Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project in Virginia Beach, Virginia, 36522-36538 [2018-16204]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36522
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XG107
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Parallel
Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project in
Virginia Beach, Virginia
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as
amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to
Chesapeake Tunnel Joint Venture
(CTJV) to incidentally take, by Level A
and/or Level B harassment, four species
of marine mammals during the Parallel
Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project (PTST) in
Virginia Beach, Virginia.
DATES: This Authorization is effective
from August 1, 2018, through July 31,
2019.
SUMMARY:
Rob
Pauline, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic
copies of the application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the
references cited in this document, may
be obtained online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated
to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by
United States citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth.
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’
means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill
any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
Summary of Request
On January 11, 2018, NMFS received
a request from the CTJV for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to pile
driving at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge
and Tunnel (CBBT) near Virginia Beach,
Virginia. CTJV’s request is for take of
small numbers of harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina), gray seal (Halichoerus grypus),
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops spp.),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
and humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) by Level A and Level B
harassment. Neither the CTJV nor NMFS
expect serious injury or mortality to
result from this activity and, therefore,
an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS has issued an IHA to CTJV
authorizing the take of five species by
Level A and Level B harassment. Pile
driving and removal will take up to 202
days. The IHA is effective from August
1, 2018 through July 31, 2019.
Description of Planned Activity
The PTST project consists of the
construction of a two-lane parallel
tunnel to the west of the existing
Thimble Shoal Tunnel, connecting
Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (Figure 1 in
application). Upon completion, the new
tunnel will carry two lanes of
southbound traffic and the existing
tunnel will remain in operation and
carry two lanes of northbound traffic.
The PTST project will address existing
constraints to regional mobility based
on current traffic volume along the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (CBBT)
facility; improve safety by minimizing
one lane, two-way traffic in the tunnel;
improve the ability to conduct necessary
maintenance with minimal impact to
traffic flow; and ensure a reliable
southwest hurricane evacuation route
for residents of the eastern shore and/or
a northern evacuation route for
residents of the eastern shore, Norfolk,
and Virginia Beach. The CBBT is a 23
mile fixed link crossing the mouth of
the Chesapeake Bay which connects
Northampton County on the Delmarva
Peninsula with Virginia Beach, which is
part of the Hampton Roads metropolitan
area.
The new parallel tunnel will be bored
under the Thimble Shoal Channel. The
6,525 linear feet (ft) of new tunnel will
be constructed with a top of tunnel
depth/elevation of 100 ft below Mean
Low Water (MLW) within the width of
the 1,000-ft-wide navigation channel.
Impact pile driving will be used to
install steel piles and vibratory pile
driving will be utilized to install sheet
piles. This issued IHA would cover one
year of a larger project for which will
run through 2022. The larger project,
which does not employ pile driving and
does not require additional IHAs,
involves tunnel excavation with a
tunnel boring machine and construction
of a roadway within the tunnel. The
type and numbers of piles to be
installed, as well as those that will be
removed during the effective period are
summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1—ANTICIPATED PILE INSTALLATION SCHEDULE
Pile location
Pile function
Pile type
Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 ..............
Mooring dolphins (in-water) ...........
Number of
piles
(upland/
In-water)
36-inch diameter hollow steel ........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30
30JYN1
Anticipated
installation
date
15 July to 15 August 2018.
36523
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 1—ANTICIPATED PILE INSTALLATION SCHEDULE—Continued
Number of
piles
(upland/
In-water)
Anticipated
installation
date
Pile location
Pile function
Pile type
West of Portal Island No. 1 .............
Berm construction trestle (in-water)
36-inch diameter hollow steel ........
80
West of Portal Island No. 2 .............
Berm construction trestle (in-water)
36-inch diameter hollow steel ........
80
Portal Island No. 1 ...........................
Temporary docks (upland) .............
36-inch diameter hollow steel ........
50
Portal Island No. 1 ...........................
Portal Island No. 2 (above MHW) ...
Temporary docks (in- water) ..........
Temporary roadway trestle (upland).
Excavated TBM material containment holding (muck) bin (upland).
Settlement mitigation and flowable
fill containment.
Portal excavation ...........................
36-inch diameter hollow steel ........
36-inch diameter hollow steel ........
82
12
28 and 18-inch steel sheet ............
1,110
1 May 2018 to 30 September
2018.
28-inch steel sheet ........................
2,554
1 August 2018 to 30 March 2019.
Steel sheet .....................................
1,401
Excavation Support ........................
Steel sheet .....................................
240
1 June 2018 to 30 September
2018, 1 January to 30 March
2019.
1 April 2018 to 30 August 2019 to
1 January 2019 to 30 March
2019.
........................................................
........................................................
5,305 Sheet
Piles 334
Round Piles
Portal Island No. 1 (above MHW) ...
Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (above
and below MHW).
Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (above
MHW).
Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (above
MHW).
Total (above and below water)
CTJV will install up to 272 in-water
36-in steel pipe piles by impact driving
and 1,936 in-water sheet piles by
vibratory installation and expects
activities to take up to 202 days. These
actions could produce underwater
sound at levels that could result in the
injury or behavioral harassment of
marine mammal species. A detailed
description of CTJV’s planned project is
provided in the Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18777;
April 30, 2018). Since that time, the
project start date has been delayed by
approximately one month. No
additional changes have been made to
the planned project activities. Therefore,
a detailed description is not provided
here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for the description of the
specific activity.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue
an IHA to CTJV was published in the
Federal Register on April 30, 2018 (83
FR 18777). That notice described, in
detail, CTJV’s activity, the marine
mammal species that may be affected by
the activity, the anticipated effects on
marine mammals and their habitat,
proposed amount and manner of take,
and proposed mitigation, monitoring
and reporting measures. During the 30day public comment period, NMFS
received one comment letter from the
Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission); the Commission’s
recommendations and our responses are
provided here, and the comments have
been posted online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities.
Comment 1: The Commission
recommended that NMFS review more
thoroughly both the applications prior
to deeming them complete and its
notices prior to submitting them for
publication in the Federal Register and
that NMFS better evaluate the proposed
exclusion/shut-down zones that are to
be implemented for each proposed
incidental take authorization. Further,
the Commission references several
specific minor errors that were in the
proposed notice (for example, incorrect
numbers in Tables).
Response: NMFS thanks the
Commission for its recommendation.
NMFS makes every effort to read the
notices thoroughly prior to publication
and will continue this effort to publish
the best possible product for public
comment. NMFS will be diligent when
considering the appropriateness of
proposed exclusion and shutdown
zones for future IHAs. Further, NMFS
has corrected the errors the Commission
noted.
Comment 2: The Commission noted
that NMFS used the lower reported
source level for estimating the various
Level A and B harassment zones during
vibratory pile driving, which resulted in
underestimating the Level A and B
harassment zones, associated ensonified
areas, and number of takes of bottlenose
dolphins.
Response: Note that in the Federal
Register notice of proposed IHA (83 FR
18777; April 30, 2018) a source value of
154 dB RMS SPL was applied for
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15 July 2018 through 1 January
2019.
15 July 2018 through 1 January
2019.
1 May 2018 through 30 June
2018.
15 July 2018 to 30 August 2018.
1 May to 31 May 2018.
vibratory installation of 28-inch sheet.
NMFS used a higher source level of 155
dB RMS SPL in this notice. The
vibratory source levels based on rootmean-square sound pressure levels
(SPLrms) and sound exposure levels
metrics were not the same value
according to NAVFAC 2017 which was
cited as the reference for these values.
Furthermore, the source levels based on
1-sec averages (155 dB RMS SPL) and
10-sec averages (154 dB RMS SPL) were
not identical when they should be
represented by the same value. When a
difference is reported, it likely is due to
the operator averaging decibels rather
than taking the linear average of the
pressures/intensities and then
converting to dB. Therefore, the higher
source level (155 dB RMS SPL) has been
adopted in this notice.
Comment 3: The Commission noted
that NMFS used incorrect assumptions
for estimating the various Level A and
B harassment zones when multiple
hammers are used.
Response: NMFS used a source value
of 186 dB RMS SPL to estimate the
extent of the Level A harassment zone
during simultaneous impact driving of
two piles. NMFS incorrectly added 3 dB
to the source levels after employing the
rules for decibal addition as described
in WSDOT 2017. However, the rules of
decibal addition do not apply to
simultaneous impact driving scenarios
since hammer strikes will not be
synchronized. Therefore, NMFS has
reverted to using the original proxy
source level of 183 dB when estimating
the extent of the Level A harassment
zone during simultaneous impact
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36524
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
driving of two piles with bubble
curtains.
Comment 4: The Commission
commented that NMFS did not not
account for the possibility that the
proposed in-water activities would not
be finished by March 31 which is the
deadline established by CTJV.
Therefore, the numbers of harbor seal
Level A and B harassment takes is
underestimated.
Response: Even with the delay in
project schedule, CTJV is confident that
in-water activities will be concluded by
March 31, 2019. To minimize the risk
that the number of harbor seal takes may
be exceeded, for this notice NMFS used
the maximum haul-out count from onsite surveys (40) multiplied by the
number of days of proposed activities
(202) to estimate the number of harbor
seal takes. In the Federal Register notice
of proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30,
2018), NMFS had multiplied monthly
sighting rates by months of activities
with an end date of March 31.
Comment 5: The Commission noted
NMFS used inconsistent assumptions
regarding estimating Level A
harassment takes. NMFS assumed that
40 percent of the total number of harbor
porpoise takes would equate to total
Level A harassment takes based on the
large size of the Level A harassment
zones. However, NMFS did not make
this assumption when estimated Level
A jarassment take of harbor and gray
seals.
Response: In this notice, NMFS has
assumed that Level A harassment takes
of harbor seals and gray seals represent
40 percent of total takes for each
species.
Comment 6: The Commission noted
that NMFS was requiring two protected
species observers (PSOs) only during
simultaneous pile driving. The
Commission felt that two PSOs should
be employed during all pile driving
activities.
Response: NMFS had proposed that
only a single PSO would be required
during non-simultaneous pile driving.
The PSO would be stationed on the
portal island where non-simultaneous
pile driving was underway. However,
given the large sizes of the monitoring
zones, NMFS will require two PSO’s
during all pile driving operations to
ensure adequate visual coverage of the
monitoring zones.
Comment 7: The Commission felt that
the proposed 50-m exclusion zone for
phocids was unnecessarily large for
vibratory pile driving which could put
CTJV in a situation in which it is
implementing numerous unnecessary
delays or shut downs for pinnipeds.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
Response: NMFS agrees with this
assessment and has reduced the size of
the exclusion zone for phocids from 50
m to 15 m during vibratory pile driving.
