[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52645-52665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18847]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE744
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pier Replacement Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction
activities as part of a 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
[[Page 52646]]
Level B Harassment only, during the specified activity.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than
September 8, 2016.
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 [email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted to the Internet at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm without
change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do
not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Laws, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the Navy's application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact listed above.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA; 2013) for this
project. We subsequently adopted the EA and signed our own Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to issuing the first IHA for this
project, in accordance with NEPA and the regulations published by the
Council on Environmental Quality. Information in the Navy's
application, the Navy's EA, and this notice collectively provide the
environmental information related to proposed issuance of this IHA for
public review and comment. All documents are available at the
aforementioned Web site. We will review all comments submitted in
response to this notice as we complete the NEPA process, including a
decision of whether the existing EA and FONSI provide adequate analysis
related to the potential environmental effects of issuing an IHA to the
Navy, prior to a final decision on the incidental take authorization
request.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
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.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of
an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must
either issue or deny the authorization. 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
On June 16, 2016, we received a request from the Navy for
authorization 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 2, 2016, pursuant to requirements of the previous IHA.
The Navy submitted revised versions of the request and monitoring plan
on August 3, 2016, and a revised monitoring report on July 12, 2016.
These documents were deemed adequate and complete. The pier replacement
project is planned to occur over multiple years; this proposed IHA
would cover only the fourth 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 use of both vibratory and impact pile driving, as well as
various demolition techniques, is expected to produce underwater sound
at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of
marine mammals. 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
[[Page 52647]]
harassment from the aforementioned activities.
This would be the fourth such IHA, if issued, following the IHAs
issued effective from 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).
Monitoring reports are available on the Internet 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 fourth 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 driving remaining concrete fender piles
and driving remaining steel piles for mooring dolphins. At NMAWC, Navy
anticipates extracting and driving concrete piles as needed to return
the existing facility to its configuration prior to temporary placement
of the MMP, which will be returned to its previous location near the
fuel pier. For construction work at the fuel pier, Navy anticipates
driving approximately 24 30-in steel pipe piles, 81 30 x 24-in concrete
piles, and one 16-in concrete-filled fiberglass pile. Steel pipe piles
would be installed to refusal using a vibratory driver and then
finished using an impact hammer; concrete piles would be installed to
within five feet of tip elevation via jetting before being finished
with an impact hammer, and the fiberglass pile would be installed
entirely using an impact hammer. At NMAWC, Navy anticipates driving 21
16-in concrete piles using an impact hammer and removing forty existing
16-in concrete piles used for the temporary MMP relocation. See Table
1-4 in the Navy's application for more detail on piles to be installed.
The majority of demolition activity of the existing pier would
occur concurrently during this fourth IHA period, including the removal
of approximately 458 steel, concrete, and plastic piles and 51
concrete-filled steel caissons. Removals may occur by multiple means,
including vibratory removal, hydraulic pile cutter, torch cutter, dead
pull, and diamond saw, as determined to be most effective. See Table 1-
3 in the Navy's application for more detail on piles to be removed.
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 when not occurring concurrently with pile installation.
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 fourth 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 km and a total area of roughly 4,500 ha. The width of the
bay ranges from 0.3 to 5.8 km, and depths range from 23 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
third work window. Please see section 1 of the
[[Page 52648]]
Navy's application for full detail of construction scheduling for this
period. For the fourth year of work, approximately 106 steel and
concrete piles would be installed, completing in-water construction
work for the new pier (with a total of approximately 518 steel and
concrete piles installed). The Navy anticipates the need to request a
fifth IHA related to completion of demolition work.
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 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.
Steel piles are typically vibratory-driven for their initial
embedment depths or to refusal and finished with an impact hammer for
proofing or until the pile meets structural requirements, as necessary.
Proofing involves striking a driven pile with an impact hammer to
verify that it provides the required load-bearing capacity, as
indicated by the number of hammer blows per foot of pile advancement.
Non-steel piles are typically impact-driven for their entire embedment
depth, in part because non-steel piles are often displacement piles (as
opposed to pipe piles) and require some impact to allow substrate
penetration. However, jetting may be used to advance displacement piles
to a certain embedment depth. Pile jetting utilizes a directed and 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 fourth-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 fourth year of
activity would include driving of steel pipe piles to complete
construction of mooring dolphins and driving of concrete fender piles
for the new pier and mooring dolphins. This work is expected to require
a total of 53 days.
Demolition--Demolition of the old pier will continue during
construction activity. Much of the demolition work will be above-water,
involving removal of decking, utilities, and appurtenances, 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 eighteen 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).
