring Plan.
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36383
activities and report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the West Coast 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.
i. 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
West Coast 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.
ii. 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 West Coast 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 the
authorized taking is having more than a
negligible impact on the species or stock
of affected marine mammals.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
36384
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2017 / Notices
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analysis,
the draft authorization, and any other
aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA
for Navy’s pier replacement activities.
Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to
help inform our final decision on Navy’s
request for an MMPA authorization.
Dated: August 1, 2017.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–16453 Filed 8–3–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities Relating to Security Futures
Products
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or
‘‘CFTC’’) is announcing an opportunity
for public comment on the extension of
a proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. In
compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Federal agencies
are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an
existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in
response to the notice. This notice
solicits comments, as described below,
on the proposed Information Collection
Request (‘‘ICR’’) relating to security
futures products.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by OMB Control No. 3038–
0059 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency’s Web site, at https://
comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
through the Web site.
• Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission,
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, 1155 21st Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand delivery/Courier: Same as
Mail above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
through the Portal.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Aug 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
Please submit your comments using
only one method.
All comments must be submitted in
English, or if not, accompanied by an
English translation. Comments will be
posted as received to https://
www.cftc.gov. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. If you wish the
Commission to consider information
that you believe is exempt from
disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act, a petition for
confidential treatment of the exempt
information may be submitted according
to the procedures established in § 145.9
of the Commission’s regulations.1 The
Commission reserves the right, but shall
have no obligation, to review, prescreen, filter, redact, refuse, or remove
any or all of your submission from
https://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to
be inappropriate for publication, such as
obscene language. All submissions that
have been redacted or removed that
contain comments on the merits of the
ICR will be retained in the public
comment file and will be considered as
required under the Administrative
Procedure Act and other applicable
laws, and may be accessible under the
Freedom of Information Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Steinberg, Associate Director,
Division of Market Oversight,
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, (202) 418–5102; email:
dsteinberg@cftc.gov, and refer to OMB
Control No. 3038–0059.
Under the
PRA, Federal agencies must obtain
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct or sponsor.
‘‘Collection of Information’’ is defined
in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3
and includes agency requests or
requirements that members of the public
submit reports, keep records, or provide
information to a third party. Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies
to provide a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information
before submitting the collection to OMB
for approval. To comply with this
requirement, the CFTC is publishing
notice of the proposed collection of
information listed below.
Title: Part 41, Relating to Security
Futures Products (OMB Control No.
3038–0059). This is a request for
extension of a currently approved
information collection.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 17
PO 00000
CFR 145.9.
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Affected Entities: Entities potentially
affected by this action are businesses
and other for-profit institutions.
Abstract: Section 4d(c) of the
Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’), 7
U.S.C. 6d(c), requires the CFTC to
consult with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) and
issue such rules, regulations, or orders
as are necessary to avoid duplicative or
conflicting regulations applicable to
firms that are fully registered with the
SEC as brokers or dealers and the CFTC
as futures commission merchants
involving provisions of the CEA that
pertain to the treatment of customer
funds. The CFTC, jointly with the SEC,
issued regulations requiring such
dually-registered firms to make choices
as to how its customers’ transactions in
security futures products will be treated,
either as securities transactions held in
a securities account or as futures
transactions held in a futures account.
How an account is treated is important
in the unlikely event of the insolvency
of the firm. Securities accounts receive
insurance protection under provisions
of the Securities Investor Protection Act.
By contrast, futures accounts are subject
to the protections provided by the
segregation requirements of the CEA.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the CFTC’s regulations
were published on December 30, 1981.
See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981).
The Commission would like to solicit
comments to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Commission, including
whether the information will have a
practical use;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
Commission’s estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Burden Statement: The respondent
burden for this collection is estimated to
average 1.57 hours per response. This
estimate includes the time needed to
review instructions; develop, acquire,
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36360-36384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16453]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XF541
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pier Replacement Project in San
Diego, CA
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 and
demolition activities as part of a pier replacement project. Pursuant
to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA)
to the Navy to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B Harassment
only, during the specified activity. NMFS will consider public comments
prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested
MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the
final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than
September 5, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application 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.McCue@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: Laura McCue, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the
[[Page 36361]]
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt,
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, 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).
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A,
which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On June 19, 2017, we received a request from the Navy for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to pile installation and demolition
associated with a pier replacement project in San Diego Bay at Naval
Base Point Loma in San Diego, CA (NBPL), including a separate
monitoring plan. The Navy also submitted a draft monitoring report on
June 13, 2017, pursuant to requirements of the previous IHA. These
final application and monitoring plan were deemed adequate and complete
on July 20, 2017. The pier replacement project is planned to occur over
multiple years; this proposed IHA would cover only the fifth year of
work and would be valid for a period of one year from the date of
issuance. Hereafter, use of the generic term ``pile driving'' may refer
to both pile installation and removal unless otherwise noted. The
Navy's request is for take of nine species of marine mammals by Level B
harassment. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expect mortality to result from
this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Monitoring reports are available online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm and provide environmental
information related to proposed issuance of this IHA for public review
and comment.
This proposed IHA would cover one year of a larger project for
which the Navy obtained prior IHAs and this request for take
authorization is for the fifth year of the project, following the IHAs
issued effective from October 8, 2016, through October 7, 2017 (81 FR
66628), September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014 (78 FR 44539), from
October 8, 2014, through October 7, 2015 (79 FR 65378), and from
October 8, 2015, through October 7, 2016 (80 FR 62032). The Navy
complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting) of the previous IHA. Monitoring reports are available online
at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm and provide
environmental information related to proposed issuance of this IHA for
public review and comment.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
NBPL provides berthing and support services for Navy submarines and
other fleet assets. The existing fuel pier serves as a fuel depot for
loading and unloading tankers and Navy underway replenishment vessels
that refuel ships at sea (``oilers''), as well as transferring fuel to
local replenishment vessels and other small craft operating in San
Diego Bay, and is the only active Navy fueling facility in southern
California. Portions of the pier are over one hundred years old, while
the newer segment was constructed in 1942. The pier as a whole is
significantly past its design service life and does not meet current
construction standards.
The Navy plans to demolish and remove the existing pier and
associated pipelines and appurtenances while simultaneously replacing
it with a generally similar structure that meets relevant standards for
seismic strength and is designed to better accommodate modern Navy
ships. Demolition and construction are planned to occur in two phases
to maintain the fueling capabilities of the existing pier while the new
pier is being constructed. During the fifth year of construction (the
specified activity considered under this proposed IHA), the Navy
anticipates construction at two locations: The fuel pier area and at
the Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command (NMAWC), where the
Navy's Marine Mammal Program (MMP) was temporarily moved during fuel
pier construction (see Figure 1-1 in the Navy's application). At the
fuel pier, the Navy anticipates finishing all the demolition, including
removal of 180 square precast (PC) concrete and poly-concrete piles of
varying sizes up to 24-in using a hydraulic pile cutter; cutting 30 66-
in and 5 84-in concrete-filled steel caissons with a diamond wire saw;
and removing 12 30-in steel piles by cutting with a plasma torch. Only
the hydraulic pile cutting and diamond saw cutting of caissons reach
Level B acoustic thresholds.
At the NMAWC, twenty-three 16-in diameter PC concrete guide piles
would be driven (by vibratory and/or impact hammer) to restore gangway
access to the recreational marina. Sixty-four 16-in diameter round PC
concrete guide piles will be removed at NMAWC by jetting followed by
dry-pulling; dry pulling does not reach the Level B acoustic
thresholds. Table 1 summarizes the construction activities during the
fifth year of the Navy's project.
[[Page 36362]]
Table 1--Construction Proposed To Be Complete During Fifth Year of NBPL
Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location and pile type or structure Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal/Demolition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 180 (Fuel Pier):
Poly-concrete and PC concrete piles up to 24-in 180
square.............................................
66'' concrete filled steel caissons................. 30
84'' concrete filled steel caissons................. 5
30'' steel at temporary south dolphin............... 12
Total--Pier 180 (Fuel Pier)..................... 227
NMAWC:
Extract 16'' PC round concrete...................... 64
---------------
Total--NMAWC.................................... 64
---------------
Total Piles Removed......................... 291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMAWC:
16'' PC concrete guide piles........................ 23
---------------
Total Piles Removed......................... 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: PC = precast.
The proposed actions with the potential to incidentally harass
marine mammals within the waters adjacent to NBPL are vibratory and
impact pile installation and certain demolition (i.e., pile removal)
techniques. Concurrent use of multiple pile driving rigs is not
planned.
Dates and Duration
The proposed activities that would be authorized by this IHA,
during the fifth year of work associated with the fuel pier project,
would occur for one year from the date of issuance of this proposed
IHA. Under the terms of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the
Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), all noise- and
turbidity-producing in-water activities in designated least tern
foraging habitat are to be avoided during the period when least terns
are present and engaged in nesting and foraging (a window from
approximately May 1 through September 15). However, it is possible that
in-water work not expected to result in production of significant noise
or turbidity (e.g., demolition activities) could occur at any time
during the period of validity of this proposed IHA. The conduct of any
such work would be subject to approval from FWS under the terms of the
MOU. We expect that in-water construction work would primarily occur
from October through April. Pile driving would occur during normal
working hours (approximately 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.), and would not occur
earlier than 45 minutes after sunrise or later than 45 minutes before
sunset.
Specific Geographic Region
NBPL is located on the peninsula of Point Loma near the mouth and
along the northern edge of San Diego Bay (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in
the Navy's application). San Diego Bay is a narrow, crescent-shaped
natural embayment oriented northwest-southeast with an approximate
length of 24 kilometers (km) and a total area of roughly 4,500 hectares
(ha). The width of the bay ranges from 0.3 to 5.8 km, and depths range
from 23 meters (m) mean lower low water (MLLW) near the tip of Ballast
Point to less than 2 m at the southern end (see Figure 2-1 of the
Navy's application). San Diego Bay is a heavily urbanized area with a
mix of industrial, military, and recreational uses. The northern and
central portions of the bay have been shaped by historic dredging to
support large ship navigation. Dredging occurs as necessary to maintain
constant depth within the navigation channel. Outside the navigation
channel, the bay floor consists of platforms at depths that vary
slightly. Sediments in northern San Diego Bay are relatively sandy as
tidal currents tend to keep the finer silt and clay fractions in
suspension, except in harbors and elsewhere in the lee of structures
where water movement is diminished. Much of the shoreline consists of
riprap and manmade structures. San Diego Bay is heavily used by
commercial, recreational, and military vessels, with an average of over
80,000 vessel movements (in or out of the bay) per year (not including
recreational boating within the Bay) (see Table 2-2 of the Navy's
application). For more information about the specific geographic
region, please see section 2.3 of the Navy's application.
Detailed Description of Activities
In order to provide context, we described the entire project in our
Federal Register notice of proposed authorization associated with the
first-year IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013). Please see that document
for an overview of the entire fuel pier replacement project, or see the
Navy's Environmental Assessment (2013) for more detail. Here, we
provide an overview of relevant construction methods before describing
only the specific project portions scheduled for completion during the
fifth work window. Please see Section 1 of the Navy's application for
full detail of construction scheduling for this period. For the fifth
year of work, approximately 23 concrete piles would be installed at
NMAWC. The Navy does not anticipate needing future IHAs related to
completion of construction at NBPL, but would apply for a sixth IHA if
construction is not completed under this IHA.