Comment 8: The Commission feels
there are some shortcomings that need
to be addressed regarding the
methodology for determining the extent
of the Level A harassment zones based
on the associated PTS cumulative sound
exposure level (SELcum) thresholds for
the various types of sound sources.
Specifically, the Commission believes
that the Level A and B harassment zones
do not make sense biologically or
acoustically in the context of one
another (when the Level A harassment
zone is larger than the Level B
harassment zone) due to NMFS’s
unrealistic assumption that the animals
remain stationary throughout the entire
day of the activity. The Commission
believes that it would be prudent for
NMFS to consult with scientists and
acousticians to determine the
appropriate accumulation time that
action proponents should use to
determine the extent of the Level A
harassment zones based on the
associated PTS SELcum thresholds in
such situations.
Response: During the 2016 Technical
Guidance’s recent review, in accordance
with E.O. 13795, NMFS received
comments from multiple Federal
agencies, including the Commission,
recommending the establishment of a
working group to investigate more
realistic means of approximating the
accumulation period associated with
sound exposure beyond the default 24h accumulation period. Based on these
comments, NMFS will be convening a
working group to re-evaluate
implementation of the default 24-h
accumulation period and investigate
means for deriving more realistic
accumulation periods. Nonetheless,
although NMFS Level A harassment
zones include conservative assumptions
and may overestimate the likelihood of
injury somewhat, the take estimates are
appropriate given the available
information and support a robust
negligible impact analysis and support
the small numbers finding.
Comment 9: The Commission noted
that NMFS has been inconsistently
applying presumed source level
reductions when bubble curtains are
used during impact pile driving. The
Commission recommended that NMFS
refrain from using a source level
reduction factor for sound attenuation
device implementation (i.e., bubble
curtains) during impact pile driving for
all relevant incidental take
authorizations. If and when NMFS
determines the appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accumulation time associated with its
SELcum thresholds, it could consider
using a source level reduction to
estimate the ranges to Level A
harassment. NMFS should then review
the related literature on bubble curtain
efficacy in concert with estimated
ranges to the SELcum thresholds based
on the revised accumulation time to
determine what, if any, source level
reduction would be appropriate. The
Commission further recommended that
NMFS refrain from using a source level
reduction factor for sound attenuation
device implementation during impact
pile driving for all relevant incidental
take authorizations and that source
levels should not be reduced when
determining the range to Level B
harassment.
Response: NMFS believes it
reasonable to use a source level
reduction factor for sound attenuation
device implementation during impact
pile driving. NMFS understands that
previous study results have been
inconsistent and that noise level
reductions measured at different
received ranges may vary, given that
both Level A and Level B estimation
using geometric modeling is based on
noise levels measured at near-source
distances (∼10 m). NMFS is working on
guidance to increase consistency in the
application of source level deductions
from bubble curtain use, but in the
meanwhile continues to evaluate
proposals on a case by case basis. In this
case we used a 10-dB reduction factor
based on data from Caltrans 2015. We
understand that there are other reported
reduction levels that also could have
been selected. However, we were unable
to identify studies of bubble curtain
efficacy that would have been any more
applicable to the CTJV project than
Caltrans 2015.
The Commission is opposed to the
use of noise reduction factors during
impact driving as well as application of
reductions to Level B harassment. The
Commission feels that bubble curtains
have not consistently achieved reduced
sound levels in the far field because
sound resonates through the ground into
the far field. Bubble curtains are not
designed to, nor can they, attenuate
ground-borne sound. While NMFS
agrees that some energy is transmitted
through the ground into the farfield, it
is also likely that most of the energy is
transmitted through the water column.
Given that most studies of bubble
curtain effectiveness have demonstrated
at least some decrease in energy
transmitted through the water column,
NMFS will continue to permit
appropriate source level reductions
during impact driving for both Level A
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
36525
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
and Level B harassment. Furthermore, if
there are no reductions permitted when
using bubble curtains, applicants would
have less incentive to employ them at
all. Without bubble curtains, more
energy will likely be transmitted into
both the near field and far field,
potentially increasing the risk of
animal’s exposure to sound at Level A
and Level B harassment levels.
Comment 10: The Commission
commented that the method NMFS used
to estimate the numbers of takes during
the proposed activities, which summed
fractions of takes for each species across
project days, does not account for and
negates the intent of NMFS’ 24-hour
reset policy. The Commission also
recommends that NMFS develop and
share guidance on this issue.
Response: NMFS has shared our
internal guidance on rounding and the
consideration of qualitative factors in
take estimation with the Commission
and further, as noted, disagrees with the
assertion that the method described is at
odds with what the Commission terms
NMFS’ ‘‘24-hour reset policy.’’
Comment 11: The Commission
requested clarification of certain issues
associated with NMFS’s notice that oneyear renewals could be issued in certain
limited circumstances and expressed
concern that the renewal process, as
proposed, would bypass the public
notice and comment requirements. The
Commission recommended that instead
of bypassing comment, NMFS utilize
abbreviated Federal Register notices, as
have been used recently to solicit
comment on actions that meet the
renewal criteria. The Commission also
suggested that NMFS should discuss the
possibility of renewals through a more
general route, such as a rulemaking,
instead of notice in a specific
authorization. The Commission further
recommended that if NMFS did not
pursue a more general route, that the
agency provide the Commission and the
public with a legal analysis supporting
our conclusion that this process is
consistent with the requirements of
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
Response: The proposed process of
issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass
the public notice and comment
requirements of the MMPA. The notice
of the proposed IHA expressly notifies
the public that under certain, limited
conditions an applicant could seek a
renewal IHA for an additional year. The
notice describes the conditions under
which such a renewal request could be
considered and expressly seeks public
comment in the event such a renewal is
sought. Additional reference to this
solicitation of public comment has
recently been added at the beginning of
FR notices that consider renewals.
NMFS appreciates the streamlining
achieved by the use of abbreviated FR
notices and intends to continue using
them for proposed IHAs that include
minor changes from previously issued
IHAs, but which do not satisfy the
renewal requirements. However, we
believe our proposed method for issuing
renewals meets statutory requirements
and maximizes efficiency. Note that
such renewals would be limited to
where the activities are identical or
nearly identical to those analyzed in the
proposed IHA, monitoring does not
indicate impacts that were not
previously analyzed and authorized,
and the mitigation and monitoring
requirements remain the same, all of
which allow the public to comment on
the appropriateness and effects of a
renewal at the same time the public
provides comments on the initial IHA.
NMFS has, however, modified the
language for future proposed IHAs to
clarify that all IHAs, including renewal
IHAs, are valid for no more than one
year and that the agency would consider
only one renewal for a project at this
time. In addition, notice of issuance or
denial of a renewal IHA would be
published in the Federal Register, as are
all IHAs. Last, NMFS will publish on
our website a description of the renewal
process before any renewal is issued
utilizing the new process.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history, of the potentially
affected species. Additional information
regarding population trends and threats
may be found in NMFS’s Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR;
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more
general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s
website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
species/mammals/).
Table 2 lists all species with expected
potential for occurrence near the PTST
project location and summarizes
information related to the population or
stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and ESA and potential
biological removal (PBR), where known.
For taxonomy, we follow Committee on
Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the
MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing
that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as
described in NMFS’s SARs). While no
mortality is anticipated or authorized
here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources
are included here as gross indicators of
the status of the species and other
threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’s stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond United States waters. All
managed stocks in this region are
assessed in NMFS’s United States
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments (Hayes et
al., 2017a,b). All values presented in
Table 2 are the most recent available at
the time of publication and are available
in the 2016 Stock Assessment Report
(Hayes et al., 2017a) and draft 2017
stock assessment report (Hayes et al.
2017b) (available online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports).
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
abundance
(CV, Nmin,
most recent
abundance
survey) 2
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae:
North Atlantic Right whale ..
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Eubalaena glacialis ...................
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Western North Atlantic (WNA) ..
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E/D; Y
458 (0; 455; 2017) ..........
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
1.4
36
36526
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA—Continued
Stock
abundance
(CV, Nmin,
most recent
abundance
survey) 2
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Humpback whale ................
Fin whale ............................
Megaptera novaeangliae ..........
Balaenoptera physalus .............
Gulf of Maine ............................
WNA ..........................................
–; N
E/D; Y
335 (0.42; 239; 2012) .....
1,618 (0.33; 1,234; 2011)
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
3.7
2.5
8.5
2.65
86
1.0–7.5
63
0–12
7.8
1.0–16.7
706
307
(0.16)
2,006
368
1,554
5,207
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
Bottlenose dolphin ..............
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise ..................
Tursiops spp. ............................
Phocoena phocoena .................
WNA Coastal, Northern Migratory.
WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory.
Northern North Carolina Estuarine System.
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ......
D; Y
D; Y
D; S
-; N
11,548 (0.36; 8,620;
2010–11).
9,173 (0.46; 6,326;
2010–11).
823 (0.06; 782; 2013) .....
79,833 (0.32; 61,415;
2011).
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal .........................
Phoca vitulina ...........................
WNA ..........................................
-; N
Gray seal ............................
Halichoerus grypus ...................
WNA ..........................................
–; N
75,834 (0.1; 66,884,
2012).
27,131 (.1, 25,908, 2016)
1 Endangered
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
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 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 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; N
min is the minimum estimate of stock
abundance.
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated
mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
Note: Italicized species are not expected to be taken or authorized for take.
All species that could potentially
occur in the planned project areas are
included in Table 2. However, the
occurrence of endangered North
Atlantic right whales and endangered
fin whales is such that take is not
expected to occur, and they are not
discussed further beyond the
explanation provided here. Between
1998 and 2013, there were no reports of
North Atlantic right whale strandings
within the Chesapeake Bay and only
four reported standings along the coast
of Virginia. During this same period,
only six fin whale strandings were
recorded within the Chesapeake Bay
(Barco and Swingle 2014). In 2016, there
were no reports of fin whale strandings
(Barco et al., 2017). Due to the low
occurrence of North Atlantic right
whales and fin whales, NMFS is not
authorizing take of these species.
A detailed description of the of the
species likely to be affected by the
planned project, including brief
introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available
information regarding population trends
and threats, and information regarding
local occurrence, were provided in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30, 2018); since
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:13 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
that time, we are not aware of any
changes in the status of these species
and stocks; therefore, detailed
descriptions are not provided here.