The Navy MMP, administered by Space and Naval Warfare Systems
Command Systems Center, 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 was begun 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
one hundred days of activity from October 16, 2014, through April 29,
2015. Of these one hundred days of in-water work, eighteen days
involved only impact driving, fifteen days included only vibratory
driving, and 65 days where both types of driving occurred.
[[Page 52649]]
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 fifty 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 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. Additional work may be conducted under the existing
IHA between September 15 and October 7, 2016, in which case the
submitted monitoring report would be amended as necessary.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
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). 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 stock.
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.
We have reviewed the Navy's detailed species descriptions,
including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and
refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy's application instead
of reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts
and to the Navy's Marine Resource Assessment for the Southern
California and Point Mugu Operating Areas, which provides information
regarding the biology and behavior of the marine resources that may
occur in those operating areas (DoN, 2008). The document is publicly
available at www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html
(accessed July 26, 2016). In addition, we provided information for the
potentially affected stocks, including details of stock-wide status,
trends, and threats, 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) and refer the
reader to those documents rather than reprinting the information here.
Table 1 lists the marine mammal species with expected potential for
occurrence in the vicinity of NBPL during the project timeframe and
summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. See
also Figures 3-1 through 3-5 of the Navy's application for observed
occurrence of marine mammals in the project area. Taxonomically, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment
Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more
detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance. All
potentially affected species are addressed in the Pacific SARs
(Carretta et al., 2016).
[[Page 52650]]
Table 1--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of NBPL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance Relative occurrence
ESA/MMPA status; (CV, Nmin, most Annual M/SI in San Diego Bay;
Species Stock Strategic (Y/N) \1\ recent abundance PBR \3\ \4\ season of
survey) \2\ occurrence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale....................... Eastern North -; N 20,990 (0.05; 624 132 Occasional
Pacific. 20,125; 2011). migratory visitor;
winter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin............... California coastal.. -; N 323 \5\ (0.13; 290; 2.4 0.2 Common; year-round.
2005).
Short-beaked common dolphin...... California/Oregon/ -; N 411,211 (0.21; 3,440 64 Occasional; year-
Washington. 343,990; 2008). round (but more
common in warm
season).
Long-beaked common dolphin....... California.......... -; N 107,016 (0.42; 610 13.8 Occasional; year-
76,224; 2009). round (but more
common in warm
season).
Pacific white-sided dolphin...... California/Oregon/ -; N 26,930 (0.28; 171 17.8 Uncommon; year-
Washington. 21,406; 2008). round.
Risso's dolphin.................. California/Oregon/ -; N 6,272 (0.3; 4,913; 39 1.6 Rare; year-round
Washington. 2008). (but 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; 9,200 389 Abundant; year-
153,337; 2011). round.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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; 4,882 8.8 Rare; year-round.
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; 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.
\5\ This value is based on photographic mark-recapture surveys conducted along the San Diego coast in 2004-05, but is considered a likely underestimate,
as it does not reflect that approximately 35 percent of dolphins encountered lack identifiable dorsal fin marks (Defran and Weller, 1999). If 35
percent of all animals lack distinguishing marks, then the true population size would be closer to 450-500 animals (Carretta et al., 2016).
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.
[[Page 52651]]
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.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
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 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 decibels (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 hertz (Hz). Typical human hearing ranges from 20 Hz to
20 kilohertz (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%. 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
an 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.
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.
The mitigation strategies described below largely follow those
required and successfully implemented under the first three IHAs
associated with this project. For this proposed IHA, data from acoustic
monitoring conducted during the first three 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 NMFS' historical 180/190 dB rms acoustic
injury criteria. The purpose of a shutdown zone is to define an area
within which shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area),
thus preventing injury of marine mammals (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 are lower than the threshold, or the 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
[[Page 52652]]
dolphins may surface unpredictably and move erratically in an area with
a large amount of construction equipment. The Navy considered typical
swim speeds (Godfrey, 1985; Lockyer and Morris, 1987; Fish, 1997; Fish
et al., 2003; Rohr et al., 2002; Noren et al., 2006) and past field
experience (e.g., typical elapsed time from observation of an animal to
shutdown of equipment) in initially defining these buffered zones, and
then evaluated the practicality and effectiveness of the zones during
the Years 2-3 construction periods. The Navy will add a buffer of 75 m
and 150 m to the estimated Level A harassment zones for impact driving
of steel piles for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively, (incerasing
the effective zones to 150 m and 450 m radius. These zones are also
shown in Table 5. 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.
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 5.
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 fourth 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:
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
Advanced education in biological science or related field
(undergraduate degree or higher is required);
Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience);
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone
will be monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure that it is clear of
marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have
declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be
allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own
volition) and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The
shutdown zone may only be declared clear, and pile driving started,
when the entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by
dark, rain, fog, etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise
during impact pile driving that is already underway, the activity would
be halted.