Methods, Pile Installation--Vibratory hammers, which can be used to
either install or extract a pile, contain a system of counter-rotating
eccentric weights powered by hydraulic motors and are designed in such
a way that horizontal vibrations cancel out, while vertical vibrations
are transmitted into the pile. The pile driving machine is lifted and
positioned over the pile by means of an excavator or crane, and is
fastened to the pile by a clamp and/or bolts. The vibrations produced
cause liquefaction
[[Page 36363]]
of the substrate surrounding the pile, enabling the pile to be
extracted or driven into the ground using the weight of the pile plus
the hammer. Impact hammers use a rising and falling piston to
repeatedly strike a pile and drive it into the ground.
Non-steel piles are typically impact-driven for their entire
embedment depth, in part because non-steel piles are often displacement
piles (as opposed to pipe piles) and require some impact to allow
substrate penetration. However, jetting may be used to advance
displacement piles to a certain embedment depth. Pile jetting utilizes
a directed flow of pressurized water to assist in pile placement. The
jetting technique liquefies the soils at the pile tip during pile
placement, reducing the friction between adjacent sub-grade soil
particles around the water jet. This greatly decreases the bearing
capacity of the soils below the pile tip, causing the pile to descend
toward its final tip elevation with much less soil resistance, largely
under its own weight.
Methods, Pile Removal--There are multiple methods for pile removal.
During previous demolition, piles were generally removed by cutting at
the mudline, which can be accomplished in various ways. Piles are
expected to be removed during this fifth-year IHA primarily using a
pile cutter, which is a bladed hydraulic device that shears the pile
off. The preferred method of removing the caisson elements is to cut
them at the mudline and then into two sections using a diamond wire
cutting saw. Existing caisson elements would be removed with a
clamshell, which is a dredging bucket consisting of two similar halves
that open/close at the bottom and are hinged at the top. The clamshell
would be used to grasp and lift large components.
Piles may also be removed by simply dry pulling, or pulling after
the pile has been loosened using a vibratory hammer or a pneumatic
chipper. Jetting may be another option to loosen piles that could not
be removed through the previous procedures. Pile removal is not
generally expected to require the use of vibratory extraction or
pneumatic chipping, and these methods are considered as contingency in
the event other methods of extraction are not successful.
Construction--Construction work during the proposed fifth year of
activity would include driving of concrete piles to restore dock access
at NMAWC following Navy Marine Mammal Program (MMP) removal from NMAWC.
This work is expected to require a total of 25 days.
Demolition--Demolition of the old pier will be completed now that
the new pier is operational. Much of the demolition work will be above-
water, involving removal of the pier, pilings, plastic camels and
fenders, but in-water structure removal will also occur, as described
above under Methods, Pile Removal. The in-water portion of demolition
work planned during the period of this proposed IHA is expected to
require 156 days in total.
NMAWC--As described above, the Navy also plans to return the MMP to
its permanent location near the fuel pier, requiring extraction and
installation of concrete piles to return the NMAWC site to its original
condition. This work is expected to require 15 days.
Description of Work Accomplished
During the first in-water work season (2013-14), two primary
activities were conducted: Relocation of the MMP and the Indicator Pile
Program (IPP). During the second in-water work season (2014-15), the
IPP was concluded and simultaneous construction of the new pier and
demolition of the old pier begun. Production pile driving continued
during the third in-water work season (2015-16). During the fourth in-
water work season (2016-17) pile driving of fender piles and structural
piles for the mooring dolphins for the new fuel pier was conducted,
including two IPP piles, demolition of the old fuel pier, and pile
driving and extraction at NMAWC.
The Navy MMP, administered by Space and Naval Warfare Systems
(SPAWAR) Command Systems Center (SSC), was moved approximately three
kilometers to the NMAWC (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 of the Navy's Year 1
monitoring report). Although not subject to the MMPA, SSC's working
animals were temporarily relocated so that they will not be affected by
the project. Over the course of 25 in-water construction days from
January 28 to March 13, 2014, the Navy removed thirty and installed 81
concrete piles (12- and 16-in). See Table 3-2 of the Navy's Year 1
monitoring report for details. Installation was accomplished via a D19-
42 American Pile Driving Equipment, Inc. (APE) diesel hammer with
energy capacity of 23,566-42,800 ft-lbs and fitted with a hydraulic
tripping cylinder with four adjustable power settings that could be
reset while driving. Pile removal was accomplished by jetting and dead
pull.
The IPP was designed to validate the length of pile required and
the method of installation (vibratory and impact) as well as to
validate acoustic sound pressure levels of the various sizes and
locations (i.e., shallow versus deeper water) of installed piles. Nine
steel pipe test piles were vibratory- and impact-driven over ten work
days from April 28 to May 15, 2014, including two 30-in and seven 36-in
piles. All piles were initially installed using an APE Variable Moment
250 VM Vibratory Hammer Extractor powered by a model 765 hydraulic
power source creating a maximum driving force of 2,389 kilonewtons (269
tons). Impact pile driving equipment consisted of a single acting
diesel impact hammer model D62-22 DELMAG with energy capacity of
76,899-153,799 ft-lbs and fitted with a hydraulic tripping cylinder
with four adjustable power settings that could be reset while driving.
One additional 36-in pile was installed in Spring 2015, under the Year
2 IHA, to conclude the IPP.
Production pile driving associated with construction of the new
pier was begun in Fall 2014 and continued into Spring 2015. Both
vibratory and impact driving was used, as described above, to install
238 steel pipe piles (four 18-in, 31 30-in, and 203 36-in diameter).
Hammers used were the same as those described above. Demolition
activity began in Spring 2015, and included the removal of four
caissons, eighteen concrete fender piles, and a portion of concrete
decking from the existing fuel pier. In total, this work consisted of
100 days of activity from October 16, 2014, through April 29, 2015. Of
these 100 days of in-water work, 18 days involved only impact driving,
15 days included only vibratory driving, and 65 days where both types
of driving occurred. The remaining two days involved only demolition
activities. Please see the Year 2 monitoring report for more
information.
Production pile driving continued in early 2016 during three
distinct construction periods from January 11 through April 30, 2016,
with 161 piles installed over the course of 50 days. Because most
structural steel pipe piles were installed under the Year 2 IHA, this
work primarily involved placement of non-structural concrete fender
piles. Both vibratory and impact driving was used, as described above,
to install 132 16-in polycarbonate coated concrete fender piles and 23
24 x 30-in concrete fender piles. In addition, six 30-in steel pipe
piles were installed as structural elements to support a mooring
dolphin. Hammers used for the steel piles were the same as those
described above. The 16-in concrete piles were driven using an APE
single action diesel impact hammer model D25-32, with energy capacity
of 29,484-58,245 ft-lbs and
[[Page 36364]]
fitted with a manual power level modulator and shut off trip. The 24 x
30-in concrete piles were driven using an APE single action diesel
impact hammer model D80-42, with energy capacity of 127,008-198,450 ft-
lbs and fitted with a manual power level modulator and shut off trip.
No demolition occurred during this period. Of the 50 days of in-water
work, 45 days involved only impact driving, two days included only
vibratory driving, and three days where both types of driving occurred.
Please see the Year 3 monitoring report for more information.
Production pile driving during Year 4 construction, from October 8,
2016 to April 30, 2017, included 68 piles of three types of piles
driven with two different methods over 34 days: 30-in steel piles were
driven with both vibratory and impact hammers, and the 24 x 30-in
concrete and 16-in poly-concrete piles were installed with impact
hammers. High pressure water jetting were used to ``pre-drill'' holes
for the 24 x 30 in piles. In addition, Structural piles were installed
for two dolphins to the south of the new fuel pier, fender piles were
installed on the east and west sides of the new fuel pier as well as on
one of the dolphins, and a single 16-inch poly-concrete pile (concrete
pile lined with a polycarbonate outer sheath) was driven on the west
side of the pier.
Demolition during Year 4 included removal of the caissons from the
north side of the old fuel pier, as well as removal of structural and
fender piles sizes under, and adjacent to, the south and north sections
of the old pier. Eighteen 84-in caissons were cut using a wire saw. A
total of 278 piles were clipped, including 14-in, 18-in, and 24-in
fender piles and 13-in polycarbonate and poly-concrete piles. Of the 69
days of in-water work, 42 days involved pile clipping and 27 days
involved pile cutting. Please see the Year 4 monitoring report for more
information.
Additional work may be conducted under the existing IHA between
September 15 and October 7, 2017, in which case the submitted
monitoring report would be amended as necessary.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
Species with the expected potential to be present during all or a
portion of the in-water work window include the California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii),
northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus
truncatus), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens),
Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), and either short-beaked or long-
beaked common dolphins (Delphinus spp.). California sea lions are
present year-round and are very common in the project area, while
bottlenose dolphins and harbor seals are common and likely to be
present year-round but with more variable occurrence in San Diego Bay.
Gray whales may be observed in San Diego Bay sporadically during
migration periods. The remaining species are known to occur in
nearshore waters outside San Diego Bay, but are generally only rarely
observed near or in the bay. However, recent observations indicate that
these species may occur in the project area and therefore could
potentially be subject to incidental harassment from the aforementioned
activities.
There are four marine mammal species which are either resident or
have known seasonal occurrence in the vicinity of San Diego Bay,
including the California sea lion, harbor seal, bottlenose dolphin, and
gray whale (see Figures 3-1 through 3-4 and 4-1 in the Navy's
application). In addition, common dolphins (see Figure 3-4 in the
Navy's application), the Pacific white-sided dolphin, Risso's dolphin,
and northern elephant seals are known to occur in deeper waters in the
vicinity of San Diego Bay and/or have been observed within the bay
during the course of this project's monitoring. Although the latter
three species of cetacean would not generally be expected to occur
within the project area, the potential for changes in occurrence
patterns in conjunction with recent observations leads us to believe
that authorization of incidental take is warranted. Common dolphins
have been documented regularly at the Navy's nearby Silver Strand
Training Complex, and were observed in the project area during previous
years of project activity. The Pacific white-sided dolphin has been
sighted along a previously used transect on the opposite side of the
Point Loma peninsula (Merkel and Associates, 2008) and there were
several observations of Pacific white-sided dolphins during Year 2
monitoring. Risso's dolphin is fairly common in southern California
coastal waters (e.g., Campbell et al., 2010), and could occur in the
bay. Northern elephant seals are included based on their continuing
increase in numbers along the Pacific coast (Carretta et al., 2016) and
the likelihood that animals that reproduce on the islands offshore of
Baja California and mainland Mexico--where the population is also
increasing--could move through the project area during migration, as
well as the observation of a juvenile seal near the fuel pier in April
2015.
Note that common dolphins could be either short-beaked (Delphinus
delphis delphis) or long-beaked (D. delphis bairdii) subspecies. While
it is likely that common dolphins observed in the project area would be
long-beaked, as it is the most frequently stranded species in the area
from San Diego Bay to the U.S.-Mexico border (Danil and St. Leger
2011), the species distributions overlap and it is unlikely that
observers would be able to differentiate them in the field. Therefore,
we consider that any common dolphins observed--and any incidental take
of common dolphins--could be either long- or short-beaked common
dolphins.
In addition, other species that occur in the Southern California
Bight may have the potential for isolated occurrence within San Diego
Bay or just offshore. In particular, a short-finned pilot whale
(Globicephala macrorhynchus) was observed off Ballast Point, and a
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis) was seen in the
project area during Year 2. These species are not typically observed
near the project area and, unlike the previously mentioned species, we
do not believe it likely that they will occur in the future. Given the
unlikelihood of their exposure to sound generated from the project,
these species are not considered further.