Please refer to that Federal Register
notice for these descriptions. Please also
refer to NMFS’ website
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
mammals/) for generalized species
accounts.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from
pile driving and removal activities for
the planned project have the potential to
result in behavioral harassment of
marine mammals in the vicinity of the
action area. The Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18777;
April 30, 2018) included a discussion of
the effects of anthropogenic noise on
marine mammals. The project would
not result in permanent impacts to
habitats used directly by marine
mammals, such as haulout sites, but
may have potential short-term impacts
to food sources such as forage fish and
minor impacts to the immediate
substrate during installation and
removal of piles. These potential effects
are discussed in detail in the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Register notice for the proposed IHA (83
FR 18777; April 30, 2018) therefore that
information is not repeated here; please
refer to that Federal Register notice for
that information.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which
informs both NMFS’ consideration of
small numbers and the negligible
impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines harassment as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B
harassment, in the form of disruption of
behavioral patterns for individual
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
36527
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
marine mammals resulting from
exposure to acoustic sources including
impact and vibratory pile driving
equipment. There is also potential for
auditory injury (Level A harassment) to
result, due to larger predicted auditory
injury zones. The mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to
minimize the severity of such taking to
the extent practicable.
As described previously, no mortality
is anticipated or authorized for this
activity. Below we describe how the
take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we
estimate take by considering: (1)
Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS
believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be
behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing
impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above
these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within
these ensonified areas; and (4) and the
number of days of activities. Below, we
describe these components in more
detail and present the take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science,
NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received
level of underwater sound above which
exposed marine mammals would be
reasonably expected to be behaviorally
harassed (equated to Level B
harassment) or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on
what the available science indicates and
the practical need to use a threshold
based on a factor that is both predictable
and measurable for most activities,
NMFS uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS predicts that marine
mammals are likely to be behaviorally
harassed in a manner we consider Level
B harassment when exposed to
underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1
mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive
(e.g., impact pile driving, seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources.
CTJV’s planned activity includes the
use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving) and impulsive (impact pile
driving) sources, and therefore the 120
and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are
applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive
sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance,
2016) identifies dual criteria to assess
auditory injury (Level A harassment) to
five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result
of exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). CTJV’s tunnel project
includes the use of impulsive (impact
hammer) and non-impulsive (vibratory
hammer) sources.
These thresholds are provided in
Table 3 below. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the
development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2016 Technical
Guidance, which may be accessed at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/
guidelines.htm.
TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
(received level)
Hearing group
Impulsive
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans .......................................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ......................................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .....................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ..............................
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ..............................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
1:
3:
5:
7:
9:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
219
230
202
218
232
Non-impulsive
dB;LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ..........................
dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................
dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................
dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB .......................
dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB .......................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should
also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s.
In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure
is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being
included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated
with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for
action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that will feed into identifying the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds.
Pile driving will generate underwater
noise that potentially could result in
disturbance to marine mammals
swimming by the project area.
Transmission loss (TL) underwater is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out
from a source until the source becomes
indistinguishable from ambient sound.
TL parameters vary with frequency,
temperature, sea conditions, current,
source and receiver depth, water depth,
water chemistry, and bottom
composition and topography. A
standard sound propagation model, the
Practical Spreading Loss model, was
used to estimate the range from pile
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
driving activity to various expected
SPLs at potential project structures. This
model follows a geometric propagation
loss based on the distance from the
driven pile, resulting in a 4.5 dB
reduction in level for each doubling of
distance from the source. In this model,
the SPL at some distance away from the
source (e.g., driven pile) is governed by
a measured source level, minus the TL
of the energy as it dissipates with
distance. The TL equation is:
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
36528
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
TL = 15log10(R1/R2)
Where:
TL is the transmission loss in dB,
R1 is the distance of the modeled SPL from
the driven pile, and
R2 is the distance from the driven pile of the
initial measurement.
The degree to which underwater noise
propagates away from a noise source is
dependent on a variety of factors, most
notably by the water bathymetry and
presence or absence of reflective or
absorptive conditions including the sea
surface and sediment type. The TL
model described above was used to
calculate the expected noise
propagation from both impact and
vibratory pile driving, using
representative source levels to estimate
the harassment zone or area exceeding
specified noise criteria.
Sound source levels from the PTST
project site were not available.
Therefore, literature values published
for projects similar to the PTST project
were used to estimate the amount of
sound (RMS SPL) that could potentially
be produced. The PTST Project will use
round, 36-inch-diameter, hollow steel
piles and 28-inch wide sheet piles. Data
reported in the Compendium of Pile
Driving Sound Data (Caltrans 2015) for
similar piles size and types are shown
in Table 4. The use of an encased bubble
curtain is expected to reduce sound
levels by 10 decibels (dB) (NAVFAC
2014, ICF Jones and Stokes 2009). Using
data from previous projects (Caltrans
2015) and the amount of sound
reduction expected from each of the
sound mitigation methods, we estimated
the peak noise level (SPLpeak), the root
mean squared sound pressure level
(RMS SPL), and the single strike sound
exposure level (sSEL) for each pile
driving scenario of the PTST project
(Table 4).
TABLE 4—THE SOUND LEVELS (dB PEAK, dB RMS, AND dB SSEL) EXPECTED TO BE GENERATED BY EACH HAMMER
TYPE/MITIGATION
Type of pile
Hammer type
36-inch Steel Pipe ..............
36-inch Steel Pipe ..............
Impact a ..............................
Impact with Bubble Curtain b.
Vibratory c ...........................
Impact w/Bubble Curtain at
PI 1 and PI 2.
Impact w/Bubble Curtain at
PI 1 and Vibratory at PI
2.
Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble Curtain at
PI 2.
24-inch AZ Sheet ................
36-inch Steel Pipe and 36inch Steel Pipe.
36-inch Steel Pipe and 24inch AZ Sheet Pile.
36-inch Steel Pipe and 24inch AZ Sheet Pile.
Estimated
cumulative
sound exposure level
(dB cSEL)
Estimated
peak noise
level
(dB peak)
Estimated
pressure
level
(dB RMS)
Estimated
single strike
sound
exposure
level
(dB sSEL)
Relevant piles
at the PTST
project
Pile function
210
200
NA
NA
193
183
183
173
Battered ...........
Plumb ..............
182
200
NA
NA
155
183
155
183
Sheet ...............
Plumb ..............
200
NA
183
183
Plumb and
Sheet.
Mooring dolphins.
Mooring dolphins and Temporary Pier.
Containment Structure.
Mooring Dolphins, Temporary Pier.
Mooring Dolphins, Containment Structure.
200
NA
183
183
Plumb and
Sheet.
Mooring Dolphins and Containment Structure.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
a Examples from Caltrans 2015. These examples were the loudest provided in the Caltrans 2015 compendium for 36-inch-diameter hollow steel piles and in the
Proxy Source Sound Levels and Potential Bubble Curtain Attenuation for Acoustic Modeling of nearshore marine Pile Driving at Navy Installations in Puget Sound
(NAVFAC 2014).
b Estimates of sound produced from impact that use sound mitigation measures were developed by subtracting 10 dB for an encased bubble curtain (ICF Jones
and Stokes 2009, NAVFAC 2014). A 10-dB reduction in sound for this sound mitigation method is the minimum that may be expected and, therefore, represents a
conservative estimate in sound reduction.
c Example from NAVFAC 2017. Average 1-second and 10-second Broadband RMS SPL (dB re 1 μPa) for Vibratory Pile-Driving normalized to 10 meters at JEB Little Creek.
When NMFS’s Technical Guidance
(2016) was published, in recognition of
the fact that ensonified area/volume
could be more technically challenging
to predict because of the duration
component in the new thresholds, we
developed a User Spreadsheet that
includes tools to help predict a simple
isopleth that can be used in conjunction
with marine mammal density or
occurrence to help predict takes. We
note that because of some of the
assumptions included in the methods
used for these tools, we anticipate that
isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree,
which will result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A take. However,
these tools offer the best way to predict
appropriate isopleths when more
sophisticated 3D modeling methods are
not available, and NMFS continues to
develop ways to quantitatively refine
these tools, and will qualitatively
address the output where appropriate.
For stationary sources, NMFS’s User
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
Spreadsheet predicts the closest
distance at which, if a marine mammal
remained at that distance the whole
duration of the activity, it would not
incur PTS. Inputs used in the User
Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths
are reported below.
The Impact Pile Driving (Stationary
Source: Impulsive, Intermittent) (Sheet
E.1) spreadsheet provided by NOAA
Fisheries requires inputs for assorted
variables which are shown in Table 4.
RMS SPL’s for simultaneous pile
driving were determined using the rules
for decibel addition (WSDOT 2017). The
expected number of steel piles driven
during a 24-hour period would be a
maximum of eight for plumb piles and
three for battered piles for each portal
island. Practical spreading was assumed
(15logR) and a pulse duration of 0.1
seconds utilized. The distance from the
source where the literature based RMS
SPL was 10 meters while the number of
strikes per pile was 1,000. Model
outputs delineating PTS isopleths are
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
provided in Table 6 assuming impact
installation of three battered round steel
piles per day and eight plumb round
steel piles per day as well as vibratory
installation of up to eight sheets per day
over eight hours.
The Optional User Spreadsheet for
vibratory pile driving (non-impulsive,
stationary, continuous) (Sheet A)
requires inputs for the sound pressure
level of the source (dB RMS SPL), the
expected activity duration in hours
during per 24-hour period, the
propagation of the sound and the
distance from the source at which the
sound pressure level was measured.
Calculations also assumed that the
expected activity level duration would
be eight hours per Portal Island per 24hour period. Practical spreading was
assumed and the measured distance
from the sound source was 10 meters.
The inputs from Table 5 determined
isopleths where PTS from underwater
sound during impact and vibratory
driving as shown in Table 6. Note that
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
36529
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
in the Federal Register notice of
proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30,
2018) a source value of 154 dB RMS SPL
was used for vibratory installation of 28inch sheet piles and a value of 186 dB
RMS SPL was used for simultaneous
impact installation of 36-inch steel piles
employing bubble curtains. NMFS opted
to use a higher source level of 155 dB
RMS SPL. Since the vibratory source
levels based on root-mean-square sound
pressure levels (SPLrms) and sound
exposure levels metrics were not the
same value in NAVFAC 2017, neither
were the source levels based on 1-sec
and 10-sec averages. These metrics
should be represented by the same
value. When a difference is reported, it
likely is due to the operator averaging
decibels rather than taking the linear
average of the pressures/intensities and
then converting to dB. Therefore, the
higher source level has been adopted in
this notice.