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone
during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted
and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been
visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have
passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted
throughout the time required to drive a pile 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
[[Page 52653]]
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, and the distance to the 190
dB zone was considered to be the same with and without the bubble
curtain (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 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.
We have carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures
and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to
preliminarily determine whether they are likely to effect the least
practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1)
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts
to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific
measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the
practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment
only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat
during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as
any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified
activity, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation
measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on
marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result
in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g.,
presence, abundance, distribution, density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population,
species, or stock.
Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to
marine mammals.
[[Page 52654]]
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 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 during fuel pier demolition. The Navy
also plans to collect acoustic data for removal of 30-in steel piles
via either vibratory extraction or torch cutting.
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'' below). 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.
No acoustic data will be collected for 30-in steel piles as
sufficient data has been collected for 36-in steel piles during
previous years. For other activities, such as fender pile driving and
demolition, 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 3-1 and 3-2 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 3-1 and 3-2 of the Navy's application.
During driving of steel piles, at least four additional MMOs (five
total) will be deployed. Three of the five MMOs will be positioned in
various pier-based locations around the new fuel pier to monitor the
ZOIs. Two of these will be stationed at the north and south ends of the
second deck of the new pier, and one MMO will be stationed on a second
story balcony of a building on the existing pier. This building is
scheduled to be demolished as part of the project. When the building is
removed, a suitable secondary location with similar visibility will be
used as an observation location. One MMO will be positioned in a boat
at or near floating docks associated, and will focus on the furthest
extent of the 450-m cetacean shutdown ZOI. The fifth MMO will be
positioned on a second-story balcony of a Navy building on Ballast
Point at the entrance to San Diego Bay, will focus on the furthest
extent of the Level B ZOIs, and will monitor for marine mammals as they
enter or exit San Diego Bay.
One additional team member--the ``Command'' position--will remain
on the construction barge for the duration of monitoring efforts, and
will log pile driving start and stop times. This
[[Page 52655]]
position will act as a secondary MMO during monitoring efforts, but
will not log marine species observations as part of their normal
duties. They will use either verbal or visual communication procedures
to stop active construction if an animal enters the shutdown zones.
During driving of 24 x 30-in concrete fender piles, two MMOs and
the additional ``Command'' team member will be on duty. The two MMOs
would be stationed on the second deck of the new fuel pier in the most
appropriate locations. During driving of the 16-in poly-concrete pile,
one MMO and the ``Command'' position would be on duty. One MMO would be
on duty during demolition using the diamond saw. During activity at the
NMAWC site, at least two MMOs will be on duty and will be located at
the most appropriate positions.
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. If a boat is available, MMOs
will follow the animal(s) at a minimum distance of 100 m until the
animal has left the Level B ZOI. 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.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its
effectiveness using an adaptive approach. Monitoring biologists will
use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek
improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any
modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the
Navy.
Data Collection
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, the Navy will record detailed information about
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to
the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting
behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Navy will attempt to
distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the
number of 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 sixty 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 3 activities, the Navy did not exceed the
take levels authorized under the IHA, and no animals were observed to
occur within defined Level A harassment zones (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 4 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 1-3 are displayed in Table 2. Please see our notices
of proposed IHAs for the Years 2 and 3 IHAs (79 FR 53026; September 5,
2014 and 80 FR 53115; September 2, 2015) 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
[[Page 52656]]
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 4). 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.
Table 2--Acoustic Monitoring Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Average Measured distances to relevant zones (dB rms/dB
Number of underwater airborne unweighted) (m) \1\
Location Activity Pile type piles SPL at 10 SPL at 15 -----------------------------------------------------
measured m (dB rms) m (LZFmax) 120 160 180 190 90 \4\ 100 \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMAWC....................... Impact......... 12- and 16-in 58 182 108 n/a 126 13 <10 728 105
concrete.
Fuel Pier (Year 1).......... Vibratory...... 30- and 36-in 9 167 113 \2\ n/a <10 <10 233 71
steel pipe. 3,000
Impact......... 36-in steel 7 200 .......... n/a \3\ \3\ 450 \3\ 75 ....... .......
pipe. 2,500
Fuel Pier (Year 2) \6\...... Vibratory...... 30-in steel 2 165 107 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
pipe.
Impact......... 30-in steel 2 196 .......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
pipe.
Vibratory...... 36-in steel 31 178 .......... 2,500 n/a <10 <10 182 78
pipe.
Impact......... 36-in steel 31 204 .......... n/a 2,000 350 75 ....... .......
pipe.
Hydraulic cutting........... 24-in concrete. 4.............. 154 .......... .......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Diamond saw 72-in caisson.. 4 \5\ 143 .......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
cutting.