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical
and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
Table 2 lists all marine mammal species with expected potential for
occurrence in the vicinity of NBPL during the project timeframe and
summarizes key information, including regulatory status under the MMPA
and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. See also
Figures 3-1 through 3-5 of the Navy's application for observed
occurrence of
[[Page 36365]]
marine mammals in the project area. For taxonomy, we follow Committee
on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious
injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as
gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. 2016 stock assessment report (SARs) (e.g., NMFS 2016). All
values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time
of publication and are available in the 2016 SAR (available online at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars).
Table 2--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of NBPL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance (CV, Relative occurrence in
Species Stock ESA/MMPA status; Nmin, most recent PBR \3\ Annual M/ San Diego Bay; season
strategic (Y/N) \1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \4\ of occurrence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale......................... Eastern North Pacific. -; N 20,990 (0.05; 20,125; 624 132 Occasional migratory
2011). visitor; winter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin................. California coastal.... -; N 453 (0.06; 346; 2011). 2.7 >=2.0 Common; year-round.
Short-beaked common dolphin........ California/Oregon/ -; N 969,861 (0.17; 8,393 >=40 Occasional; year-round
Washington. 839,325; 2014). (but more common in
warm season).
Long-beaked common dolphin......... California............ -; N 101,305 (0.49; 68,432; 657 >=35.4 Occasional; year-round
2014). (but more common in
warm season).
Pacific white-sided dolphin........ California/Oregon/ -; N 26,814 (0.28; 21,195; 191 7.5 Uncommon; year-round.
Washington. 2014).
Risso's dolphin.................... California/Oregon/ -; N 6,336 (0.32; 4,817; 46 >=3.7 Rare; year-round (but
Washington. 2014). more common in cool
season).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion................ U.S................... -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 9,200 389 Abundant; year-round.
2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal........................ California............ -; N 30,968 (n/a; 27,348; 1,641 43 Common; year-round.
2012).
Northern elephant seal............. California breeding... -; N 179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 4,882 8.8 Rare; year-round.
2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species
or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks of
pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge
of the species (or similar species) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the
minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore.
\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 species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 2. As described below, all eight species
(with nine managed stocks) temporally and spatially co-occur with the
activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we
have proposed authorizing it.
[[Page 36366]]
Gray Whale
Two populations of gray whales are recognized, Eastern and Western
North Pacific (ENP and WNP). The two populations have historically been
considered geographically isolated from each other; however, recent
data from satellite-tracked whales indicates that there is some overlap
between the stocks. Two WNP whales were tracked from Russian foraging
areas along the Pacific rim to Baja California (Mate et al., 2011),
and, in one case where the satellite tag remained attached to the whale
for a longer period, a WNP whale was tracked from Russia to Mexico and
back again (IWC, 2012). Between 22-24 WNP whales are known to have
occurred in the eastern Pacific through comparisons of ENP and WNP
photo-identification catalogs (IWC 2012; Weller et al., 2011; Burdin et
al., 2011), and WNP animals comprised 8.1 percent of gray whales
identified during a recent field season off of Vancouver Island (Weller
et al., 2012). In addition, two genetic matches of WNP whales have been
recorded off of Santa Barbara, CA (Lang et al., 2011). More recently,
Urban et al. (2013) compared catalogs of photo-identified individuals
from Mexico with photographs of whales off Russia and reported a total
of 21 matches. Therefore, a portion of the WNP population is assumed to
migrate, at least in some years, to the eastern Pacific during the
winter breeding season.
However, only ENP whales are expected to occur in the project area.
The likelihood of any gray whale being exposed to project sound to the
degree considered in this document is already low, as it would require
a migrating whale to linger for an extended period of time, or for
multiple migrating whales to linger for shorter periods of time. While
such an occurrence is not unknown, it is uncommon. Further, of the
approximately 20,000 gray whales migrating through the Southern
California Bight, it is extremely unlikely that one found in San Diego
Bay would be one of the approximately twenty WNP whales that have been
documented in the eastern Pacific (less than one percent probability).
The likelihood that a WNP whale would be exposed to elevated levels of
sound from the specified activities is insignificant and discountable
and WNP whales are not considered further in this document.
Gray whale transitory occurrence inside San Diego Bay is sporadic
and unpredictable. A mean group size of 2.9 gray whales was reported
for both coastal (16 groups) and non-coastal (15 groups) areas around
Southern California Bight. The largest group reported was nine animals.
The largest group reported by U.S. Navy (in 1998) was 27 animals
(Carretta et al., 2000). Gray whales are not expected in the project
area except during the northward migration, when they are closest to
the coast (Rice et al., 1981).
Bottlenose Dolphin
The California coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin is distinct from
the offshore population and is resident in the immediate (within 1 km
of shore) coastal waters, occurring primarily between Point Conception,
California, and San Quintin, Mexico. Occasionally, during warm-water
incursions such as during the 1982-1983 El Ni[ntilde]o events, their
range extends as far north as San Francisco Bay (Carretta et al.,
2017). They are commonly found in groups of 2 to 15 individuals and in
larger groups offshore.
Coastal bottlenose dolphins have occurred sporadically and in
highly variable numbers and locations in San Diego Bay. Navy surveys
showed that bottlenose dolphins were most commonly sighted in April,
and there were more dolphins observed during El Ni[ntilde]o years.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins are endemic to temperate waters of the
North Pacific Ocean, and are common both on the high seas and along the
continental margins (Carretta et al., 2014). Off the U.S. west coast,
Pacific white-sided dolphins occur primarily in shelf and slope waters.
Sighting patterns from aerial and shipboard surveys conducted in
California, Oregon and Washington suggest seasonal north-south
movements, with animals found primarily off California during the
colder water months and shifting northward into Oregon and Washington
as water temperatures increase in late spring and summer (Carretta et
al., 2014).
Pacific white-sided dolphins are uncommon in San Diego Bay, but
observations of this species increased during El Ni[ntilde]o years.
Monitoring during the Year 2 IHA documented 7 sightings of Pacific
white-sided dolphins, comprising 27 individuals, with a mean group size
of 3.85 individuals per sighting and an average of 0.28 individuals
sighted per day of monitoring.
Common Dolphin
Short-beaked common dolphins are the most abundant cetacean off
California and are widely distributed between the coast and at least
300 nmi offshore. In contrast, long-beaked common dolphins generally
occur within 50 nmi of shore. Both species of common dolphin appear to
shift their distributions seasonally and annually in response to
oceanographic conditions and prey availability (Carretta et al., 2016).
The long-beaked species apparently prefers shallower, warmer water than
the short-beaked common dolphin (Perrin 2009). Both tend to be more
abundant in coastal waters during warm-water months (Bearzi 2005).
The occurrence of common dolphins inside San Diego Bay is uncommon
(NAVFAC SW and POSD 2013). Small groups were observed briefly on
several occasions in the northern part of the bay by Navy monitors
during the IPP (May 2014). The animals were moving swiftly and could
not be distinguished as to species, but the weight of evidence based on
distributions of the two species and previous sightings of the long-
beaked species near San Diego is that they were probably long-beaked
common dolphins.
California Sea Lion
The entire population of California sea lions cannot be counted
because all age and sex classes are never ashore at the same time. In
lieu of counting all sea lions, pups are counted when all are ashore,
in July during the breeding season, and the number of births is
estimated from pup counts (Carretta et al., 2016). The size of the
population is then estimated from the number of births and the
proportion of pups in the population. Based on these censuses, the U.S.
stock has generally increased from the early 1900s, to a current
estimate of 296,750 (Carretta et al., 2016). There are indications that
the California sea lion may have reached or is approaching carrying
capacity, although more data are needed to confirm that leveling in
growth persists (Carretta et al., 2016).
The California sea lion is by far the most commonly-sighted
pinniped species at sea or on land in the vicinity of NBPL and northern
San Diego Bay. The Navy has conducted numerous marine mammal surveys
overlapping the north San Diego Bay project area and the potential ZOI
for impact and vibratory pile driving operations. California sea lions
regularly occur on rocks, buoys and other structures, and especially on
bait barges, although numbers vary greatly.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are considered abundant throughout most of their range
from Baja California to the eastern Aleutian
[[Page 36367]]
Islands. Peak numbers of harbor seals haul-out on land during late May
to early June, which coincides with the peak of their molt. Harbor
seals do not make extensive pelagic migrations, but do travel hundreds
of km on occasion to find food or suitable breeding areas (Carretta et
al., 2016). Based on likely foraging strategies, Grigg et al. (2009)
reported seasonal shifts in harbor seal movements based on prey
availability. In relationship to the entire California stock, harbor
seals do not have a significant mainland California distribution south
of Point Mugu.
Harbor seals are relatively uncommon within San Diego Bay.
Sightings in the Navy transect surveys of northern San Diego Bay
through March 2012, and were limited to individuals outside of the ZOI,
on the south side of Ballast Point (TDI 2012b; Jenkins 2012). However,
Navy marine mammal monitoring for another project conducted
intermittently at Pier 122 from 2010-2014 documented from zero to 4
harbor seals near Pier 122 (within the ZOI) at various times, with the
greatest number of sightings during April and May (Jenkins 2012; Bowman
2014). An individual harbor seal was also frequently sighted near NMAWC
during 2014 (McConchie 2014).
Northern Elephant Seal
A complete population count of elephant seals is not possible
because all age classes are not ashore simultaneously. The population
is estimated to have grown at 3.8% annually since 1988 (Lowry et al.,
2014). Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California
(U.S.) and Baja California (Mexico), primarily on offshore islands.
Populations of northern elephant seals in the U.S. and Mexico have
recovered after being reduced to near extinction by hunting, undergoing
a severe population bottleneck and loss of genetic diversity with the
population reduced to only an estimated 10-30 individuals.
Northern elephant seals occur in the southern California bight, and
have the potential to occur in San Diego Bay (NAVFAC SW and POSD 2013),
but the only recent documentation of occurrence was of a single
distressed juvenile observed on the beach south and inshore of the Fuel
Pier during the second year IHA. Given the continuing, long-term
increase in the population of northern elephant seals (Lowry et al.,
2014), there is an increasing possibility of occurrence in the project
area.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten 1999; Au and Hastings 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and
the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these
frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with
the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every
species within that group):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best
hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to
less than 100 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 hertz (Hz) to 86
kilohertz (kHz), with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best
hearing between 2-48 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 and Holt
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information.
Nine marine mammal species (six cetacean and three pinniped (1 otariid
and 2 phocid species)) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with
the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present, one is classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), and five are
classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid
species and the sperm whale).
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive
success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
We provided discussion of the potential effects of the specified
activity on marine mammals and their habitat in our Federal Register
notices of proposed authorization associated with the first- and
second-year IHAs (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013 and 79 FR 53026; September
5, 2014). The specified activity associated with this proposed IHA is
substantially similar to those considered for the first- and second-
year IHAs and the potential effects of the specified activity are the
same as those identified in those documents. Therefore, we do not
reprint the
[[Page 36368]]
information here but refer the reader to those documents.
In the aforementioned Federal Register notices, we also provided
general background information on sound and marine mammal hearing and a
description of sound sources and ambient sound and refer the reader to
those documents. However, because certain terms are used frequently in
this document, we provide brief definitions of relevant acoustic
terminology below:
Sound pressure level (SPL): Sound pressure is the force
per unit area, usually expressed in microPascals ([mu]Pa), where one
Pascal equals one Newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The
SPL is expressed in dB as twenty times the logarithm to the base ten of
the ratio between the pressure exerted by the sound to a referenced
sound pressure. SPL is the quantity that is directly measured by a
sound level meter. For underwater sound, SPL in dB is referenced to one
microPascal (re 1 [mu]Pa), unless otherwise stated. For airborne sound,
SPL in dB is referenced to 20 microPascals (re 20 [mu]Pa), unless
otherwise stated.