A source value of 186 dB RMS SPL
was used to estimate the extents of the
Level A harassment zone during
simultaneous impact driving of two
piles. NMFS incorrectly added 3 dB to
the impact driving source levels rather
than assuming the proxy source level
(186 vs. 183 dB). NMFS has reverted to
using a proxy source level of 183 dB re
1 mPa when estimating the extent of the
Level A harassment zone during
simultaneous impact driving of two
piles with bubble curtains. These
revisions have been included in Table 4
and Table 5. Table 6 shows user
spreadsheet outputs of the radial
distance from piles driven from Portal
Island 1 and Portal Island 2 to PTS
isopleths.
TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS
E.1: Impact pile
driving
(stationary source:
impulsive,
intermittent)
Spreadsheet tab used
A: Stationary source:
non-impulsive,
continuous
E.1: Impact pile driving
(stationary source: impulsive,
intermittent)
E.1: Impact pile driving
(stationary source: impulsive,
intermittent)
36-in steel impact w/bubble curtain
at P1 (plumb pile) and sheet pile
vibratory at P2.
183.
2.
1,000.
Pile Type and Hammer Type .............
36-in steel impact
(battered pile).
28-in sheet vibratory
36-in steel impact w/bubble curtain
at P1 and P2 (plumb piles).
Source Level (RMS SPL) ...................
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ...
Number of strikes in 1 h OR number
of strikes per pile.
Activity Duration (h) within 24-h period OR number of piles per day.
Propagation (xLogR) ..........................
Distance of source level measurement (meters).
Pulse Duration (seconds) ...................
193 ............................
2 ................................
1,000 .........................
155 ............................
2.5 .............................
NA .............................
183 ....................................................
2 ........................................................
1,000 .................................................
3 steel piles ...............
8 hours/8 sheets .......
15 ..............................
10 ..............................
15 ..............................
10 ..............................
8 steel piles per portal island (16
total).
15 ......................................................
10 ......................................................
15.
10.
0.1 .............................
NA .............................
0.1 .....................................................
0.1.
8 steel piles.
TABLE 6—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM PILE DRIVEN FROM PORTAL ISLAND 1 (PI 1) AND PORTAL ISLAND 2 (PI 2)
TO PTS ISOPLETHS *
Low-frequency
cetaceans
Hammer type
Island 1
Mid-frequency
cetaceans
Island 2
Island 1
High-frequency
cetaceans
Island 2
Island 1
Phocid
pinnipeds
Island 2
Island 1
Applicable piles in the
PTST project
Island 2
Impact (battered) at PI 1
OR PI 2.
Vibratory ............................
2,077.2
2,077.2
73.9
73.9
2,474.3
2,474.3
1,111.6
1,111.6
10.9
10.9
1.0
1.0
16.1
16.1
6.6
6.6
Impact w/Bubble Curtain
(plumb) simultaneous at
PI 1 and PI 2.
Impact w/Bubble Curtain
(plumb) simultaneous at
PI 1 and Vibratory at PI
2.
Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble Curtain
(plumb) at PI 2 Simultaneous.
1,366.1
1,366.1
48.6
48.6
1,627.2
1,627.2
731.1
731.1
860.6
10.9
30.6
1.0
1,025.1
16.1
460.5
6.6
10.9
860.6
1.0
30.6
16.18
1,025.1
6.6
460.5
Battered Piles for Mooring
Dolphins.
Sheet Piles for Containment.
Plumb Piles for temporary
pier.
Plumb Piles for Temporary
Pier and Mooring Dolphins; Sheet Pile for
Containment.
Plumb Piles for temporary
pier and Mooring Dolphins; Sheet Pile for
Containment.
* Distances based on up to 3 battered round steel piles per day, 8 plumb round steel piles per day, and up to 8 sheets per day over 8 hours.
Table 7 shows the radial distance to
Level B isopleths and Table 8 shows the
areas of ensonified Level B zones
associated with each of the planned
driving scenarios.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 7—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM DRIVEN PILE(S) TO LEVEL B ISOPLETHS 1 FOR CETACEANS AND PINNIPEDS
Radial distance (m)
Hammer type driving scenario
Applicable piles in the PTST project
Island 1
Impact (battered) ..........................................................
Vibratory .......................................................................
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and PI 2 simultaneous.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
1,584.9
2,154.4
341.5
Fmt 4703
Island 2
1,584.9
2,154.4
341.5
Sfmt 4703
Battered Piles for Mooring Dolphins.
Sheet Piles for Containment.
Plumb Piles for temporary pier.
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
36530
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 7—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM DRIVEN PILE(S) TO LEVEL B ISOPLETHS 1 FOR CETACEANS AND
PINNIPEDS—Continued
Radial distance (m)
Hammer type driving scenario
Applicable piles in the PTST project
Island 1
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and Vibratory at PI 2 simultaneous.
Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble Curtain
(plumb) at PI 2 simultaneous.
1 Level
Island 2
341.5
2,154.4
2,154.4
341.5
Plumb Piles for Temporary Pier and Mooring Dolphins; Sheet Pile for Containment.
Plumb Piles for temporary pier and Mooring Dolphins;
Sheet Pile for Containment.
B harassment thresholds—160 dB for impact driving/120 dB for vibratory driving.
To calculate level B disturbance zones
TABLE 8—LEVEL B AREAS (km2) FOR
ALL PILE DRIVING SCENARIOS for airborne noise from pile driving, the
PLANNED FOR USE DURING PTST spherical spreading loss equation
(20LogR) was used to determine the
PROJECT
Zone size
(km2)
Scenario
Impact Simultaneous Plumb
Impact Battered ....................
Vibratory Sheet .....................
Simultaneous Vibratory
Sheet and Impact Plumb ..
0.88
8.27
1 16.49
16.49
1 Level
B ensonified area at Portal Island 1
= 16.37 km2 and at Portal Island 2 = 16.49
2. For the purposes of this IHA, NMFS will
km
conservatively assume that the ensonified
area at both Portal Islands = 16.49 km2.
Level B zones. The airborne noise
threshold for behavioral harassment for
all pinnipeds, except harbor seals, is
100 dB RMS re 20 mPa (unweighted) and
for harbor seals is 90 dB RMS re 20 mPa
(unweighted).
Literature estimates were used to
estimate the amount of in-air sound
produced from driving a pile above the
MHW line (Laughlin 2010a,b). Hollow
steel piles that were 30 inches in
diameter were used as a close proxy to
the 36-inch-diameter hollow steel piles
that will be driven at the PTST project.
AZ 24-inch sheet pile was used as a
proxy for the sheet pile to be driven
during the PTST Project (Table 9). Using
the spherical spreading loss model with
these estimates, Level B isopleths were
estimated as shown below in Table 9.
Note that the take estimates for
pinnipeds were based on surveys which
included counts of hauled out animals.
Therefore, to avoid double counting,
airborne exposures are not evaluated
further for purposes of estimating take
under the issued IHA. During any
upland pile driving before issuance of
the IHA, however, shutdown will occur
whenever pinnipeds enter into the Level
B zones as depicted below to avoid
unauthorized take.
TABLE 9—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) from PILE DRIVEN ABOVE MHW TO LEVEL B SOUND THRESHOLDS FOR HARBOR
SEALS AND GRAY SEALS
Source
Level A
harassment
zone
(m)
Sound level
Level B
harassment
zone
(m)
Harbor seals
Impact Hammer 36- inch Pile .........................
Vibratory Hammer Assumed equivalent to 24in sheet.
aLaughlin
110 dBL5SEQ at
.....................................
92 dBL5SEQ at 15m ........................................
N/A
N/A
150
19
Gray seals
47
6
2010a,b as cited in City of Unalaska 2016 IHA for Unalaska Marine Center.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
15ma
In this section we provide the
information about the presence, density,
or group dynamics of marine mammals
that will inform the take calculations.
Humpback whales are relatively rare
in the Chesapeake Bay but may be found
within or near the Chesapeake Bay at
any time of the year. Between 1998 and
2014, 11 humpback whale strandings
were reported within the Chesapeake
Bay (Barco and Swingle 2014).
Strandings occurred in all seasons, but
were most common in the spring. There
is no existing density data for this
species within or near the Chesapeake
Bay. Populations in the mid-Atlantic
have been estimated for humpback
whales off the coast of New Jersey with
a density of 0.00013 per square
kilometer (Whitt et al., 2015). A similar
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
density may be expected off the coast of
Virginia.
Bottlenose dolphins are abundant
along the Virginia coast and within the
Chesapeake Bay and can be seen seen
annually in Virginia from May through
October. Approximately 65 strandings
are reported each year (Barco and
Swingle 2014). Stranded bottlenose
dolphins have been recorded as far
north as the Potomac River in the
Chesapeake Bay (Blaylock 1985). A 2016
Navy report on the occurrence,
distribution, and density of marine
mammals near Naval Station Norfolk
and Virginia Beach, Virginia provides
seasonal densities of bottlenose
dolphins for inshore areas in the
vicinity of the project area (Engelhaupt
et al., 2016) (Table 10).
There is little data on the occurrence
of harbor porpoises in the Chesapeake
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Bay. Harbor porpoises are the second
most common marine mammal to strand
in Virginia waters with 58 reported
strandings between 2007 through 2016.
Unlike bottlenose dolphins, harbor
porpoises are found in Virginia in the
cooler months, primarily late winter and
early spring, and they strand primarily
on ocean facing beaches (Barco et al.,
2017). Given the lack of abundance data,
NMFS assumed that a limited number of
harbor porpoises (2) would be taken
during each month of planned
construction in order to generate a take
estimate for this species.
Harbor seals are the most common
seal in Virginia (Barco and Swingle
2014). They can be seen resting on the
rocks around the portal islands of the
CBBT from December through April.
They are unlikely to occur in the project
area in the summer and early fall.
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
36531
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
Survey data for in-water and hauled out
harbor seals was collected by the United
States Navy at the CBBT portal islands
from 2014 through 2016 (Rees et al.,
2016) (Table 12). Surveys reported 112
harbor seals in the 2014/2015 season,
185 harbor seals during the 2015/2016
season, and 307 during the 2016/2017
season. (Rees et al., 2016; Rees et al.
2017).
Gray seals are uncommon in Virginia
and the Chesapeake Bay with only 15
gray seal strandings documented in
Virginia from 1988–2013 (Barco and
Swingle 2014). They are rarely found
resting on the rocks around the portal
islands of the CBBT from December
through April alongside harbor seals.
Observation surveys conducted by the
Navy at the CBBT portal islands
recorded one gray seal in the 2014/2015,
two gray seals in 2015/2016, and two
gray seals in 2016/2017 seasons (Rees et
al., 2016; Rees et al. 2017).
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information
provided above is brought together to
produce a quantitative take estimate.