Fuel Pier (Year 3) \7\...... Impact......... 16-in poly- 6 190 104-110 ....... 270 50 20 149 42
concrete.
Impact......... 24 x 30-in 3 189 110-113 ....... 470 ....... ....... ....... .......
concrete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Site-specific measured transmission loss values (both underwater and airborne) were used to calculate zone distances. See monitoring report for more
detail.
\2\ The 120-dB disturbance zone was initially modeled to be 6,470 m; however, ambient sound in the vicinity of the project site was measured at
approximately 128 dB rms (see below). This value was used in conjunction with a site-specific propagation model to arrive at a predicted distance of
3,000 m at which sound should attenuate to background levels. This was supported by collection of measured dB rms values for vibratory pile driving
during the IPP, as signal could not be distinguished from background at similar distance.
\3\ These values are for outside piles. Measured distances to the 160/180/190 dB ZOIs for inside piles were 2,000/100/40 m. Zones calculated on the
basis of SPLs from 36-in piles.
\4\ Distances based on impact driving.
\5\ Value measured at 15 m from source.
\6\ Year 2 values are maximum values rather than average. We use these in defining conservative ZOIs.
\7\ Underwater source level measurements are as reported from Loggerhead DSG acoustic data recorders and described in section 3.2.2 and Appendix E of
the report.
Ambient data collection was conducted in a manner consistent with
NMFS' 2012 guidance for measurement of background sound. Ambient
underwater and airborne sound level recordings were collected for three
eight-hour days in December 2015, and April and May 2016. Ambient sound
level recordings were collected in the absence of construction
activities, and during typical construction time periods (7 a.m. to 6
p.m.), at locations that were between 400 and 750 m from each site.
Sites were chosen to minimize boat traffic effects that might impact
results. Data recorded during December 2015 and on April 5, 2016, were
determined to be outliers due to anthropogenic corruption. The
resulting median ambient SPL was 130.5 dB rms, similar to the value of
approximately 128 dB rms resulting from previous measurement efforts.
Marine Mammal Monitoring Results--Marine mammal monitoring was
conducted as required under the IHA and as described in the Year 3
monitoring plan and in our Federal Register notice of proposed
authorization associated with the Year 3 IHA. For a full description of
monitoring methodology, please see section 2.4 of the Navy's monitoring
report, including Figures 2-1 and 2-2 for representative monitoring
locations and Figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 for monitoring zones.
Monitoring protocols were managed adaptively during the course of the
third-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.
Monitoring results are presented in Table 3. The Navy recorded all
observations of marine mammals, including pre- and post-construction
[[Page 52657]]
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 3-13, 3-19, and 3-24 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 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. In addition
to the results shown in Table 3, the Navy observed two unidentified
pinnipeds, which were likely California sea lions. These were not
within an active Level B harassment zone.
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 cooler 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.
There was one sighting of a dead California sea lion in the
vicinity of the project. The dead animal was evaluated and deemed as
having died as a result of factors unrelated to the project, likely due
to the unusual mortality event currently ongoing in southern California
waters. The observation was appropriately reported in accordance with
the IHA and per protocols agreed-upon with NMFS' regional stranding
coordinator.
Table 3--Marine Mammal Monitoring Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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............. 331 411 97 96 193
Harbor seal..................... 24 24 9 7 16
Bottlenose dolphin.............. 13 25 2 3 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumed density and unmonitored area of assumed Level B ZOI used with actual pile driving time to generate
assumed take for unmonitored areas.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment];
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from
vibratory and impact pile driving or demolition and involving temporary
changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures
(i.e., buffered shutdown zones) are expected to minimize the
possibility of Level A harassment such that we believe it is unlikely.
We do not expect that injurious or lethal takes would occur even in the
absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures.
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types
of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to
estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular
distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of
sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to
characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected
marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number
of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when
duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take
estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In
particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some
smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of
harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new
individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of
residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g.,
because of foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence
presented by the harassing activity.
The project area is not believed to be particularly important
habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by
marine mammals (with the exception of California sea lions, which are
attracted to nearby haul-out opportunities). Sightings of other species
are relatively rare. Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could
result from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are
expected to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine
mammals, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the
project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity.
The Navy has requested authorization for the potential taking of
small numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, bottlenose
dolphins, common dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, Risso's
dolphins, northern elephant seals, and gray whales in San Diego Bay and
nearby waters that may result from pile driving during construction
activities associated with the fuel pier replacement project described
previously in this document. In order to estimate the potential
incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity,
we typically first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be
produced by the activity and then consider in combination with
information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project
area. In this case, we have acoustic data from project monitoring that
provides empirical information regarding the sound fields likely
produced by project activities. We first provide information on
applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals
before describing the measured sound fields, the available marine
mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating
potential incidents of take.