Frequency: Frequency is expressed in terms of
oscillations, or cycles, per second. Cycles per second are commonly
referred to as Hz. Typical human hearing ranges from 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
Peak sound pressure: The instantaneous maximum of the
absolute positive or negative pressure over the frequency range from 20
Hz to 20 kHz and presented in dB.
Root mean square (rms) SPL: For impact pile driving,
overall dB rms levels are characterized by integrating sound for each
waveform across ninety percent of the acoustic energy in each wave and
averaging all waves in the pile driving event. This value is referred
to as the rms 90 percent. With this method, the time averaging per
pulse varies.
Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A measure of energy,
specifically the dB level of the time integral of the squared-
instantaneous sound pressure, normalized to a one second period. It is
a useful metric for assessing cumulative exposure because it enables
sounds of differing duration, to be compared in terms of total energy.
The accumulated SEL (SELcum) is used to describe the SEL
from multiple events (e.g., many pile strikes). This can be calculated
directly as a logarithmic sum of the individual single-strike SELs for
the pile strikes that were used to install the pile.
Level Z weighted (unweighted), equivalent (LZeq):
LZeq is a value recorded by the SLM that represents SEL SPL
over a specified time period or interval. The LZeq is most typically
referred to in one-second intervals or over an entire event.
Level Z weighted (unweighted), fast (LZFmax):
LZFmax is a value recorded by the SLM that represents the
maximum rms value recorded for any 125 millisecond time frame during
each individual recording.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the
negligible impact determination. Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to
certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA
defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance
which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level
B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to acoustic sources. Based on the nature of the
activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures
(i.e., shutdown, soft start, etc.--discussed in detail below in
Proposed Mitigation section), Level A harassment is neither anticipated
nor proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering:
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these
components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007). Based
on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a
threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for
most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on
received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS
predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in
a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater
anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for continuous (e.g. vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile
driving) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
The Navy's proposed activity includes the use of continuous
(vibratory pile driving, demolition) and impulsive (impact pile
driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS's Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (NOAA 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory
injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from
two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The Navy's
construction project includes the use of impulsive (impact pile
driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are
provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology
used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016
Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://
[[Page 36369]]
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
(received level)
Hearing Group -----------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency cetaceans....... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 Cell 2:
dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB. LE,LF,24h: 199
dB.
Mid-frequency cetaceans....... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 Cell 4:
dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB. LE,MF,24h: 198
dB.
High-frequency cetaceans...... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 Cell 6:
dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB. LE,HF,24h: 173
dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (underwaters) Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 Cell 8:
dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB. LE,PW,24h: 201
dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (underwater) Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 Cell 10:
dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB. LE,OW,24h: 219
dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS 2016.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds.
The intensity of pile driving or sounds is greatly influenced by
factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical
environment in which the activity takes place. For the installation of
30-in steel piles and pile cutting activities, acoustic monitoring
during the first and second IHA periods (NAVFAC 2015) resulted in
empirical data that are directly applicable to the fifth IHA period in
terms of the activities and the location, depth, sizes and types of
piles.
Table 4 identifies the sound source levels that are used in
evaluating impact and vibratory pile driving and extraction in the
current IHA application. Sound levels for the hydraulic pile cutter,
diamond saw caisson cutting, and pile jetting were measured during the
fourth IHA period (NAVFAC SW 2017). No acoustic data are available from
the vibratory driving of 16-in concrete piles, so the data for
vibratory installation of 30-in steel piles from the second IHA period
are used as a conservative proxy (NAVFAC SW 2015). Finally, SPLs were
measured for the impact driving of 16-in poly-concrete piles during the
third IHA monitoring period (NAVFAC SW 2016a), and are used in this
application for the same activities.
Table 4--Underwater Sound Pressure Levels From Similar In Situ Monitored Construction Activities From Previous
Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measured sound pressure
levels (rms) at 10 m
Project and location Pile size and type Method Water depth (dB re 1 [mu]Pa)
-------------------------
Mean \1\ Max \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, CA... 13 to 24-in Hydraulic pile 9 m (30 ft) 145 165.3
concrete. cutting.
NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, CA... 66- and 84-in steel Diamond saw 9 m (30 ft) 149 155.6
caisson. cutting.
NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, CA... 24-in concrete..... Jetting........... 9 m (30 ft) 155 159.9
NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, CA... 30-in Steel Pipe... Vibratory......... 9 m (30 ft) 162.5 \3\ 162.5
NBPL Fuel Pier, San Diego, CA... 16-in Poly-Concrete Impact............ 9 m (30 ft) 188.9 \4\ 195
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mean source levels used from data from previous monitoring reports (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017). Mean
source levels were used to calculate Level B ZOIs.
\2\ Maximum source levels used from data from previous monitoring reports (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017). Max
source levels were used to calculate Level A ZOIs. Maximum source levels used were proposed by the Navy.
\3\ Mean source levels for 30-in steel pipe piles were used as a proxy to calculate ZOIs for vibratory driving
of 16-in concrete guide piles (NAVFAC SW 2015).
\4\ The maximum source level is included for reference only. The distance to the Level B ZOI is based on in situ
data collected for 16-in poly-concrete piles and was documented in NAVFAC SW (2016a).
Scarce data exists on airborne and underwater noise levels
associated with vibratory hammer extraction. However, it can reasonably
be assumed that vibratory extraction emits SPLs that are no higher than
SPLs caused by vibratory hammering of the same materials, and results
in lower SPLs than caused by impact hammering comparable piles. For
this application, the same value (162.5 dB re 1[mu]Pa) that was
obtained for vibratory hammering of the 30-in steel piles at the Fuel
Pier (NAVFAC SW 2015) is used for the vibratory hammering of 16-in
round concrete piles at NMAWC. None of the peak SPLs for the various
sound sources reach the injury thresholds identified in the new NMFS
(2016) Technical Guidance; therefore, injury from peak sound levels is
not considered further.
Table 6 provides the calculated areas of Level A and Level B ZOIs
associated with the impulsive and continuous sounds that are
anticipated during the fifth-year IHA period. Table 5 provides the data
that were used to calculate the distances to the Level A and B ZOIs
presented in Table 6. It should be noted that the ZOI for Level A
harassment would be closely monitored and subject to shutdowns if a
marine mammal enters the area. The ZOI areas and maximum distances for
the activities at the fuel pier and NMAWC are shown in Figures 6-1 and
6-2, respectively of the Navy's application. The figures reflect the
conventional assumption that the natural or manmade shoreline acts as a
barrier to underwater sound. It is generally accepted practice to model
underwater sound propagation from pile driving as continuing in a
straight line past a shoreline projection such as Ballast Point (Dahl
2012). Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that project sound would
not propagate east of Zuniga Jetty (Dahl 2012).
[[Page 36370]]
All of the ZOIs for potential Level A acoustic harassment (Table 6)
would be buffered and encompassed by a larger shutdown zone. For
example, the ZOIs for potential Level A acoustic harassment to
pinnipeds from impact pile driving (Table 6) would be contained within
a 60 m (196 ft) shutdown zone. For impact pile driving at NMAWC, two
methods identified in NMFS (2016) were evaluated to determine the most
conservative distances to the Level A ZOIs using: (1) rms SPL source
levels; and (2) single strike equivalent SEL. The calculations showed
that the first method was the most conservative and this method was
subsequently used to determine the distances to the Level A ZOIs (Table
5). In all Level A ZOI calculations, the default values for the
weighting factor adjustment and practical spreading for propagation
loss were used (see Appendix A of the Navy's application).
Table 5--Data Used To Calculate Distances to Level B ZOIs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Impact pile driving Vibratory pile driving Pile jetting Caisson cutting Pile clipping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References for Source Level and Year 3 report #1 Year 2 report (NAVFAC Year 4 report (NAVFAC Year 3 report #1 Year 4 report (NAVFAC
Duration. (NAVFAC SW 2016a). SW 2015). SW 2017). (NAVFAC SW 2016a). SW 2017).
Size & Type of Piles used for 16-in poly-concrete 30-in steel piles..... 24x30-in concrete 84-in caissons....... 24-in concrete piles.
Source Data. piles. piles.
Source Level (rms SPL)............. 188.9................. 162.5................. 159.9................ 155.6................ 165.3.
Distance to Level B ZOI (m)........ 270................... 1,848................. 1,165................ 631.................. 2,511.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Level B ZOIs and distances are based on the validated SPLs
directly measured during the IHA monitoring (NAVFAC SW 2014-2017), as
available. For example, the distance to the Level B ZOI for impact
driving of 16-in poly-concrete piles was 270 m (886 ft) during Year 3
monitoring (NAVFAC SW 2016a). In cases where monitoring data are not
available to empirically measure the extent of the Level B ZOI
(activities at NMAWC), ``practical spreading loss'' from the source at
10 m has been assumed (15 log[distance/10]) and used to calculate the
maximum extent of the ZOI based on the applicable threshold. Computed
distances to the threshold for acoustic disturbance from non-impulsive
sources are based on the distances at which the project sound source
declines to ambient. Because the mean ambient sound levels in San Diego
Bay range from approximately 128 to 130 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), the
120 dB acoustic threshold for the Level B ZOIs are based on an
approximate value between 128 and 129 dB. The distances for all
activities producing sound at NMAWC will be verified via hydrophone
during project activities.
Table 6--Calculated Maximum Areas of ZOIs and Distances to Relevant Thresholds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measured/calculated distances to thresholds (m) and areas of ZOIs (m\2\ or km\2\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater Airborne
Activity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A \1\ \2\ \3\ Level B \4\ Level B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF MF PW OW 160 dB 120 dB \5\ 100 dB \6\ 90 dB \6\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Fuel Pier and Temporary Mooring Dolphin Demolition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66-inch and 84-inch caissons 3.6 m 0.3 m 2.2 m 0.2m N/A 631 m N/A
(Diamond saw cutting). 41 m\2\ <1 m\2\ 15 m\2\ <1 m\2\ 0.7157 km\2\
Concrete piles (Pile 1.2 m 0.1 m 0.7 m 0.0 m N/A 2,511 m
clipping). 4 m\2\ <1 m\2\ < 1 m\2\ 0 m\2\ 4.4512 km\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMAWC Construction and Demolition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete piles 8.3 m 0.7 m 5.1 m 0.4 m N/A 1,848 m 42 m 149 m
(Vibratory extraction/ 216 m\2\ <1 m\2\ 82 m\2\ <1 m\2\ 2.4473 km\2\ 5,503 m\2\ 69,646 m\2\
driving) \8\.
16-inch concrete piles 63.4 m 2.3 m 33.9 m 2.5 m 270 m N/A
(Impact driving) \9\. 0.0126 km\2\ 17 m\2\ 3,610 m\2\ 20 m\2\ 0.1408 km\2\
-----------------------------
16-inch concrete piles 3.9 m 0.3 m 2.4 m 0.2 m N/A 1,165m N/A
(Jetting pile extraction). 47.8 m\2\ <1 m\2\ 18 m\2\ <1 m\2\ 1.4268 km\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If measured value thresholds are less than 10 m (33 ft), a minimum monitoring distance of 10 m (33 ft) would be implemented.
\2\ Based on measured mean source levels. The relevant data have been included in Appendix A of the Navy's application, which provides information from
previous years' data collected as part of the Fuel Pier Project (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017).