The following assumptions are made
when estimating potential incidences of
take:
• All marine mammal individuals
potentially available are assumed to be
present within the relevant area, and
thus incidentally taken;
• An individual can only be taken
once during a 24-h period;
• Exposures to sound levels at or
above the relevant thresholds equate to
take, as defined by the MMPA.
Humpback Whale
As noted previously, humpback
whales are rare in the Chesapeake Bay,
although they do occur. Density off of
the coast of New Jersey, and presumably
Virginia and Maryland, is extremely low
(0.00013 animals/km2). Because density
is extremely low, CTJV has requested
and NMFS is authorizing one Level B
take every two months for the duration
of in-water pile driving activities. Pile
driving activities are expected to occur
over a 10-month period. Therefore, a
total of 5 Level B takes of humpback
whales is authorized by NMFS.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Total number of takes for bottlenose
dolphin were calculated using the
seasonal density described above
(individuals/km2/day) of animals within
the inshore study area at the mouth of
the Chesapeake Bay (Englehaupt et al.,
2016). Project specific dolphin densities
were calculated within the respective
Level B harassment zone and season.
Densities were then used to calculate
the seasonal takes based on the number
and type of pile driving days per season.
For example, the density of dolphins in
summer months is assumed to be 3.55
dolphins/km2 * 0.88 km2 (harassment
zone for Simultaneous Plumb Pile
driving as shown in Table 8) = 3.12
dolphins/km2 per day in summer as
shown in Table 11. This density was
then multiplied by number of
simultaneous plumb pile driving days to
provide takes for that season (e.g. 3.12
dolphins/km2 * 24 days = 74.88
estimated summer exposures from
simultaneous plumb pile driving). The
sum of the anticipated number of
seasonal takes resulted in 4,740
estimated exposures as shown in Table
10 split among three stocks. There is
insufficient information to apportion the
takes precisely to the three stocks
present in the area. Given that members
of the NNCES stock are thought to occur
in or near the Bay in very small
numbers, and only during July and
August, we will conservatively assume
that no more than 100 of the takes will
be from this stock. Most animals from
this stock spend the summer months in
Pamlico Sound and the range of species
extends as far south as Beaufort, NC. In
colder months, animals are thought to
go no farther north than Pamlico Sound.
Since members of the southern
migratory coastal and northern
migratory coastal stocks are known to
occur in or near the Bay in greater
numbers, we will conservatively assume
that no more than half of the remaining
animals (2,320) will accrue to either of
these stocks. The largest level B zone for
mid-frequency cetaceans occurs during
vibratory driving and extends out
2,154.4 meters. The largest Level A
isopleth is 73.9 meters and would occur
during installation of three battered
piles on a single day. NMFS proposes a
shutdown zone that extends 200 m, so
no Level A take is authorized.
TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF INFORMATION USED TO CALCULATE BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN EXPOSURES
Estimated
number
of pile
driving days
Density
(individuals
per km2)
Season
Total number
of requested
takes
Summer 2018 ..............................................................................................................................
Fall 2018 ......................................................................................................................................
Winter 2019 .................................................................................................................................
Spring 2019 .................................................................................................................................
3.55
3.88
0.63
1.00
45
77
70
10
866.37
2745.94
962.62
194.9
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
4,740
TABLE 11—SEASONAL DAILY TAKE BY DRIVING SCENARIO (SEASONAL DENSITY * SCENARIO ZONE SIZE) AND ESTIMATED
NUMBER OF DRIVING DAYS PER SEASON
Impact
simultaneous
plumb daily take
(days/season)
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Season
Summer ............................................................
Fall ...................................................................
Winter ...............................................................
Spring ...............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Impact
batter daily
take
(days/season)
3.12 (24)
3.41 (36)
0.55 (12)
0.88 (0)
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
29.35 (15)
32.10 (0)
5.21 (0)
8.27 (0)
Sfmt 4703
Simultaneous
vibratory
sheet and
impact
plumb daily
take
(days/season)
Vibratory
sheet daily
take
(days/season)
58.54 (6)
63.98 (41)
10.39 (34)
16.49 (9)
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
58.54 (0)
63.98 (0)
10.39 (24)
16.49 (1)
Number
of pile
driving days
45
77
70
10
36532
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
Harbor Porpoise
Little is known about the abundance
of harbor porpoises in the Chesapeake
Bay. A recent survey of the Maryland
Wind Energy Area found that porpoises
occur frequently offshore January to
May (Wingfield et al., 2017). This
finding reflects the pattern of winter and
spring strandings in the mid-Atlantic.
NMFS will assume that there is a
porpoise sighting once during every two
months of operations. That would
equate to five sightings over ten months.
Assuming an average group size of two
results in a total estimated take of 10
porpoises. Harbor porpoises are
members of the high-frequency hearing
group which would have Level A
isopleths as large of 2,474 meters during
impact installation of three battered
piles per day. Given the relatively large
Level A zones during impact driving,
NMFS will assume that 40 precent of
porpoises are taken by Level A
harassment. Therefore, NMFS
authorizes the take of 4 porpoises by
Level A take and 6 porpoises by Level
B take.
Harbor Seal
The number of harbor seals expected
to be present in the PTST project area
was estimated using survey data for inwater and hauled out seals collected by
the United States Navy at the portal
islands in 2016 and 2017 (Rees et al.,
2017). The survey data revealed a
maximum of 40 animals observed per
day. The maximum number of seals per
day (40) was multiplied by the total
number of driving days (202) resulting
in an estimated 8,080 harbor seal takes.
The largest level B zone would occur
during vibratory driving and extends
out 2,154.4 meters from the sound
source. The largest Level A isopleth is
1,111.6 meters which would occur
during impact installation of three
battered piles. The smallest Level A
zone during impact driving is 6.6 meters
meters which would occur when a
single steel pile is impact driven at the
same time that vibratory driving of sheet
piles is occurring. NMFS authorized a
shutdown zone for harbor seals of 15
meters since seals are common in the
project area and are known to approach
the shoreline. A larger shutdown zone
would likely result in multiple
shutdowns and impede the project
schedule. NMFS will assume that 40
percent of the exposed seals will occur
within the Level A zone specified for a
given scenario. Therefore, NMFS
authorizes the Level A take of 3,232 and
Level B take of 4,848 harbor seals.
Gray Seals
The number of gray seals potentially
exposed to Level B harassment in the
project area was calculated using survey
data recording gray seal observations
was collected by the U.S. Navy at the
portal islands from 2014 through 2016
(Rees et al., 2016). Potential gray seal
exposures were calculated as the
number of potential seals per pile
driving day (8 hours) multiplied by the
number of pile driving days per month.
The anticipated numbers of monthly
exposures as shown in Table 13 were
summed. Therefore, NMFS has
authorized the take of 67 gray seals by
Level B harassment. The Level A
isopleths for gray seals are identical to
those for harbor seals. With a shutdown
zone of 15 meters, NMFS recommended
the Level A take of 40 percent of gray
seals. Therefore, NMFS authorizes the
Level A take of 27 and Level B take of
40 gray seals.
TABLE 13—CALCULATION FOR THE NUMBER OF GRAY SEAL EXPOSURES
Month
June 2018 ....................................................................................................................................
July 2018 .....................................................................................................................................
August 2018 .................................................................................................................................
September 2018 ..........................................................................................................................
October 2018 ...............................................................................................................................
Seals
Seals
Seals
Seals
Seals
November 2018 ...........................................................................................................................
December 2018 ...........................................................................................................................
January 2019 ...............................................................................................................................
February 2019 .............................................................................................................................
March 2019 ..................................................................................................................................
Table 14 provides a summary of
authorized Level B takes as well as the
Total pile
driving days
per month
(includes upland driving)
Estimated
seals per
work day
not
not
not
not
not
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
0
0
0
1.6
0
to
to
to
to
to
be
be
be
be
be
27
24
42
42
11
Gray seal
takes
present.
present.
present.
present.
present.
0
0
0
67
0
percentage of a stock or population
authorized for take.
TABLE 14—AUTHORIZED TAKE AND PERCENTAGE OF STOCK OR POPULATION
Stock
Authorized
Level A takes
Humpback whale ............................................
Bottlenose dolphin ..........................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Species
Gulf of Maine ..................................................
WNA Coastal, Northern Migratory .................
WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory .................
NNCES ...........................................................
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ...........................
Western North Atlantic ...................................
Western North Atlantic ...................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
4
3,232
27
Harbor porpoise ..............................................
Harbor seal .....................................................
Gray seal .........................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
Authorized
Level B takes
5
2,320
2,320
100
6
4,848
40
Percent
population
1.5
20.1
25.2
12.1
<0.01
10.6
0.25
36533
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on such species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses
(latter not applicable for this action).
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting such activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, we carefully consider two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned), the
likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned);
and
(2) the practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
The following mitigation measures are
contained in the IHA:
• Pile Driving Delay/Shutdown
Zone—For in-water heavy machinery
work (using, e.g., standard barges, tug
boats, barge-mounted excavators, or
clamshell equipment used to place or
remove material), a minimum 10 meters
shutdown zone shall be implemented. If
a marine mammal comes within 10
meters of such operations, operations
shall cease and vessels shall reduce
speed to the minimum level required to
maintain steerage and safe working
conditions. This type of work could
include (but is not limited to) the
following activities: (1) Vibratory pile
driving; (2) movement of the barge to
the pile location; (3) positioning of the
pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e.,
stabbing the pile); or (4) removal of the
pile from the water column/substrate
via a crane (i.e., deadpull).
• Non-authorized Take Prohibited—If
a species for which authorization has
not been granted (e.g., North Atlantic
right whale, fin whale) or a species for
which authorization has been granted
but the authorized takes are met, is
observed approaching or within the
Level B Isopleth, pile driving and
removal activities must shut down
immediately using delay and shut-down
procedures. Activities must not resume
until the animal has been confirmed to
have left the area or an observation time
period of 15 minutes has elapsed.
• Use of Impact Installation—During
pile installation of hollow steel piles, an
impact hammer rather than a vibratory
hammer will be used to reduce the
duration of pile driving decrease the
ZOI for marine mammals.
• Cushion Blocks—Use of cushion
blocks will be required during impact
installation. Cushion blocks reduce
source levels and, by association,
received levels, although exact
decreases in sound levels are unknown.
• Use of Bubble Curtain—An encased
bubble curtain will be used for impact
installation of plumb round piles at
water depths greater than 3 m (10 ft).