[[Page 52658]]
Sound Thresholds
We have historically used generic sound exposure thresholds (see
Table 4) to determine when an activity that produces sound might result
in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might
occur. These thresholds should be considered guidelines for estimating
when harassment may occur (i.e., when an animal is exposed to levels
equal to or exceeding the relevant criterion) in specific contexts;
however, useful contextual information that may inform our assessment
of effects is typically lacking and we consider these thresholds as
step functions. However, NOAA is currently developing new guidance for
acoustic injury (equating to Level A harassment under the MMPA); for
more information on that process, please visit www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
Table 4--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion Definition Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment (underwater). Injury (PTS--any 180 dB (cetaceans)/
level above that 190 dB
which is known to (pinnipeds)
cause TTS). (rms).
Level B harassment (underwater). Behavioral 160 dB (impulsive
disruption. source)/120 dB
(continuous
source) (rms).
Level B harassment (airborne)... Behavioral 90 dB (harbor
disruption. seals)/100 dB
(other pinnipeds)
(unweighted).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to Sound Thresholds
Background information on underwater sound propagation and the
calculation of range to relevant thresholds was provided in our Federal
Register notice of proposed authorization associated with the first-
year IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013). For the first-year IHA, the Navy
estimated sound fields using a site-specific model for transmission
loss (TL) from pile driving at a central point at the project site in
combination with proxy source levels (as described in the
aforementioned Federal Register notice). The model is based on
historical temperature-salinity data and location-dependent bathymetry.
In the model, TL is the same for different sound source levels and is
applied to each of the different activities to determine the point at
which the applicable thresholds are reached as a function of distance
from the source. The model's predictions result in a slightly lower
average rate of TL than practical spreading, and hence are
conservative. The model has been further validated using acoustic
monitoring data collected during the first three IHAs (see Figure 6-1
of the Navy's application). For activities conducted at the NMAWC site,
practical spreading loss (15 log[distance/10]) is assumed.
Impact and vibratory driving of steel pipe piles, impact driving of
concrete and concrete-filled fiberglass piles, and demolition using
different techniques (including diamond saw cutting and potentially
vibratory removal) is planned for the next phase of work. Acoustic
monitoring results that inform both the take estimates as well as the
mitigation monitoring zones were reported in Table 2. Here, we present
the calculated distances for predicted Level A and Level B ZOIs (Table
5). In some cases, the predicted zones have been modified for purposes
of mitigation and/or monitoring implementation by adding buffers or by
retaining a more conservative zone size based on prior assumptions. In
all cases, proposed mitigation and/or monitoring zones are either
equivalent to or larger than those indicated by relevant in situ data
collection. See also Figures 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4 of the Navy's
application for visual representation of the anticipated sound fields
and their interaction with local topography.
Measured source levels for impact and vibratory driving of 30-in
steel piles were 196 dB rms and 165 dB rms, respectively, but were
based on only two measured piles. Here we use measured values for 36-in
steel piles (204 dB rms and 174 dB rms) as conservative proxies.
Background sound has been determined to be approximately 128 dB rms,
and the distance at which continuous sound produced by vibratory
driving would attenuate to background levels has been determined to be
approximately 3,000 m. Although Year 2 measurements indicate that such
attenuation may occur closer to 2,500 m, we conservatively retain the
larger distance for estimating exposures. We conservatively use the
vibratory pile installation value as proxy for vibratory pile removal,
if it occurs.
For the two types of concrete fender piles, measured values from
Year 3 acoustic monitoring are louder than might be expected from other
available literature. We had previously assumed values of 176 dB rms
and 173 dB rms for impact driving of 24 x 30-in concrete piles and 16-
in concrete piles, respectively (Caltrans, 2012), but the Navy's
acoustic monitoring program showed that these proxies were too low (see
Table 3-2 and Appendix E of the Navy's monitoring report). The Navy
proposed to conservatively use average maximum rms SPLs for these piles
(see Table 6-4 of the Navy's application), i.e., 192 dB rms and 194 dB
rms, respectively. However, as discussed previously acoustic monitoring
results showed measured isopleth distances roughly comparable to those
previously predicted. We use those values (Table 5) for exposure
calculations here. Demolition via diamond saw cutting is based on
limited demolition measurements collected during Year 2 monitoring
(maximum rms SPLs ranging from 152-155 dB rms), resulting in a
conservative maximum assumed source level of 155 dB rms. For use of the
diamond saw and for vibratory extraction of piles at NMAWC, practical
spreading loss was assumed and distances were estimated to the assumed
background sound level of 128 dB. Continued acoustic monitoring will
target impact driving of concrete piles and use of the diamond saw.