\3\ LF = Low-frequency cetaceans; MF = Mid-frequency cetaceans; PW = Phocid pinnipeds; OW = Otariid pinnipeds. The high-frequency cetacean hearing group
(HF) is omitted, because no species in the hearing group occur in, or around, the Project area.
\4\ Based on measured maximum source levels, unless otherwise stated. The relevant data have been included in Appendix A, which provides information
from previous years' data collected as part of the Fuel Pier Project (NAVFAC SW 2015, 2016a, 2017).
\5\ Average ambient sound levels in San Diego Bay are approximately 128 to 130 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), and all 120 dB Level B ZOIs are based on an
approximate value between 128 and 129, which represents ambient levels in the Bay.
\6\ Airborne ZOIs based on conservative representative data (collected during 30-inch vibratory pile driving from IHA #4). Airborne noise levels did not
exceed thresholds during IHA #4 monitoring of demolition activities.
\7\ Plasma torch noise levels are not expected to exceed underwater or airborne regulatory thresholds.
\8\ Based on conservative representative source levels of 162.5 dB rms (30-inch steel vibratory pile driving, NAVFAC SW 2015).
[[Page 36371]]
Airborne Sound
Although sea lions are known to haul-out regularly on man-made
objects in the vicinity of the project site (see Figure 4-1 of the
Navy's application), and harbor seals are occasionally observed hauled
out on rocks along the shoreline in the vicinity of the project site,
none of these are within the ZOIs for airborne sound, and we believe
that incidents of take resulting solely from airborne sound are
unlikely. The zones for sea lions are within the minimum shutdown zone
defined for underwater sound and, although the zones for harbor seals
are larger, they have not been observed to haul out as readily on man-
made structure in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There is
a possibility that an animal could surface in-water, but with head out,
within one of the defined zones and thereby be exposed to levels of
airborne sound that we associate with harassment, but any such
occurrence would likely be accounted for in our estimation of
incidental take from underwater sound.
We generally recognize that pinnipeds occurring within an estimated
airborne harassment zone, whether in the water or hauled out, could be
exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment.
However, any animal exposed to airborne sound above the behavioral
harassment threshold is likely to also be exposed to underwater sound
above relevant thresholds (which are typically in all cases larger
zones than those associated with airborne sound). Thus, the behavioral
harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates
of potential take. Multiple incidents of exposure to sound above NMFS'
thresholds for behavioral harassment are not believed to result in
increased behavioral disturbance, in either nature or intensity of
disturbance reaction. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization
of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is
warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here. Distances
associated with airborne sound and shown in Table 5 are for reference
only.
When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition
of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically
challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new
thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine
mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way
to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling
methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to
quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the
output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as vibratory pile
driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which,
if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet,
and the resulting isopleths are reported below.
Table 7--Level A User Spreadsheet Input
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact pile driving Vibratory pile driving Caisson cutting Pile clipping Pile jetting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References for Source Level and Year 3 report #1 Year 2 report (NAVFAC Year 3 report #1 Year 4 report (NAVFAC Year 4 report (NAVFAC
Duration. (NAVFAC SW 2016a). SW 2015). (NAVFAC SW 2016a). SW 2017). SW 2017).
Spreadsheet Tab Used............... (E.1) Impact pile (A.) Non-Impulse Stat- (A.) Non-Impulse Stat- (A.) Non-Impulse Stat- (A.) Non-Impulse Stat-
driving. Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont.
Source Level (Single Strike/shot 188.9................. 162.5................. 149.................. 145.................. 155.
SEL).
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz).. 2..................... 2.5................... 2.5.................. 2.5.................. 2.5.
(a) Activity Duration (h) within 24- 0.71.................. 0.95.................. 6.................... 2.82................. 1.74.
h period.
Propagation (xLogR)................ 15.................... 15.................... 15................... 15................... 15.
Distance of source level 10.................... 10.................... 10................... 10................... 10.
measurement (m).
Pulse duration (sec) \1\........... 0.03.................. n/a................... n/a.................. n/a.................. n/a.
Number of strikes in 1 h........... 193................... n/a................... n/a.................. n/a.................. n/a.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pulse duration was measured in previous construction years and the average pulse duration was 0.03 at 10 m (NAVFAC SW 2016a).
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations.
For all species, the best scientific information available was
considered for use in the marine mammal take assessment calculations.
Although various regional offshore surveys for marine mammals have been
conducted, it is unlikely that these data would be representative of
the species or numbers that may be encountered in San Diego Bay.
However, the Navy has conducted a large number of ongoing site-specific
marine mammal surveys during appropriate seasons (e.g., Merkel and
Associates 2008; Johnson 2010, 2011; Lerma 2012, 2014). Whereas
analyses for the first-year IHA relied on surveys conducted from 2007-
12, continuing surveys by the Navy have generally indicated increasing
abundance of all species and the second-year IHA relied on 2012-14
survey data. In addition, the Navy has developed estimates of marine
mammal densities in waters associated with training and testing areas
(including Hawaii-Southern California) for the Navy Marine Species
Density Database (NMSDD). A technical report (Hanser et al., 2015)
describes methodologies and available information used to derive these
densities, which are based upon the best available information, except
where specific local abundance information is available and applicable
to a specific action area. The document is publicly available online
at: nwtteis.com/DocumentsandReferences/NWTTDocuments/SupportingTechnicalDocuments.aspx (accessed July 13, 2017).
Year 2 project monitoring showed even greater abundance of certain
species, and we consider all of these data in order to provide the most
up-to-date estimates for marine mammal abundances during the period of
this proposed IHA. Although Years 3 and 4 project monitoring showed
declines in marine mammal abundance in the vicinity of the project, we
retain prior density estimates as a conservative measure for estimating
exposure.
[[Page 36372]]
Density information is shown in Table 9. These data are from dedicated
line-transect surveys, required project marine mammal monitoring,
opportunistic observations for more rarely observed species (see
Figures 3-1 through 3-5 of the Navy's application), or the NMSDD.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
The following assumptions are made when estimating potential
incidences 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;
The assumed ZOIs and days of activity are as shown in
Table 5; and,
Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant
thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
In this case, the estimation of marine mammal takes 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.
The ZOI impact area is estimated using the relevant distances in
Table 5, assuming that sound radiates from a central point in the water
column slightly offshore of the existing pier and taking into
consideration the possible affected area due to topographical
constraints of the action area (i.e., radial distances to thresholds
are not always reached).
Table 8--Areas of Acoustic Influence and Days of Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Number of days ZOI (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
66-inch and 84-inch caissons (Diamond 50 0.7157
saw cutting)...........................
Concrete piles (Pile clipping).......... 100 4.4512
16-inch concrete piles (Vibratory 25 2.4473
extraction/driving) \1\................
16-inch concrete piles (Jetting pile 15 1.4268
extraction)............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We assume that impact driving of 16-in concrete piles would always
occur on the same day as vibratory driving of the same piles.
Therefore, the impact driving ZOI (0.1408 km\2\) would always be
subsumed by the vibratory driving ZOI.
There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents
of take may be conservative, assuming that available density 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 period of validity,
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. See Table 9 for total estimated incidents of take.
California Sea Lion
During the second IHA period, an average of 90.35 California sea
lions were seen per day within the maximum ZOI for pile driving, an
area of 5.6752 km\2\ extending 3,000 m from the Fuel Pier. This equates
to a density of 15.9201/km\2\. This density is used to estimate numbers
of takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 8,971 Level B takes
for this species. The maximum extents of the potential acoustic Level A
ZOIs for cumulative exposure from all of the activities are much less
than 10 m from the source, and therefore the 60-m shutdown zone will
reduce the chance for Level A take. As a result, no Level A take of
California sea lions is anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
Harbor Seal
Sightings of harbor seals averaged 2.83 individuals per day during
the period of the second IHA (NAVFAC SW 2015), a density of 0.4987/
km\2\ within the maximum ZOI for pile driving. This density is used to
estimate numbers of takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 281
Level B takes for this species. The maximum extent of the potential
acoustic Level A ZOI for cumulative exposure from impact pile driving
extends 34 m from the source; for all other activities, the Level A
ZOIs are much less than 10 m from the source, therefore a 60-m shutdown
zone will be in place to avoid Level A takes to harbor seals. Level A
takes are not anticipated nor proposed for authorization.
Northern Elephant Seal
Only a single individual elephant seal was sighted during the
second IHA period (NAVFAC SW 2015), but with increasing numbers
(Carretta et al., 2016), they are considered a reasonable possibility
to occur more frequently during the fifth IHA period. The regional
density estimate of 0.0760/km\2\ (Navy 2017) is assumed for the project
area. This density is used to estimate numbers of takes within the
different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 43 Level B takes for this species.
Potential takes would likely involve single individuals that are on the
shoreline or structures at the identified location, or swimming in the
vicinity, most likely near the mouth of the bay. The maximum extent of
the potential acoustic Level A ZOI for cumulative exposure from impact
pile driving extends 34 m from the source; for all other activities,
the Level A ZOIs are much less than 10 m from the source, therefore a
shutdown will be in place to avoid Level A takes to harbor seals. Level
A takes are not anticipated nor proposed for authorization.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Coastal bottlenose dolphins can occur at any time of year in
northern San Diego Bay. Numbers sighted have been highly variable but
have increased in recent years (NAVFAC SW 2014, 2015). During the
second IHA period, an average of 7.09 individuals was seen per day, a
density of 1.2493/km\2\. This density is used to estimate numbers of
takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 704 Level B takes for
this species. The maximum extents of the potential acoustic Level A
ZOIs for cumulative exposure from all of the activities are much less
than 10 m from
[[Page 36373]]
the source, and therefore the minimum 10 m shutdown will reduce the
chance for Level A take. As a result, no Level A take of bottlenose
dolphins is anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
Common Dolphin
An average of 8.67 common dolphins was seen per day, a density of
1.5277/km\2\ within the maximum ZOI, during the second IHA period
(NAVFAC SW 2015). This density is considerably higher than the regional
density estimate for long-beaked common dolphins--the species most
likely to occur (Navy 2017), but is reasonable for the project area
given the group sizes observed for these species. Barlow (2010)
reported average group sizes in southern California of 122 for short-
beaked common dolphins and 195 for long-beaked common dolphins, and
during the second IHA period, groups of approximately 170 and 300
individuals entered the project area on different occasions (NAVFAC SW
2015). Considering the possibility for one or more large groups of
common dolphins to enter San Diego Bay during in-water activities and
the fact that the Level B ZOIs will extend completely across the bay
during pile driving, the density estimate is considered appropriate. A
density of 1.5277/km\2\ is used to estimate numbers of takes within the
different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 861 Level B takes for this species. The
maximum extents of the potential acoustic Level A ZOIs for cumulative
exposure from all of the activities are much less than 10 m from the
source, and therefore the shutdown will reduce the chance for Level A
take. As a result, no Level A take of bottlenose dolphins is
anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins are more commonly seen offshore, but
were documented in the project area on several occasions during the
second IHA period. An average of 0.28 individuals per day was seen
during the second IHA period (NAVFAC SW 2015), a density of 0.0493/
km\2\ within the maximum ZOI. This density is used to estimate numbers
of takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 28 Level B takes for
this species. The maximum extents of the potential acoustic Level A
ZOIs for cumulative exposure from all of the activities are much less
than 10 m from the source, and therefore the shutdown will reduce the
chance for Level A take. As a result, no Level A take of bottlenose
dolphins is anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
Risso's Dolphin
While there have been no sightings of Risso's dolphin within the
project area, the species is considered a reasonable possibility for
the fifth IHA period given recent El Ni[ntilde]o conditions (Shane
1995) and its abundance in Southern California coastal waters
(Jefferson et al. 2014). The upper limit of the regional density
estimate, 0.2029/km\2\ (Navy 2017), is used to estimate numbers of
takes within the different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 114 Level B takes for
this species. The maximum extents of the potential acoustic Level A
ZOIs for cumulative exposure from all of the activities are much less
than 10 m from the source, and therefore the shutdown will reduce the
chance for Level A take. As a result, no Level A take of bottlenose
dolphins is anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
Gray Whale
Gray whale occurrence within northern San Diego Bay is sporadic and
would likely consist of one-few individuals that venture close to, or
enter the bay for a brief period, and then continue on their migration.