Bubble curtains will not function
effectively in shallower depths. shall
employ a bubble curtain during impact
pile driving of steel piles. CTJV shall
implement the following performance
standards: (1) The bubble curtain must
distribute air bubbles around 100
percent of the piling perimeter for the
full depth of the water column; (2) the
lowest bubble ring shall be in contact
with the mudline for the full
circumference of the ring, and the
weights attached to the bottom ring
shall ensure 100 percent mudline
contact. No parts of the ring or other
objects shall prevent full mudline
contact; and (3) CTJV will require that
construction contractors train personnel
in the proper balancing of air flow to the
bubblers, and shall require that
construction contractors submit an
inspection/performance report for
approval by the CTJV within 72 hours
following the performance test.
Corrections to the attenuation device to
meet the performance standards shall
occur prior to impact driving.
• 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. A soft-start procedure will be
used for impact pile driving at the
beginning of each day’s in-water pile
driving or any time impact pile driving
has ceased for more than 30 minutes.
The CTJV will start the bubble curtain
prior to the initiation of impact pile
driving. The contractor will provide an
initial set of strikes from the impact
hammer at reduced energy, followed by
a 30-second waiting period, then two
subsequent sets.
• Establishment of Additional
Shutdown Zones and Monitoring
Zones—For all impact and vibratory
pile driving shutdown and monitoring
zones will be established and
monitored.
• CTJV will establish a shutdown
zone of 200 meters for common
dolphins and harbor porpoises and 15
meters for harbor and gray seals. The
shutdown zones for humpback whales
are depicted in Table 16.
• For all impact and vibratory pile
driving shutdown and monitoring zones
will be established and monitored.
Level B zones are shown in Table 15.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 15—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM PILE DRIVEN TO LEVEL B ISOPLETHS FOR CETACEANS AND PINNIPEDS
Radial distance
(m)
Hammer type driving scenario
Island 1
Impact (battered) .....................................................................................................................................................
Vibratory ...................................................................................................................................................................
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and PI 2 simultaneous ...........................................................................
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and Vibratory at PI 2 simultaneous .......................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
1,585
2,155
345
345
Island 2
1,585
2,155
345
2,155
36534
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 15—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM PILE DRIVEN TO LEVEL B ISOPLETHS FOR CETACEANS AND PINNIPEDS—
Continued
Radial distance
(m)
Hammer type driving scenario
Island 1
Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 2 simultaneous .......................................................
• The Level A zones will depend on
the number of piles driven and the
presence of marine mammals per 24hour period. Up to 3 battered piles or 8
plumb steel piles will be driven per 24hour period using the following
adaptive monitoring approach.
Monitoring will begin each day using
the three-pile Level A zone for battered
piles (or eight-pile zone for plumb
piles). If after the first pile is driven, no
marine mammals have been observed in
the Level A zone, then the Level A zone
will reduce to the two-pile zone. If no
marine mammals are observed within
the two-pile shutdown zone during the
driving of the second pile, then the
Level A zone will reduce to the one-pile
zone. However, if a mammal is observed
approaching or entering the three-pile
Level A zone during the driving of the
first pile, then the three-pile Level A
zone will be monitored for the
remainder of pile driving activities for
that day. Likewise, if a marine mammal
is observed within the two-pile but not
2,155
Island 2
345
the three-pile Level A zone, then the
two-pile Level A zone will be monitored
for the remainder of pile driving
activities for that day. The same
protocol will be followed for installation
of up to 8 plumb piles per day.
The Level A isopleths for all
authorized species are shown in Table
16. Isopeths associated with lowfrequency cetaceans will signify
shutdown zones for humpback whales.
TABLE 16—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM DRIVEN PILE TO PTS ZONES FOR CETACEANS AND PHOCID PINNIPEDS
FOR SCENARIOS INVOLVING IMPACT HAMMER
Class of marine
mammals
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...............................................................
High Frequency Cetaceans .............................................................
Phocid Pinnipeds .............................................................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Impact hammer
(battered pile)
Piles per day
Low-Frequency Cetaceans * ............................................................
Impact
hammer
with bubble
curtain
simultaneous
(plumb pile) **
N/A
N.A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,077.2
1,585.2
998.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
73.9
56.4
35.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,474.3
1,888.3
1,189.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,111.6
848.3
534.4
* These isopleths serve as shutdown zones for all large whales, including humpback and fin whales.
** Assumes 1 pile installed at each island per day ranging from maximum of 16 piles to minimum of 2 piles.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
1,366
1,249.1
1,127.7
998.6
860.6
710.4
542.1
341.5
48
44.4
40.1
35.5
30.6
25.3
19.3
12.1
1,627
1,488.6
1,343.3
1,189.5
1,025.1
846.2
645.8
406.8
731
68.8
603.5
534.4
460.5
380.2
290.1
182.8
Simultaneous
Driving—
Vibratory
hammer and
impact
hammer with
bubble curtain
(plumb pile)
860.6
787.3
710.4
629.1
542.1
447.5
341.5
215.1
30.6
28.0
25.3
22.4
19.3
15.9
12.1
7.7
1,025.1
937.8
846.2
749.4
645.8
533.1
406.8
256.3
460.5
412.3
380.2
336.7
290.1
239.5
182.8
115.1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s suggested measures, as well
as other measures considered by NMFS,
NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures provide the means
effecting the least practicable impact on
the affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that
requests for authorizations must include
the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge
of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present in the planned action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density).
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas).
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors.
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
36535
• For in-water pile driving, under
conditions of fog or poor visibility that
might obscure the presence of a marine
Visual Monitoring
mammal within the shutdown zone, the
The following visual monitoring
pile in progress will be completed and
measures are contained in the IHA:
then pile driving suspended until
• Pre-activity monitoring shall take
visibility conditions improve.
• Monitoring of pile driving shall be
place from 30 minutes prior to initiation
of pile driving activity and post-activity conducted by qualified PSOs (see
below), who shall have no other
monitoring shall continue through 30
minutes post-completion of pile driving assigned tasks during monitoring
periods. CVTJV shall adhere to the
activity. Pile driving may commence at
following conditions when selecting
the end of the 30-minute pre-activity
observers:
monitoring period, provided observers
(1) Independent PSOs shall be used
have determined that the shutdown
zone is clear of marine mammals, which (i.e., not construction personnel).
(2) At least one PSO must have prior
includes delaying start of pile driving
activities if a marine mammal is sighted experience working as a marine
mammal observer during construction
in the zone.
activities.
• If a marine mammal approaches or
(3) Other PSOs may substitute
enters the shutdown zone during
education (degree in biological science
activities or pre-activity monitoring, all
or related field) or training for
pile driving activities at that location
shall be halted or delayed, respectively. experience.
(4) CTJV shall submit PSO CVs for
If pile driving is halted or delayed due
approval by NMFS.
to the presence of a marine mammal, the
• CTJV will ensure that observers
activity may not resume or commence
have the following additional
until either the animal has voluntarily
left and been visually confirmed beyond qualifications:
(1) Ability to conduct field
the shutdown zone and 15 minutes have
observations and collect data according
passed without re-detection of the
to assigned protocols.
animal. Pile driving activities include
(2) Experience or training in the field
the time to install or remove a single
identification of marine mammals,
pile or series of piles, as long as the time
including the identification of
elapsed between uses of the pile driving
behaviors.
equipment is no more than thirty
(3) Sufficient training, orientation, or
minutes.
experience with the construction
• Monitoring distances, in accordance operation to provide for personal safety
with the identified shutdown zones,
during observations.
Level A zones and Level B zones, will
(4) Writing skills sufficient to prepare
be determined by using a range finder,
a report of observations including but
scope, hand-held global positioning
not limited to the number and species
system (GPS) device or landmarks with
of marine mammals observed; dates and
known distances from the monitoring
times when in-water construction
positions.
activities were conducted; dates, times,
• A minimum of two PSOs will be
and reason for implementation of
required during all pile driving
mitigation (or why mitigation was not
activities. Monitoring locations shall be
implemented when required); and
based on land both at Portal Island No.
marine mammal behavior.
1 and Portal Island No. 2 during
(5) Ability to communicate orally, by
simultaneous driving or on the Portal
radio or in person, with project
Island with active driving during nonpersonnel to provide real-time
simultaneous driving.
information on marine mammals
• Monitoring will be continuous
observed in the area as necessary.
unless the contractor takes a break
A draft marine mammal monitoring
longer than 2 hours from active pile and report would be submitted to NMFS
sheet pile driving, in which case,
within 90 days after the completion of
monitoring will be required 30 minutes
pile driving and removal activities. It
prior to restarting pile installation.
will include an overall description of
• If marine mammals are observed,
work completed, a narrative regarding
their location within the zones, and
marine mammal sightings, and
their reaction (if any) to pile activities
associated marine mammal observation
will be documented.
data sheets. Specifically, the report must
• If weather or sea conditions restrict include:
the observer’s ability to observe, or
• Date and time that monitored
become unsafe, pile installation will be
activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring
suspended until conditions allow for
during each observation period;
monitoring to resume.
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36536
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
• Deviation from initial proposal in
pile numbers, pile types, average
driving times, etc.;
• Weather parameters (e.g., percent
cover, visibility); and
• Water conditions (e.g., sea state,
tide state).
• For each marine mammal sighting:
(1) Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
(2) Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel
and distance from pile driving activity;
(3) Location and distance from pile
driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals
to the observation point;
(4) Estimated amount of time that the
animals remained in the Level A Level
B zone;
• Description of implementation of
mitigation measures within each
monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or
delay); and
• Other human activity in the area.
• A summary of the following:
(1) Total number of individuals of
each species detected within the Level
A and Level B Zone, and estimated as
taken if correction factor is applied.
(2) Daily average number of
individuals of each species
(differentiated by month as appropriate)
detected within the Level A and Level
B Zone, and estimated as taken, if
correction factor is applied.
If no comments are received from
NMFS within 30 days, the draft final
report will constitute the final report. If
comments are received, a final report
addressing NMFS comments must be
submitted within 30 days after receipt of
comments.
In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such
as an injury, serious injury or mortality,
CTJV would immediately cease the
specified activities and report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS Greater Atlantic Region New
England/Mid-Atlantic Regional
Stranding Coordinator. The report
would include the following
information:
• Description of the incident;
• Environmental conditions (e.g.,
Beaufort sea state, visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
• Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s) (if equipment is available).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
Activities would not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS would work with CTJV to
determine what is necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. CTJV would not be able to
resume their activities until notified by
NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that CTJV discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead PSO 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 as described in the next
paragraph), CTJV would immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region
New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional
Stranding Coordinator. The report
would include the same information
identified in the paragraph above.