Please see Tables 6-4 and 6-5 in the Navy's application for more
detail.
[[Page 52659]]
Table 5--Distances to Relevant Thresholds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to threshold in meters
Activity -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 120 dB 100 dB 90 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact driving, 30-in steel piles \1\................... \1\ 75 \1\ 350 2,000 n/a 80 233
Vibratory driving, 30-in steel piles.................... \2\ <10 <10 n/a 3,000 .............. ..............
Impact driving, 24 x 30 concrete piles.................. 20 50 470 n/a 42 149
Impact driving, 16-in concrete-filled fiberglass piles.. 20 50 270 n/a .............. ..............
Impact driving, 16-in concrete piles (NMAWC)............ <10 <10 126 n/a 105 728
Vibratory extraction, 16-in concrete piles (NMAWC)...... <10 <10 n/a 631 .............. ..............
Diamond saw cutting (demolition)........................ <10 <10 n/a 631 .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The buffered zones for use in mitigation will be 150 m and 450 m, respectively.
\2\ The minimum shutdown zone for all activities is 10 m.
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.
Marine Mammal Densities
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 on the
Internet at: nwtteis.com/DocumentsandReferences/NWTTDocuments/SupportingTechnicalDocuments.aspx (accessed July 27, 2016).
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 Year 3 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. Density information is shown in Table 7. 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.
Description of Take Calculation
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 6; 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
[[Page 52660]]
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). When local abundance is the best
available information, in lieu of the density-area method described
above, we may simply multiply some number of animals (as determined
through counts of animals hauled-out) by the number of days of
activity, under the assumption that all of those animals will be
present and incidentally taken on each day of activity.
Table 6--Areas of Acoustic Influence and Days of Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Number of days ZOI (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact and vibratory driving, 30-in 24 5.6752
steel piles \1\........................
Vibratory removal, 30-in steel piles.... 6 5.6752
Impact driving, 24 x 32-in concrete 28 0.5377
piles..................................
Impact driving, 16-in concrete-filled 1 0.2180
fiberglass piles.......................
Diamond saw cutting..................... 69 0.8842
Impact driving, 16-in concrete piles 10 0.0436
(NMAWC)................................
Vibratory removal, 16-in concrete piles 8 2.7913
(NMAWC)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We assume that impact driving of 30-in steel piles would always
occur on the same day as vibratory driving of the same piles.
Therefore, the impact driving ZOI (3.8894 km\2\) would always be
subsumed by the vibratory driving ZOI.
Where appropriate, we use average daily number of individuals
observed within the project area during Navy marine mammal surveys
converted to a density value by using the largest ZOI as the effective
observation area. It is the opinion of the professional biologists who
conducted these surveys that detectability of animals during these
surveys, at slow speeds and under calm weather and excellent viewing
conditions, approached one hundred percent.
There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents
of take may be conservative, assuming that available density or
abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate (aside from
the contingency correction discussed above). 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 7 for total estimated incidents of take.
California Sea Lion
The NMSDD reports estimated densities for north and central San
Diego Bay of 5.8 animals/km\2\ for the summer and fall periods and 2.5
animals/km\2\ during the winter and spring (based on surveys conducted
2007-11; note that the NMSDD does not present density estimates
specific to San Diego Bay for other species). For the first-year IHA,
the Navy reported an average abundance of approximately sixty
individuals per survey day (approximately equating to the reported
density). However, Year 2 project monitoring showed an average of 90.35
individuals per day occurring within the project area (i.e., 5.6752
km\2\). This includes both hauled-out and swimming individuals. For
California sea lions, the most common species in northern San Diego Bay
and the only species with regular occurrence in the project area, we
determined that this value--derived from the most recent monitoring
effort--would be appropriate for use in estimating potential incidents
of take.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are relatively uncommon within San Diego Bay.
Previously, sightings in the Navy transect surveys of northern San
Diego Bay were limited to individuals outside of the ZOI, on the south
side of Ballast Point. These individuals had not been observed entering
or transiting the project area and were believed to move from this
location to haul-outs further north at La Jolla. Separately, marine
mammal monitoring conducted by the Navy intermittently from 2010-14 had
documented up to four harbor seals near Pier 122 (within the ZOI) at
various times, with the greatest number of sightings during April and
May. This information was used in previous IHA analysis, wherein we
assumed that three harbor seals could be present for up to thirty days
of the project. However, Year 2 project monitoring indicated an average
abundance of 2.83 individuals per day in the project area. Animals were
seen swimming as well as hauled out on rocks along the shoreline of
NBPL. Although it is unknown whether this increase in abundance is a
temporary phenomenon we use this new information on a precautionary
basis as the best available information, and assume that this number of
animals could be present on any day of the project. The NMSDD provides
a maximum density estimate of 0.02 animals/km\2\ for southern
California, but site-specific information indicates that harbor seals
are more common within the northern San Diego Bay project area than
this density would suggest.