A density estimate based on the rare sightings of gray whales near the
mouth of the bay during the second IHA period (NAVFAC SW 2015), would
be less than 0.01/km\2\, which is slightly less than the regional
density estimate of 0.0179/km\2\ in southern California waters during
winter-spring (Navy 2017). The regional density estimate is applied
here as a reasonable estimate given the possibility of animals moving
closer to shore and entering the mouth of the bay during the fifth IHA
period. This density is used to estimate numbers of takes within the
different ZOIs. NMFS estimates 10 Level B takes for this species. The
maximum extent of the potential acoustic Level A ZOI for cumulative
exposure from impact pile driving extends 63 m from the source; for all
other activities, the Level A ZOIs are much less than 10 m from the
source. Gray whales are not expected to occur that close to the source;
however, the Navy has proposed a minimum of 10 m (100 m for impact
driving) shutdown will be in place to avoid Level A takes to gray
whales. Level A takes are not anticipated nor proposed for
authorization.
Table 9--Calculations for Incidental Take Estimation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory
Diamond saw extraction/ Jetting pile Total proposed
Species Density cutting of 66- Pile clipping driving of 16- extraction of Total Level B authorized
inch and 84- concrete piles inch concrete 16 in concrete takes * takes (% of
inch caissons piles piles total stock)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion..................... 15.9201 570 7086 974 341 8,971 3.023
Harbor seal............................. 0.4987 18 222 31 11 281 0.907
Northern elephant seal.................. 0.076 3 34 5 2 43 0.024
Bottlenose dolphin...................... 1.2493 45 556 76 27 704 \2\ 155
Common dolphin.......................... 1.5277 55 680 93 33 861 \3\ 0.088; \4\
0.85
Pacific white-sided dolphin............. 0.0493 2 22 3 1 28 0.104
Risso's dolphin......................... 0.2027 7 90 12 4 114 1.799
Gray whale.............................. 0.0179 1 8 1 0 10 0.048
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Due to rounding of takes to the nearest whole number of animals, (which occurs at the very end, not per activity), totals may not always equal the sum
of the takes from individual activities.
\1\ We assume that impact driving of steel piles would occur on the same day as vibratory driving of the same piles and that the zone for vibratory
driving would always subsume the zone for impact driving. Therefore, separate estimates are not provided for impact driving of steel piles.
\2\ The proposed numbers of authorized take for bottlenose dolphins are higher relative to the total stock abundance estimate and would not represent
small numbers if a significant portion of the take was for a new individual. However, these numbers represent the estimated incidents of take, not the
number of individuals taken. That is, it is likely that a relatively small subset of California coastal bottlenose dolphins would be incidentally
harassed by project activities.
\3\ SB = short-beaked common dolphin.
\4\ LB = long-beaked common dolphin.
[[Page 36374]]
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned). And;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
The mitigation strategies described below largely follow those
required and successfully implemented under the first four IHAs
associated with this project. For this proposed IHA, data from acoustic
monitoring conducted during the first four years of work was used to
estimate zones of influence (ZOIs; see Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment); these values were used to develop mitigation measures for
pile driving activities at NBPL. The ZOIs effectively represent the
mitigation zone that would be established around each pile to minimize
Level A harassment to marine mammals, while providing estimates of the
areas within which Level B harassment might occur. In addition, the
Navy has defined buffers to the estimated Level A harassment zones to
further reduce the potential for Level A harassment. In addition to the
measures described later in this section, the Navy would conduct
briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal
monitoring team, acoustic monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the
start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the
work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures,
marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
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 and removal activities, the
Navy will establish a shutdown zone intended to contain the area in
which SPLs equal or exceed the calculated Level A zones (refer to
table). 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 (serious injury or death are
unlikely outcomes even in the absence of mitigation measures).
Estimated radial distances to the relevant thresholds are shown in
Table 5. For certain activities, the shutdown zone would not exist
because source levels indicate that the radial distance to the
threshold would be less than 10 m. However, a minimum shutdown zone of
10 m will be established during all pile driving and removal
activities, regardless of the estimated zone. In addition the Navy
proposes to effect a buffered shutdown zone that is intended to
significantly reduce the potential for Level A harassment given that,
in particular, California sea lions are quite abundant in the project
area and bottlenose dolphins may surface unpredictably and move
erratically in an area with a large amount of construction equipment.
These buffers are approximately double the distance to the Level A ZOI.
These zones are also shown in Table 10. These precautionary measures
are intended to prevent the already unlikely possibility of physical
interaction with construction equipment and to establish a
precautionary minimum zone with regard to acoustic effects.
Table 10--Shutdown Zones for Level A ZOIs and Monitoring Zones for Level B Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitored distances to thresholds (meters [feet])
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater
Activity -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A (shutdown) Level B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF \1\ MF \1\ PW \1\ OW \1\ 160 dB 120 dB \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Fuel Pier and Temporary Mooring Dolphin Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66-inch and 84-inch caissons N/A 631
(Diamond saw cutting)............ 10
----------------------------------------------------
Concrete piles (Pile clipping).... 10 N/A 2,511
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMAWC Construction and Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete piles (Vibratory
extraction/driving).............. 20 \4\
10 N/A 1,848
----------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete piles (Impact
driving)......................... 100 \5\
60 \6\ 857.7 N/A
----------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete piles (Jetting N/A 1,165
pile extraction)................. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36375]]
16-inch concrete piles (Pile dead-
pull)............................ 10
N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LF = Low-frequency cetaceans; MF = Mid-frequency cetaceans; PW = Phocid pinnipeds; OW = Otariid pinnipeds.
The high-frequency cetacean hearing group (HF) is omitted, because no species in the hearing group occur in,
or around, Project area.
\2\ Mean ambient sound levels in San Diego Bay are approximately 128 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), and all 120 dB
Level B ZOIs are based on the ambient value. The distances for all activities producing sound at NMAWC will be
verified via hydrophone during project activities.
\3\ Airborne noise levels did not exceed regulatory thresholds during previous IHAs. No airborne monitoring will
take place for diamond saw cutting of caissons, plasma torch cutting of temporary mooring dolphin 30-inch
steel piles, jetting or dead-pull extraction of concrete piles.
\4\ Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 20 m (65.6 ft).
\5\ Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 100 m (328 ft).
\6\ Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 60 m (328 ft).
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 10.
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. If acoustic monitoring is being conducted for that pile, a
received SPL may be estimated, or the received level may be estimated
on the basis of past or subsequent acoustic monitoring. It may then be
determined whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting
incidental harassment in post-processing of observational and acoustic
data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment
created. Therefore, although the predicted distances to behavioral
harassment thresholds are useful for estimating incidental harassment
for purposes of authorizing levels of incidental take, actual take may
be determined in part through the use of empirical data.
Acoustic measurements will continue during the fifth year of
project activity and zones would be adjusted as indicated by empirical
data. Please see the Navy's Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan
(Monitoring Plan; available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm) for full details.
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 remove a single
pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of
the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes. Please see
the Monitoring Plan 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 (as defined in the
Monitoring Plan) to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/
delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the
hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained biologists, with the
following minimum qualifications:
(a) 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;
(b) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
(c) Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(d) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
(e) 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
(f) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone
will be monitored for 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
[[Page 36376]]
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 small cetaceans or pinnipeds and 30
minutes for gray whales. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the
time required to drive a pile and for thirty minutes following the
conclusion of pile driving.
Sound Attenuation Devices
The use of bubble curtains to reduce underwater sound from impact
pile driving was considered prior to the start of the project but was
determined to not be practicable. Use of a bubble curtain in a channel
with substantial current may not be effective, as unconfined bubbles
are likely to be swept away and confined curtain systems may be
difficult to deploy effectively in high currents. Data gathered during
monitoring of construction on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
indicated that no reduction in the overall linear sound level resulted
from use of a bubble curtain in deep water with relatively strong
current (Illingworth & Rodkin 2001). During project monitoring for pile
driving associated with the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, also in San
Francisco Bay, it was observed that performance in moderate current was
significantly reduced (Oestman et al., 2009). Lucke et al. (2011) also
note that the effectiveness of most currently used curtain designs may
be compromised in stronger currents and greater water depths. We
believe that conditions (relatively deep water and strong tidal
currents of up to 3 knots (kn)) at the project site would disperse the
bubbles and compromise the effectiveness of sound attenuation.
Timing Restrictions
In-order to avoid impacts to least tern populations when they are
most likely to be foraging and nesting, in-water work will be
concentrated from October 1-April 1 or, depending on circumstances, to
April 30. However, this limitation is in accordance with agreements
between the Navy and FWS, and is not a requirement of this proposed
IHA. All in-water construction activities would occur only from 45
minutes after sunrise to 45 minutes before sunset.
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.'' The project will utilize soft start techniques
for impact pile driving. We require an initial set of three strikes
from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 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; the requirement to implement soft start for impact
driving is independent of whether vibratory driving has occurred within
the prior thirty minutes.
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, 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. Effective reporting is critical
both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained
from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or impacts from multiple stressors.
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 (e.g. marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Please see the Monitoring Plan (available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm) for full details of the
requirements for monitoring and reporting. Notional monitoring
locations (for biological and acoustic monitoring) are shown in Figures
3-1 and 3-2 of the Plan. The purpose of this Plan is to provide
protocols for acoustic and marine mammal monitoring implemented during
pile driving and removal activities. We have preliminarily determined
this monitoring plan, which is summarized here and which largely
follows the monitoring strategies required and successfully implemented
under the previous IHAs, to be sufficient to meet the MMPA's monitoring
and reporting requirements. The previous monitoring plan was modified
to integrate adaptive changes to the monitoring methodologies as well
as updates to the scheduled construction activities. Monitoring
objectives are as follows:
Monitor in-water construction activities, including the
implementation of in-situ acoustic monitoring efforts to
[[Page 36377]]
continue to measure SPLs from in-water construction and demolition
activities not previously monitored or validated during the previous
IHAs. This would include collection of acoustic data for activities and
pile types for which sufficient data has not previously been collected,
including for diamond saw cutting of caissons and pile clipping of the
concrete piles during fuel pier demolition. The Navy also plans to
collect acoustic data for vibratory extraction and/or driving, impact
driving, jetting pile extraction and pile dead-pull of the concrete
piles at NMAWC.
Monitor marine mammal occurrence and behavior during in-
water construction activities to minimize marine mammal impacts and
effectively document marine mammals occurring within ZOI boundaries.
Collection of ambient underwater sound measurements in the absence
of project activities has been concluded, as a rigorous baseline
dataset for the project area has been developed.
Acoustic Measurements
The primary purpose of acoustic monitoring is to empirically verify
modeled injury and behavioral disturbance zones (defined at radial
distances to NMFS-specified thresholds; see Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment). For non-pulsed sound, distances will continue
to be evaluated for attenuation to the point at which sound becomes
indistinguishable from background levels. Empirical acoustic monitoring
data will be used to document transmission loss values determined from
past measurements and to examine site-specific differences in SPL and
affected ZOIs on an as needed basis.