Activities would be able to continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances
of the incident. NMFS would work with
CTJV to determine whether
modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that CTJV discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal and the
lead PSO 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, or scavenger damage),
CTJV would report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, and the NMFS Greater Atlantic
Region New England/Mid-Atlantic
Regional Stranding Coordinator, within
24 hours of the discovery. CTJV would
provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS and
the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
of any responses (e.g., intensity,
duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as effects
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the
number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this
information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’s implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
CTJV’s planned pile driving activities
are highly localized. Only a relatively
small portion of the Chesapeake Bay
may be affected. The project is not
expected to have significant adverse
effects on marine mammal habitat. No
important feeding and/or reproductive
areas for marine mammals are known to
be near the project area. Project-related
activities may cause some fish to leave
the area of disturbance, thus temporarily
impacting marine mammals’ foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of
their foraging range, but because of the
relatively small impacted area of the
habitat range utilized by each species
that may be affected, the impacts to
marine mammal habitat are not
expected to cause significant or longterm negative consequences.
A limited number of animals could
experience Level A harassment in the
form of PTS if they remain within the
Level A harassment zone during certain
impact driving scenarios. The sizes of
the Level A zones are dependent on the
number of steel piles driven in a 24hour period. Up to 8 steel plumb piles
or 3 steel battered piles could be driven
in a single day, which would result in
a relatively large Level A zones. (If
fewer piles are driven per day then the
Level A zones would be smaller).
However, an animal would have to be
within the Level A zones during the
driving of all 8 plumb or 3 battered
piles. This is unlikely, as marine
mammals tend to move away from
sound sources. Furthermore, the degree
of injury is expected to be mild and is
not likely to affect the reproduction or
survival of the individual animals. It is
expected that, if hearing impairments
occurs, most likely the affected animal
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
would lose a few dB in its hearing
sensitivity, which in most cases is not
likely to affect its survival and
recruitment.
Exposures to elevated sound levels
produced during pile driving activities
may cause behavioral responses by an
animal, but they are expected to be mild
and temporary. Effects on individuals
that are taken by Level B harassment, on
the basis of reports in the literature as
well as monitoring from other similar
activities, will likely be limited to
reactions such as increased swimming
speeds, increased surfacing time, or
decreased foraging (if such activity were
occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff,
2006; 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.
These reactions and behavioral changes
are expected to subside quickly when
the exposures cease. The pile driving
activities analyzed here are similar to, or
less impactful than, numerous
construction activities conducted in
numerous other locations on the east
coast, 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 permanent hearing
impairment or to significantly disrupt
foraging behavior. Furthermore, Level B
harassment will be reduced through use
of mitigation measures described herein.
CTJV will employ noise attenuating
devices (i.e., bubble curtains, pile caps)
during impact driving of plumb steel
piles. During impact driving of both
plumb and battered piles,
implementation of soft start procedures
and monitoring of established shutdown
zones will be required, significantly
reduces any possibility of injury. Given
sufficient notice through use of soft start
(for impact driving), marine mammals
are expected to move away from a
sound source. PSOs will be stationed on
a portal island whenever pile driving
operations are underway at that island.
The portal island locations provide a
relatively clear view of the shutdown
zones as well as monitoring zones.
These factors will limit exposure of
animals to noise levels that could result
in injury.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our determination that the impacts
resulting from this activity are not
expected to adversely affect the species
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Jkt 244001
or stock through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated;
• The area of potential impacts is
highly localized;
• No adverse impacts to marine
mammal habitat;
• The absence of any significant
habitat within the project area,
including rookeries, or known areas or
features of special significance for
foraging or reproduction;
• Anticipated incidents of Level A
harassment would likely be mild;
• Anticipated incidents of Level B
harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior;
and
• The anticipated efficacy of the
required mitigation measures in
reducing the effects of the specified
activity.
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
monitoring and mitigation measures,
NMFS finds that the total marine
mammal take from the activity will have
a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
for specified activities other than
military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so,
in practice, where estimated numbers
are available, NMFS compares the
number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of
the relevant species or stock in our
determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
NMFS has determined that the
estimated Level B take of humpback
whale is 1.5 percent of the Gulf of
Maine stock; take of harbor seals is 10.6
percent of the Western North Atlantic
stock; take of gray seals is 0.25 percent
of the Western North Atlantic stock; and
take of harbor porpoise is <0.01 percent
of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy
stock. Total estimated take of bottlenose
dolphins is 4,740. NMFS assumes 100
takes accruing to the NNCES stock and
no more than half (2,300) of the
remaining takes accruing to either of
two migratory coastal stocks. This stock
division represents 12.1 percent of the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36537
NCCES stock, 20.1 percent of the
Western North Atlantic northern
migratory coastal stock and 25.2 percent
of the Western North Atlantic southern
migratory coastal stock. Additionally,
some number of the anticipated takes
are likely to be repeat sightings of the
same individual, lowering the number
of individuals taken.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the planned activity (including
the proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that
small numbers of marine mammals will
be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action.
Therefore, NMFS has 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.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization)
with respect to potential impacts on the
human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental
harassment authorizations with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6A, which do
not individually or cumulatively have
the potential for significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment
and for which we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that
would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
determined that the issuance of the IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat.
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
36538
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices
Bluefish Specifications
No incidental take of ESA-listed
species is authorized or expected to
result from this activity. Therefore,
NMFS has determined that formal
consultation under section 7 of the ESA
is not required for this action.
out of order (changes will be noted on
the Council’s website when possible).
Swearing in of New and Reappointed
Council Members
Review SSC, Monitoring Committee,
Advisory Panel, and staff
recommendations and adopt 2019
specifications.
Authorization
Election of Officers
Bluefish Allocation Amendment
NMFS has issued an IHA to CTJV for
conducting pile driving and removal
activities as part of the PTST project
between August 1, 2018 through July 31,
2019, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Illex Control Date and 2018 and 2019
Fishery
Review scoping comments and
discuss next steps and determine issues
to be included in public hearing
document.
Dated: July 25, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Council Meeting With the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass and Bluefish Boards
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
MRIP Presentation on New Estimates
RIN 0648–XG373
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass Framework and Addendum on
Conservation Equivalency, Block Island
Sound Transit, and Slot Limits
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council) will
hold public meetings of the Council and
its Committees.
DATES: The meetings will be held
Monday, August 13, 2018 through
Thursday, August 16, 2018. For agenda
details, see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
SUMMARY:
The meeting will be held at
the Hilton Virginia Beach Oceanfront,
3001 Atlantic Avenue, Virginia Beach,
VA 23451, telephone: (757) 213–3000.
Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 800 N. State St.,
Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone:
(302) 674–2331.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council; telephone: (302)
526–5255. The Council’s website,
www.mafmc.org also has details on the
meeting location, proposed agenda,
webinar listen-in access, and briefing
materials.
ADDRESSES:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Atlantic Mackerel Framework and
Specifications
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
The
following items are on the agenda,
though agenda items may be addressed
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
20:33 Jul 27, 2018
Consider a new or existing (August 2,
2013) control date and review and
consider adjustment to 2018 and 2019
Illex specifications.
Approve rebuilding plan and
associated 2019–2021 specifications
including river herring and shad cap.
[FR Doc. 2018–16204 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Monday, August 13, 2018
Jkt 244001
Framework meeting 1—review draft
alternatives and review and approve
draft addendum.
Black Sea Bass Specifications
Review SSC, Monitoring Committee,
Advisory Panel, and staff
recommendations and adopt 2019
specifications.
Black Sea Bass Wave 1 Fishery and
Letter of Authorization (LOA)
Consider a potential February 2019
opening of the recreational Wave 1
fishery and discuss the continued
development of the LOA Framework.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Council Meeting With the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass and Bluefish Boards
Summer Flounder Specifications
Review SSC, Monitoring Committee,
Advisory Panel, and staff
recommendations and adopt 2019
specifications.
Scup Specifications
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Responsible Offshore Development
Alliance
Draft Amendment 11 to the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP for
Management of Shortfin Mako Sharks
Business Session
Committee Reports (SSC); Executive
Director’s Report; Organization Reports;
and, Liaison Reports.
Continuing and New Business
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during these meetings. Actions
will be restricted to those issues
specifically identified in this notice and
any issues arising after publication of
this notice that require emergency
action under Section 305(c) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the
public has been notified of the Council’s
intent to take final action to address the
emergency.
Special Accommodations
These meetings are physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language
interpretation or other auxiliary aid
should be directed to M. Jan Saunders,
(302) 526–5251, at least 5 days prior to
the meeting date.
Dated: July 25, 2018.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–16221 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am]
Review SSC, Monitoring Committee,
Advisory Panel, and staff
recommendations regarding previously
implemented 2019 specifications and
recommend changes to 2019
specifications if necessary.
PO 00000
ASMFC Bluefish FMP Review
Sfmt 9990
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36522-36538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16204]
[[Page 36522]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XG107
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel
Project in Virginia Beach, Virginia
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
Chesapeake Tunnel Joint Venture (CTJV) to incidentally take, by Level A
and/or Level B harassment, four species of marine mammals during the
Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project (PTST) in Virginia Beach,
Virginia.
DATES: This Authorization is effective from August 1, 2018, through
July 31, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers
of marine mammals by United States citizens who engage in a specified
activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt,
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
Summary of Request
On January 11, 2018, NMFS received a request from the CTJV for an
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving at the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge and Tunnel (CBBT) near Virginia Beach, Virginia. CTJV's
request is for take of small numbers of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina),
gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops spp.),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) by Level A and Level B harassment. Neither the CTJV nor
NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS has issued an IHA to CTJV authorizing the take of five species
by Level A and Level B harassment. Pile driving and removal will take
up to 202 days. The IHA is effective from August 1, 2018 through July
31, 2019.
Description of Planned Activity
The PTST project consists of the construction of a two-lane
parallel tunnel to the west of the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel,
connecting Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (Figure 1 in application). Upon
completion, the new tunnel will carry two lanes of southbound traffic
and the existing tunnel will remain in operation and carry two lanes of
northbound traffic. The PTST project will address existing constraints
to regional mobility based on current traffic volume along the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (CBBT) facility; improve safety by
minimizing one lane, two-way traffic in the tunnel; improve the ability
to conduct necessary maintenance with minimal impact to traffic flow;
and ensure a reliable southwest hurricane evacuation route for
residents of the eastern shore and/or a northern evacuation route for
residents of the eastern shore, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach. The CBBT
is a 23 mile fixed link crossing the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay which
connects Northampton County on the Delmarva Peninsula with Virginia
Beach, which is part of the Hampton Roads metropolitan area.