Gray Whale
The NMSDD provides a density of 0.115 animals/km\2\ for southern
California waters from shore to 5 nm west of the Channel Islands
(winter/spring only; density assumed to be zero during summer/fall), a
value initially reported by Carretta et al. (2000) for gray whales
around San Clemente Island in the Southern California Bight. Gray
whales were seen only from January-April. In the project area,
observational data for gray whales is limited and their occurrence
considered infrequent and unpredictable. On the basis of limited
information--in recent years, solitary individuals have entered the bay
and remained for varying lengths of time in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014,
and whales more regularly transit briefly past the mouth of San Diego
Bay--we assume here that the NMSDD density is applicable, while
acknowledging that it likely represents a precautionary estimate for
waters within the Bay as
[[Page 52661]]
opposed to those outside the mouth of the bay that whales are more
likely to transit through. Incidental harassment of gray whales could
result from some combination of individuals briefly transiting near the
mouth of the bay and from individuals entering the bay and lingering in
the project area.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Coastal bottlenose dolphins can occur at any time of year in San
Diego Bay. Numbers sighted during Navy transect surveys have been
highly variable, ranging from zero to forty individuals (observed
dolphins are assumed to have been of the coastal stock). An uncorrected
average of 2.1 bottlenose dolphins was observed during recent Navy
surveys (September 2012 through April 2014), although nineteen animals
were observed in a single survey. As reported in the NMSDD, Dudzik et
al. (2006) provide a uniform density for California coastal dolphins of
0.4 animals/km\2\ within 1 km of the coast from Baja to San Francisco
in all four seasons. However, given the high variability observed in
terms of numbers and locations of bottlenose dolphin sightings, we
believe it appropriate to take a precautionary approach to take
estimation use Year 2 sightings (7.09 individuals per day) as the basis
for a density value.
Common Dolphin
Common dolphins are present in the coastal waters outside of San
Diego Bay, but have typically been observed in the bay only
infrequently and were never seen during the Navy's surveys. However,
the previously described observations of common dolphins in the project
area during in 2014 prompted their inclusion in the second IHA, a
decision supported by increased observations of common dolphins during
Year 2. There have not been enough sightings of common dolphins in San
Diego Bay to develop a reliable estimate specific to the project area.
Sightings of long-beaked common dolphins are predominantly near shore,
and have been documented during Navy training exercises just offshore
and to the south of San Diego Bay, whereas those of short-beaked common
dolphins extend throughout the coastal and offshore waters. The NMSDD
provides an all-season density estimate of 0.1 animals/km\2\ for the
long-beaked common dolphin within southern California waters (derived
from Ferguson and Barlow [2003] and Barlow and Forney [2007]). However,
given the large numbers of dolphins and increasing observations during
2014-15, we use the sighting rate of 8.67 dolphins per day as the basis
for a density value. Although short-beaked common dolphins are less
common in nearshore waters than are long-beaked, and are expected to be
less likely to occur in the project area, we assign a single value to
all common dolphins that may occur in the project area. Any incidents
of take could be of either long-beaked or short-beaked common dolphins.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins are not known from the project area,
but were observed in the bay on several occasions during Year 2
monitoring (0.28 individuals per day). This information produces a
density estimate slightly lower than that found in Hanser et al.
(2015), and is the only information available for use in estimating
potential exposures.
Risso's Dolphin
Although no Risso's dolphins have not been observed in the project
area, they are one of the more common species known from deeper waters
nearby. Therefore, we use the regional density estimate from Hanser et
al. (2015) in estimating potential exposures.
Northern Elephant Seal
Only one elephant seal has been observed in the project area, but
given the increasing regional abundances for this species, we believe
it reasonable to propose take authorization, and the regional density
estimate found in Hanser et al. (2015) is used here. It is unlikely
that elephant seals would haul out on any structures within the
airborne ZOIs, and we do not consider harassment via airborne noise as
a possibility for this species.
Table 7--Calculations for Incidental Take Estimation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact
Vibratory Impact driving, Impact Vibratory Total proposed
Species Density driving/ driving, concrete/ Diamond saw driving, removal, authorized takes (% of
removal, concrete 24 fiberglass concrete concrete total stock)
steel \1\ x 30 16-in (NMAWC) (NMAWC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion................. 15.9201 2,710 240 3 971 7 113 4,044 (1.4).
Harbor seal......................... 0.4987 85 8 0 30 0 4 127 (0.4).