Should monitoring results indicate it is appropriate to do so,
marine mammal mitigation zones may be revised as necessary to encompass
actual ZOIs. Acoustic monitoring will be conducted as specified in the
approved Monitoring Plan. Please see Table 2-2 of the Plan for a list
of equipment to be used during acoustic monitoring. Monitoring
locations will be determined based on results of previous acoustic
monitoring effort and the best professional judgment of acoustic
technicians.
For activities such as demolition of the old fuel pier and
temporary mooring dolphin, the Navy will continue to collect in situ
acoustic data to validate source levels and ZOIs. Environmental data
would be collected including but not limited to: Wind speed and
direction, air temperature, humidity, surface water temperature, water
depth, wave height, weather conditions and other factors that could
contribute to influencing the airborne and underwater sound levels
(e.g., aircraft, boats). Full details of acoustic monitoring
requirements may be found in section 4.2 of the Navy's Monitoring Plan.
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 as described under Proposed Mitigation
and in the Monitoring Plan, with observers located at the best
practicable vantage points. Notional monitoring locations are shown in
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 of the Navy's Plan. Please see that plan, available
at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm, for full
details of the required marine mammal monitoring. Section 3.2 of the
Plan and Section 13 of the Navy's application offer more detail
regarding monitoring protocols. 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.
One MMO will be placed in the most effective position near the
active construction/demolition platform in order to observe the
respective shutdown zones for vibratory and impact pile driving or for
applicable demolition activities. Monitoring would be primarily
dedicated to observing the shutdown zone; however, MMOs would record
all marine mammal sightings beyond these distances provided it did not
interfere with their effectiveness at carrying out the shutdown
procedures. Additional land, pier, or vessel-based MMOs will be
positioned to monitor the shutdown zones and the buffer zones, as
notionally indicated in Figures 3-3 and 3-4 of the Navy's application.
For all pile driving and applicable demolition activities, a
minimum of one observer shall monitor the shutdown zones. However, any
action requiring the impact or vibratory hammer will necessitate two
MMOs. For impact and vibratory pile driving of 16-in concrete piles,
two observers shall be positioned for optimal monitoring of the
surrounding waters.
The MMOs will record all visible marine mammal sightings. Confirmed
takes will be registered once the sightings data has been overlaid with
the isopleths identified in Table 5 and visualized in Figures 6-2, 6-3,
and 6-4 of the Navy's application, or based on refined acoustic data,
if amendments to the ZOIs are needed. Acousticians on duty may be
noting SPLs in real-time, but, to avoid biasing the observations, will
not communicate that information directly to the MMOs. These platforms
may move closer to, or farther from, the source depending on whether
received SPLs are less than or greater than the regulatory threshold
values. All MMOs will be in radio communication with each other so that
the MMOs will know when to anticipate incoming marine mammal species
and when they are tracking the same animals observed elsewhere.
If any species for which take is not authorized is observed by a
MMO during applicable construction or demolition activities, all
construction will be stopped immediately. Pile driving will commence if
the animal has not been seen inside the Level B ZOI for at least one
hour of observation. If the animal is resighted again, pile driving
will be stopped and a boat-based MMO (if available) will follow the
animal until it has left the Level B ZOI. If the animal is resighted
again, pile driving will be stopped and a boat-based MMO (if available)
will follow the animal until it has left the Level B ZOI.
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
[[Page 36378]]
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 incidents 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 distance from
pile driving activity, and if possible, the correlation to measured
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.
In addition, photographs would be taken of any gray whales
observed. These photographs would be submitted to NMFS' West Coast
Regional Office for comparison with photo-identification catalogs to
determine whether the whale is a member of the WNP population.
Reporting
A draft report would be submitted to NMFS within 45 calendar days
of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the
issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, 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. A final report
would be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution
of comments on the draft report. Required contents of the monitoring
reports are described in more detail in the Navy's Acoustic and Marine
Species Monitoring Plan.
Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities
The Navy complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under
the previous authorizations for this project. Acoustic and marine
mammal monitoring was implemented as required, with marine mammal
monitoring occurring before, during, and after each pile driving event.
During the course of Year 4 activities, the Navy did not exceed the
take levels authorized under the IHA (please see the Navy's monitoring
report for more details and below for further discussion).
The general objectives of the monitoring plan were similar to those
described above for the Year 5 monitoring plan. For acoustic
monitoring, the primary goal was to continue to collect in situ data
towards validation of the acoustic ZOIs defined based on previous data
collection efforts and using the transmission loss modeling effort
conducted prior to the start of the project, and to continue collection
of data on background noise conditions in San Diego Bay.
Acoustic Monitoring Results--For a full description of acoustic
monitoring methodology, please see section 2.3 of the Navy's monitoring
report, including Figure 2-3 for representative monitoring locations.
Results from Years 1-4 are displayed in Table 11. Please see our
notices of proposed IHAs for the Years 2, 3, and 4 IHAs (79 FR 53026,
September 5, 2014; 80 FR 53115, September 2, 2015; and 81 FR 66628,
September 28, 2016) or the Navy's Year 1 and 2 monitoring reports for
more detailed description of monitoring accomplished during the first
two years of the project.
For acoustic monitoring associated with impact pile driving,
continuous hydroacoustic monitoring systems were positioned at source
(10 m from the pile) and opportunistically at predicted 160-dB Level B
ZOIs. The far-field data collections were conducted at multiple
locations during impact driving of 16-in concrete-filled poly piles and
24 x 30-in concrete fender piles, i.e., approximately 20 to 550 m from
source. Hydrophones were deployed from the dock, barge, or moored
vessel at half the water depth. The SPLs for driving of 30-in steel
pipe piles were measured intermittently and archived (but not reported)
because associated SPLs for the size, type, and location of the piles
were previously validated. Source SPLs were recorded and analyzed for a
minimum of five piles for each of the concrete pile types. Additional
measurements were archived.
SPLs of pile driving and demolition activities conducted during
Year 2 fell within expected levels but varied spatially relative to the
existing fuel pier structure and maximum source levels for individual
piles (Table 11). For both vibratory and impact pile driving methods,
results from the IPP (Year 1) and 2014/2015 production pile driving
(Year 2) showed that transmission loss for piles driven in shallow
water inside of the existing fuel pier was greater than piles driven in
deep water outside of the existing pier. Differences in depth, sediment
type, and existing in-water pier/wharf structures likely accounted for
variations in transmission loss and measured differences in SPLs
recorded at the shutdown and far-field locations for shallow versus
deep piles of the same type and size. SPLs documented during vibratory
and impact pile driving of shallow and deep steel pipe piles of the
same size displayed notable differences in SPLs at shutdown range and
to a lesser extent at source.
Measurements of impact driving of concrete piles conducted during
Year 3 produced greater than expected SPLs at source. Differences in
the subsurface conditions may account for the discrepancy, as a
hardened layer is found at approximately 20-40 m below the mudline.
SPLs documented during driving of 16-in piles generally displayed
relatively low sound source levels during initial driving then
appreciable increases observed once the piles interacted with this
layer. Measurements from driving of the square concrete piles showed
greatest sound source levels during initial impact pile driving, which
then decreased once the piles transitioned through the hardened layer.
While source SPLs were observed to be greater than expected for both
pile types, attenuation was also greater. Despite greater than expected
source levels, the measured isopleth distances were similar to modeled
predictions. Far-field impact pile driving results varied substantially
between piles and locations for the various pile sizes, types, and
locations. Both pile types were driven adjacent to the new fuel pier
and source SPLs were subject to a wide variety of boundary conditions
from recently driven piles and associated pier infrastructure. Further
detail and discussion is provided in the Navy's report.
During Year 4, measurements were conducted for pile clipping,
caisson cutting, pile jetting, and airborne vibratory and impact
driving. The average SPLs for pile clipping at source ranged from 138.0
to 144.6 dB rms, with maximum SPLs at source ranging from
[[Page 36379]]
156.1 to 165.3 dB rms (see Table 6-3 of the Navy's monitoring report).
Measurements were conducted on eight piles and took one to three
minutes to cut.
Caisson demolition was conducted on 18 84-in concrete-filled
caissons, with an average duration of approximately 6 hours per
caisson. Underwater acoustic data was collected for seven caissons
using the vibratory setting. For some of the recordings, there were two
caissons being cut simultaneously and the acousticians captured the
SPLs for comparison between a single cutter versus two cutters. If two
cutters were running, the distance measured was from the closest
caisson to the location. Average SPLs at source for a single cutter
were 136.1 and 141.4 dB rms. Maximum SPLs at source for a single cutter
were 140.9 and 146.5 dB rms. Average SPLs at source for two cutters
running simultaneously were 146.5 and 149.0 dB rms. Maximum SPLs at
source for two cutters running simultaneously were 149.0 and 155.6 dB
rms. On average, there was a 10 dB difference between a single cutter
and two at source. Far-field recordings for a single cutter were
collected at far-field locations ranging from 20 to 430 m (66 to 1,411
ft), with documented maximum SPL values from 136.6 to 145.5 dB rms.
Far-field recordings for two cutters were also collected at far-field
locations ranging from 85 to 810 m (279 to 2,657 ft), with documented
maximum SPL values from 133.2 to 146.8 dB rms.
SPLs of pile installation activities for the 24 x 30 concrete piles
had not been previously documented. The only jetting data collected
during the Project was at NMAWC during the removal of 12-inch and 16-
inch concrete piles. A total of sixteen 24 x 30 concrete non-structural
fender piles were driven using two techniques: (1) Method 1 (M1)
utilized a custom-made spud jet with four nozzles welded to the tip
that used a high-pressure water system (900 gallons per minute with a
maximum pounds per square inch [psi] of 300), to make the initial break
through the bay point formation sediment layer; and (2) Method 2 (M2)
used the 24 x 30 pile, outfitted with two pipes inside the full length
of the pile, which then used a high-pressure water system (maximum psi
of 300) to remove sediment and place the pile. Pile jetting averaged
24.5 minutes per pile and acoustic recordings were collected for the
entire duration. Collection of underwater acoustic data were completed
on six piles using the vibratory setting. For M1, the average sound
pressure levels (SPL) at source ranged from 152.6 dB rms to 155.1 dB
rms, and maximum SPLs at source ranged from 156.5 dB rms to 159.9 dB
rms. For M2, the average SPL at source ranged from 133.0 dB to 149.8 dB
and maximum SPLs at source ranged from 137.1 dB to 153.2 dB rms. A
vessel based drift method was used to obtain far-field recordings
during M1 and M2 jetting techniques; the vessel was initially
positioned at the closest feasible distance to source, and then the
allowed to drift on the natural tidal current until near ambient sound
pressure levels were obtained. The SPLs at far-field for the first
drift during jetting M1 reached near ambient at 165 m (541 ft) from
pile with an SPL of 128.0 dB. The SPLs at far-field for the first drift
during pile jetting M2 reached near ambient at 80 m (262 ft) from pile
with an SPL of 127.6 dB. Recordings during the vessel drifts showed
that jetting reached near ambient levels for both methods between 80 m
(262 ft) and 165 m (541 ft; M1 and M2, respectively).
Airborne sound levels were recorded during vibratory pile driving
on fourteen 30-inch steel piles. The maximum recorded airborne dB rms
values at source was 106.3 dB re 20 [mu]Pa, and average values ranged
from 96.0 to 102.7 dB re 20 [mu]Pa. Airborne sound levels were recorded
during impact pile driving on sixteen 30-inch steel piles. The maximum
recorded airborne dB values at source was 118.5 dB re 20 [mu]Pa, and
average values ranged from 105.8 to 112.5 dB re 20 [mu]Pa. Further
detail and discussion is provided in the Navy's report.
Table 11--Acoustic Monitoring Results for Year 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Number of underwater Average
Location Activity Pile type piles SPL at 10 m airborne SPL
measured (dB rms) (LZFmax) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Pier (Year 4)........... Pile Clipping... 24-in square 4 141 ..............
concrete pile.
Caisson 84-in caisson.. 10 136 ..............
Demolition (1
cutter).
Caisson 84-in caisson.. 8 138 ..............
Demolition (2
cutters).
Vibratory....... 30-in steel (at 7 .............. 100
source).
Vibratory....... 30-in steel 7 .............. 86
(far field).
Impact.......... 30-in steel (at 9 .............. 110
source).
Impact.......... 30-in steel 7 .............. 88
(far field).
NMAWC (Year 4)............... Pile Jetting.... 24x30.......... 10 147 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Measured from Source (15.2 m) and Far-field Distances for 30-inch Steel Piles.
Marine Mammal Monitoring Results--Marine mammal monitoring was
conducted as required under the IHA and as described in the Year 4
monitoring plan and in our Federal Register notice of proposed
authorization associated with the Year 4 IHA. For a full description of
monitoring methodology, please see section 2 of the Navy's monitoring
report, including Figure 2-1, 2-2, and 2-7 for representative
monitoring locations and Figures 2-2 through 2-5 for monitoring zones.
Monitoring protocols were managed adaptively during the course of the
fourth-year IHA. Multiple shutdowns were implemented due to marine
mammals being observed within buffered shutdown zones, but no animals
were observed within actual predicted Level A harassment zones while
pile driving was occurring (one harbor seal was seen within the Level A
ZOI after a shutdown of construction had been implemented).
Monitoring results are presented in Table 12. The Navy recorded all
observations of marine mammals, including pre- and post-construction
monitoring efforts. Animals observed during these periods or that were
determined to be outside relevant ZOIs were not considered to represent
incidents of take. Please see Figures 3-11, 3-12, 3-22, 3-23, 3-30, and
3-31 of the Navy's Monitoring Report for locations of observations and
incidents of take relative to the project sites. Take authorization for
the second-year authorization was informed by an assumption that 115
days of in-water construction would occur, whereas only
[[Page 36380]]
fifty total days actually occurred. However, the actual observed rates
per day were in all cases lower than what was assumed. Therefore, we
expect that the Navy would not have exceeded the take allowances even
if the full 115 days had been reached.
There were considerably fewer individuals and sightings during the
Year 3 IHA when compared to the same months during the Year 2 IHA, and
only three species were observed. This may be due to environmental
fluctuations as part of the on-going El Ni[ntilde]o event. Water
temperatures during Year 3 were warmer than during the same months
during Year 2. Although the temperatures were still higher than the
average water temperatures for the region prior to the current El
Ni[ntilde]o event, it shows that the event may have been dissipating.
In addition, California sea lion strandings decreased. No evidently
significant behavioral changes were reported.
Similar to Year 3, there were considerably fewer individuals and
sightings during the Year 4 IHA when compared to the same months during
the Year 2 IHA, and only four species were observed. This may be due to
environmental fluctuations as part of the on-going El Ni[ntilde]o
event. Water temperatures during Year 4 were slightly warmer than
during the same months during Year 2. Although the temperatures were
still higher than the average water temperatures for the region prior
to the current El Ni[ntilde]o event, it shows that the event may have
been dissipating. In addition, California sea lion strandings
decreased, but may be returning to numbers more commonly observed. No
evidently significant behavioral changes were reported.
Table 12--Marine Mammal Monitoring Results for Year 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extrapolated
Total Total Observed incidents of Total
Species sightings individuals incidents of Level B take estimated
Level B take \1\ Level B take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion............. 717 2,037 156 1,835 1,991
Harbor seal..................... 87 102 21 57 78
Bottlenose dolphin.............. 18 45 4 144 148
Gray whale...................... 1 1 0 13 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumed density and unmonitored area of assumed Level B ZOI used with actual pile driving time to generate
assumed take for unmonitored areas.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival. A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e.,
population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is
not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In
addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that
might be ``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors,
such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely
effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity,
and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative
to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's
implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts
from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated
into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population
size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused
mortality, or ambient noise levels).
Construction and demolition activities associated with the pier
replacement 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 or removal
is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the
nature of the activity 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. Impact pile driving
produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper
rise time to reach those peaks. When impact driving is necessary,
required measures (implementation of buffered shutdown zones)
significantly reduce 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. The likelihood that marine
mammal detection ability by trained observers is high under the
environmental conditions described for San Diego Bay (approaching 100
percent detection rate, as described by trained biologists conducting
site-specific surveys) further enables the implementation of shutdowns
to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from past
years of this project and 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, 2012; Lerma, 2014). Most likely,
individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be
temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving, although even
this reaction has been observed primarily only in association with
impact pile driving. In response to vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which
may become somewhat habituated to human activity in industrial or urban
waterways) have been observed to orient towards and sometimes move
towards the sound. 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
[[Page 36381]]
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 fitness 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 project area while
the activity is occurring.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist
of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
The absence of any significant habitat within the project
area, including rookeries, significant haul-outs, or known areas or
features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; and
The presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures
in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least
practicable impact.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of
the activities.
The number of incidents of take proposed for authorization for
these stocks, with the exception of the coastal bottlenose dolphin (see
below), would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or
populations (see Table 9) even if each estimated taking occurred to a
new individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario as, for
pinnipeds occurring at the NBPL waterfront, there will almost certainly
be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day and in general, there
is likely to be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day for
animals in estuarine/inland waters.
The proposed numbers of authorized take for bottlenose dolphins are
higher relative to the total stock abundance estimate and would not
represent small numbers if a significant portion of the take was for a
new individual. However, these numbers represent the estimated
incidents of take, not the number of individuals taken. That is, it is
likely that a relatively small subset of California coastal bottlenose
dolphins would be incidentally harassed by project activities.
California coastal bottlenose dolphins range from San Francisco Bay to
San Diego (and south into Mexico) and the specified activity would be
stationary within an enclosed water body that is not recognized as an
area of any special significance for coastal bottlenose dolphins (and
is therefore not an area of dolphin aggregation, as evident in Navy
observational records). 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, based on the
limited region of exposure in comparison with the known distribution of
the coastal bottlenose dolphin, these estimated incidents of take
represent small numbers of bottlenose dolphins.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or
stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the ESA Interagency
Cooperation Division, whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
The Navy initiated informal consultation under section 7 of the ESA
with NMFS Southwest Regional Office (now West Coast Regional Office) on
March 5, 2013. NMFS concluded on May 16, 2013, that the proposed action
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, WNP gray whales. The
Navy has not requested authorization of the incidental take of WNP gray
whales and no such authorization is proposed, and there are no other
ESA-listed marine mammals found in the action area. Therefore, no
consultation under the ESA is required.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to the Navy for conducting the described pier replacement
activities in San Diego Bay, for a period of one year from the date of
issuance, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft
of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed
for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from
October 8, 2017, through October 7, 2018.
2. This IHA is valid only for pile driving and removal activities
associated with the Fuel Pier Replacement Project at the Naval Station
Point Loma in San Diego Bay, California.
[[Page 36382]]
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 are the harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina richardii), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus),
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus truncatus), common dolphin
(Delphinus delphis), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris),
Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), Risso's
dolphin (Grampus griseus), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus).
(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, by Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized
Species take
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion..................................... 8,971
Harbor seal............................................. 281
Northern elephant seal.................................. 43
California coastal bottlenose dolphin................... 704
Common dolphin.......................................... 861
Pacific white-sided dolphin............................. 28
Risso's dolphin......................................... 114
Gray whale.............................................. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or
death of any 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, acoustic
monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving
activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures.
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 10 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes
within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease.
See Table 2 for minimum radial distances required for shutdown zones.
Table 2--Radial Distance to Shutdown and Disturbance Zones Associated With Relevant Thresholds, Including Buffers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitored distances to thresholds (meters)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater Airborne
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Level A Level B Level B
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120 dB
LF \1\ MF \1\ PW \1\ OW \1\ 160 dB \2\ 100 dB 90 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Fuel Pier and Temporary Mooring Dolphin Demolition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66-inch and 84-inch caissons (Diamond saw cutting).............. 10 N/A 631 N/A \3\
--------------------------------------------
Concrete piles (Pile clipping).................................. 10 N/A 2,511
------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel piles (Plasma torch cutting)...................... 10
N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMAWC Construction and Demolition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete piles (Vibratory extraction/driving)........... 20 \4\
10 N/A 1,848 42 149
--------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete piles (Impact driving)......................... 100 \5\
60 \6\ 270 N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete piles (Jetting pile extraction)................ 10 N/A 1,165 N/A \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------
16-inch concrete piles (Pile dead-pull)......................... 10
N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LF = Low-frequency cetaceans; MF = Mid-frequency cetaceans; PW = Phocid pinnipeds; OW = Otariid pinnipeds. The high-frequency cetacean hearing group
(HF) is omitted, because no species in the hearing group occur in, or around, Project area.
\2\ Mean ambient sound levels in San Diego Bay are approximately 128 dB rms (NAVFAC SW 2015), and all 120 dB Level B ZOIs are based on the ambient
value.
\3\ Airborne noise levels did not exceed regulatory thresholds during previous IHAs. No airborne monitoring will take place for diamond saw cutting of
caissons, plasma torch cutting of temporary mooring dolphin 30-inch steel piles, jetting or dead-pull extraction of concrete piles.
\4\ Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 20 m (65.6 ft).
\5\ Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 100 m (328 ft).
\6\ Includes buffer of calculated Level A threshold out to 60 m (197 ft).
(b) The Navy shall shutdown activity as appropriate upon
observation of any species for which take is not authorized. Activity
shall not be resumed until those species have been observed to leave
the relevant zone or until one hour has elapsed.
(c) The Navy shall deploy marine mammal observers as described
below and as indicated in the Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring
Plan (Monitoring Plan; attached).
i. For all pile driving and applicable demolition activities, a
minimum of one observer shall monitor the shutdown zones. However, any
action requiring the impact or vibratory hammer will necessitate two
MMOs.
ii. For impact and vibratory pile driving of 16-in concrete piles,
two observers shall be positioned for optimal monitoring of the
surrounding waters.
[[Page 36383]]
iii. 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.
iv. 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).
(d) 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
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).
(e) 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 30 minutes have passed without re-detection of gray whales or 15
minutes for all other animals.
(f) 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.
(g) The Navy shall use soft start techniques recommended by NMFS
for impact pile driving. Soft start for impact drivers requires
contractors to provide an initial set of strikes at reduced energy,
followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced
energy strike sets. Soft start shall be implemented at the start of
each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of
impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
(h) 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.
(c) The Navy shall conduct acoustic monitoring for representative
scenarios of pile driving activity, 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 45 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal and acoustic
monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for
this project, 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 incidences of take, such as
ability to track groups or individuals.
iii. Results of acoustic monitoring, including the information
described in in the Monitoring Plan.
(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 West Coast
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.
i. 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 West
Coast 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.
ii. 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 West Coast 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
the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the
species or stock of affected marine mammals.
[[Page 36384]]
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for Navy's pier
replacement activities. Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final
decision on Navy's request for an MMPA authorization.
Dated: August 1, 2017.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-16453 Filed 8-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