Bottlenose dolphin.................. 1.2493 213 19 0 76 1 9 318 (64.0).\2\
Common dolphin...................... 1.5277 260 23 0 93 1 11 388 (0.4 [LB]/0.1
[SB]).\3\
Gray whale.......................... 0.115 20 2 0 7 0 1 30 (0.1).
Northern elephant seal.............. 0.0508 9 1 0 3 0 0 13 (0.01).
Pacific white-sided dolphin......... 0.0493 8 1 0 3 0 0 12 (0.04).
Risso's dolphin..................... 0.2029 35 3 0 12 0 1 51 (0.8).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ Total stock assumed to be 500 for purposes of calculation. See Table 1.
\3\ LB = long-beaked; SB = short-beaked.
[[Page 52662]]
Analyses and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact Analysis
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . .
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.'' A negligible impact finding is based on the
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of
Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to
base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of
the number of marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral
harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as
the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number
of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
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. For example, use of
vibratory hammers does not have significant potential to cause injury
to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced and
the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile
driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much
sharper rise time to reach those peaks. 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 one
hundred 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 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, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the
following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or
mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the
anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant
habitat within the project area, including rookeries, significant haul-
outs, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging
or reproduction; and (4) the presumed efficacy of the proposed
mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity
to the level of least practicable impact. In addition, these stocks are
not listed under the ESA or considered depleted under the MMPA. In
combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available
body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the
potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term
effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to
impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result
in population-level impacts. Based on the analysis contained herein of
the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and
their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that
the total marine mammal take from Navy's pier replacement activities
will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
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 7) 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
[[Page 52663]]
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 likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures, we preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals
will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or
stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated
by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of
affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
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.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the
Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct,
indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from
the pier replacement project. NMFS made the Navy's EA available to the
public for review and comment, in relation to its suitability for
adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the human
environment of issuance of an IHA to the Navy. Also in compliance with
NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6, NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA, determined it to be sufficient, and
adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
on July 8, 2013.
We have reviewed the Navy's application for a renewed IHA for
ongoing construction activities for 2015-16 and the 2014-15 monitoring
report. Based on that review, we have determined that the proposed
action is very similar to that considered in the previous IHAs. In
addition, no significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns have been identified. Thus, we have determined
preliminarily that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA
document is not necessary, and will, after review of public comments
determine whether or not the existing EA and FONSI provide adequate
analysis related to the potential environmental effects of issuing an
IHA to the Navy. The 2013 NEPA documents are available for review at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to
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. The proposed IHA language is
provided next.
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, 2016, through October 7, 2017.
2. This IHA is valid only for pile driving and removal activities
associated with the fuel pier replacement project in San Diego Bay,
California.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal............................................. 118
California sea lion..................................... 3,757
Northern elephant seal.................................. 12
California coastal bottlenose dolphin................... 295
Pacific white-sided dolphin............................. 12
Risso's dolphin......................................... 48
Common dolphin.......................................... 361
Gray whale.............................................. 27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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.
[[Page 52664]]
Table 2--Radial Distance to Shutdown and Disturbance Zones Associated With Relevant Thresholds, Including
Buffers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to threshold in meters
Activity ---------------------------------------------------------------
190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 120 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact driving, steel piles..................... 150 450 2,000 n/a
Vibratory driving/removal, steel piles.......... 10 10 n/a 3,000
Impact driving, concrete piles.................. 40 100 470 n/a
Impact driving, concrete/fiberglass piles....... 40 100 270 n/a
Diamond saw cutting............................. 10 10 n/a 400
Impact driving, concrete piles (NMAWC).......... 10 10 130 n/a
Vibratory removal, concrete piles (NMAWC)....... 10 10 n/a 2,160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 be stationed at the active pile driving
rig in order to monitor the shutdown zones.
ii. For pile driving of 30-in steel piles, at least four additional
observers shall be positioned for optimal monitoring of the surrounding
waters. During impact driving of steel piles, one of these shall be
stationed for optimal monitoring of the cetacean Level A injury zone
(see Table 2), while others may be positioned at the discretion of the
Navy for optimal fulfillment of both acoustic monitoring objectives and
monitoring of the Level B harassment zone. During all other pile
driving, at least one additional observer shall be deployed and may be
positioned at the discretion of the Navy for optimal fulfillment of
both acoustic monitoring objectives and monitoring of the Level B
harassment zone.
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. Photographs
must be taken of any observed gray whales.
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 fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
(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 thirty 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 sixty 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
[[Page 52665]]
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 (301-427-8425), NMFS, and
the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator (206-526-6550), 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.
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 4, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18847 Filed 8-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P