The new parallel tunnel will be bored under the Thimble Shoal
Channel. The 6,525 linear feet (ft) of new tunnel will be constructed
with a top of tunnel depth/elevation of 100 ft below Mean Low Water
(MLW) within the width of the 1,000-ft-wide navigation channel. Impact
pile driving will be used to install steel piles and vibratory pile
driving will be utilized to install sheet piles. This issued IHA would
cover one year of a larger project for which will run through 2022. The
larger project, which does not employ pile driving and does not require
additional IHAs, involves tunnel excavation with a tunnel boring
machine and construction of a roadway within the tunnel. The type and
numbers of piles to be installed, as well as those that will be removed
during the effective period are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1--Anticipated Pile Installation Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Pile location Pile function Pile type piles (upland/ Anticipated
In-water) installation date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2....... Mooring dolphins 36-inch diameter 30 15 July to 15
(in-water). hollow steel. August 2018.
[[Page 36523]]
West of Portal Island No. 1...... Berm construction 36-inch diameter 80 15 July 2018
trestle (in-water). hollow steel. through 1 January
2019.
West of Portal Island No. 2...... Berm construction 36-inch diameter 80 15 July 2018
trestle (in-water). hollow steel. through 1 January
2019.
Portal Island No. 1.............. Temporary docks 36-inch diameter 50 1 May 2018 through
(upland). hollow steel. 30 June 2018.
Portal Island No. 1.............. Temporary docks (in- 36-inch diameter 82 15 July 2018 to 30
water). hollow steel. August 2018.
Portal Island No. 2 (above MHW).. Temporary roadway 36-inch diameter 12 1 May to 31 May
trestle (upland). hollow steel. 2018.
Portal Island No. 1 (above MHW).. Excavated TBM 28 and 18-inch 1,110 1 May 2018 to 30
material steel sheet. September 2018.
containment
holding (muck) bin
(upland).
Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (above Settlement 28-inch steel sheet 2,554 1 August 2018 to 30
and below MHW). mitigation and March 2019.
flowable fill
containment.
Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (above Portal excavation.. Steel sheet........ 1,401 1 June 2018 to 30
MHW). September 2018, 1
January to 30
March 2019.
Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (above Excavation Support. Steel sheet........ 240 1 April 2018 to 30
MHW). August 2019 to 1
January 2019 to 30
March 2019.
Total (above and below water) ................... ................... 5,305 Sheet ...................
Piles 334
Round Piles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTJV will install up to 272 in-water 36-in steel pipe piles by
impact driving and 1,936 in-water sheet piles by vibratory installation
and expects activities to take up to 202 days. These actions could
produce underwater sound at levels that could result in the injury or
behavioral harassment of marine mammal species. A detailed description
of CTJV's planned project is provided in the Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30, 2018). Since that time,
the project start date has been delayed by approximately one month. No
additional changes have been made to the planned project activities.
Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to
that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific
activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to CTJV was published
in the Federal Register on April 30, 2018 (83 FR 18777). That notice
described, in detail, CTJV's activity, the marine mammal species that
may be affected by the activity, the anticipated effects on marine
mammals and their habitat, proposed amount and manner of take, and
proposed mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures. During the 30-
day public comment period, NMFS received one comment letter from the
Marine Mammal Commission (Commission); the Commission's recommendations
and our responses are provided here, and the comments have been posted
online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS review more
thoroughly both the applications prior to deeming them complete and its
notices prior to submitting them for publication in the Federal
Register and that NMFS better evaluate the proposed exclusion/shut-down
zones that are to be implemented for each proposed incidental take
authorization. Further, the Commission references several specific
minor errors that were in the proposed notice (for example, incorrect
numbers in Tables).
Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for its recommendation. NMFS
makes every effort to read the notices thoroughly prior to publication
and will continue this effort to publish the best possible product for
public comment. NMFS will be diligent when considering the
appropriateness of proposed exclusion and shutdown zones for future
IHAs. Further, NMFS has corrected the errors the Commission noted.
Comment 2: The Commission noted that NMFS used the lower reported
source level for estimating the various Level A and B harassment zones
during vibratory pile driving, which resulted in underestimating the
Level A and B harassment zones, associated ensonified areas, and number
of takes of bottlenose dolphins.
Response: Note that in the Federal Register notice of proposed IHA
(83 FR 18777; April 30, 2018) a source value of 154 dB RMS SPL was
applied for vibratory installation of 28-inch sheet. NMFS used a higher
source level of 155 dB RMS SPL in this notice. The vibratory source
levels based on root-mean-square sound pressure levels (SPLrms) and
sound exposure levels metrics were not the same value according to
NAVFAC 2017 which was cited as the reference for these values.
Furthermore, the source levels based on 1-sec averages (155 dB RMS SPL)
and 10-sec averages (154 dB RMS SPL) were not identical when they
should be represented by the same value. When a difference is reported,
it likely is due to the operator averaging decibels rather than taking
the linear average of the pressures/intensities and then converting to
dB. Therefore, the higher source level (155 dB RMS SPL) has been
adopted in this notice.
Comment 3: The Commission noted that NMFS used incorrect
assumptions for estimating the various Level A and B harassment zones
when multiple hammers are used.
Response: NMFS used a source value of 186 dB RMS SPL to estimate
the extent of the Level A harassment zone during simultaneous impact
driving of two piles. NMFS incorrectly added 3 dB to the source levels
after employing the rules for decibal addition as described in WSDOT
2017. However, the rules of decibal addition do not apply to
simultaneous impact driving scenarios since hammer strikes will not be
synchronized. Therefore, NMFS has reverted to using the original proxy
source level of 183 dB when estimating the extent of the Level A
harassment zone during simultaneous impact
[[Page 36524]]
driving of two piles with bubble curtains.
Comment 4: The Commission commented that NMFS did not not account
for the possibility that the proposed in-water activities would not be
finished by March 31 which is the deadline established by CTJV.
Therefore, the numbers of harbor seal Level A and B harassment takes is
underestimated.
Response: Even with the delay in project schedule, CTJV is
confident that in-water activities will be concluded by March 31, 2019.
To minimize the risk that the number of harbor seal takes may be
exceeded, for this notice NMFS used the maximum haul-out count from on-
site surveys (40) multiplied by the number of days of proposed
activities (202) to estimate the number of harbor seal takes. In the
Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30, 2018),
NMFS had multiplied monthly sighting rates by months of activities with
an end date of March 31.
Comment 5: The Commission noted NMFS used inconsistent assumptions
regarding estimating Level A harassment takes. NMFS assumed that 40
percent of the total number of harbor porpoise takes would equate to
total Level A harassment takes based on the large size of the Level A
harassment zones. However, NMFS did not make this assumption when
estimated Level A jarassment take of harbor and gray seals.
Response: In this notice, NMFS has assumed that Level A harassment
takes of harbor seals and gray seals represent 40 percent of total
takes for each species.
Comment 6: The Commission noted that NMFS was requiring two
protected species observers (PSOs) only during simultaneous pile
driving. The Commission felt that two PSOs should be employed during
all pile driving activities.
Response: NMFS had proposed that only a single PSO would be
required during non-simultaneous pile driving. The PSO would be
stationed on the portal island where non-simultaneous pile driving was
underway. However, given the large sizes of the monitoring zones, NMFS
will require two PSO's during all pile driving operations to ensure
adequate visual coverage of the monitoring zones.
Comment 7: The Commission felt that the proposed 50-m exclusion
zone for phocids was unnecessarily large for vibratory pile driving
which could put CTJV in a situation in which it is implementing
numerous unnecessary delays or shut downs for pinnipeds.
Response: NMFS agrees with this assessment and has reduced the size
of the exclusion zone for phocids from 50 m to 15 m during vibratory
pile driving.
Comment 8: The Commission feels there are some shortcomings that
need to be addressed regarding the methodology for determining the
extent of the Level A harassment zones based on the associated PTS
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) thresholds for the
various types of sound sources. Specifically, the Commission believes
that the Level A and B harassment zones do not make sense biologically
or acoustically in the context of one another (when the Level A
harassment zone is larger than the Level B harassment zone) due to
NMFS's unrealistic assumption that the animals remain stationary
throughout the entire day of the activity. The Commission believes that
it would be prudent for NMFS to consult with scientists and
acousticians to determine the appropriate accumulation time that action
proponents should use to determine the extent of the Level A harassment
zones based on the associated PTS SELcum thresholds in such
situations.
Response: During the 2016 Technical Guidance's recent review, in
accordance with E.O. 13795, NMFS received comments from multiple
Federal agencies, including the Commission, recommending the
establishment of a working group to investigate more realistic means of
approximating the accumulation period associated with sound exposure
beyond the default 24-h accumulation period. Based on these comments,
NMFS will be convening a working group to re-evaluate implementation of
the default 24-h accumulation period and investigate means for deriving
more realistic accumulation periods. Nonetheless, although NMFS Level A
harassment zones include conservative assumptions and may overestimate
the likelihood of injury somewhat, the take estimates are appropriate
given the available information and support a robust negligible impact
analysis and support the small numbers finding.
Comment 9: The Commission noted that NMFS has been inconsistently
applying presumed source level reductions when bubble curtains are used
during impact pile driving. The Commission recommended that NMFS
refrain from using a source level reduction factor for sound
attenuation device implementation (i.e., bubble curtains) during impact
pile driving for all relevant incidental take authorizations. If and
when NMFS determines the appropriate accumulation time associated with
its SELcum thresholds, it could consider using a source level reduction
to estimate the ranges to Level A harassment. NMFS should then review
the related literature on bubble curtain efficacy in concert with
estimated ranges to the SELcum thresholds based on the
revised accumulation time to determine what, if any, source level
reduction would be appropriate. The Commission further recommended that
NMFS refrain from using a source level reduction factor for sound
attenuation device implementation during impact pile driving for all
relevant incidental take authorizations and that source levels should
not be reduced when determining the range to Level B harassment.
Response: NMFS believes it reasonable to use a source level
reduction factor for sound attenuation device implementation during
impact pile driving. NMFS understands that previous study results have
been inconsistent and that noise level reductions measured at different
received ranges may vary, given that both Level A and Level B
estimation using geometric modeling is based on noise levels measured
at near-source distances (~10 m). NMFS is working on guidance to
increase consistency in the application of source level deductions from
bubble curtain use, but in the meanwhile continues to evaluate
proposals on a case by case basis. In this case we used a 10-dB
reduction factor based on data from Caltrans 2015. We understand that
there are other reported reduction levels that also could have been
selected. However, we were unable to identify studies of bubble curtain
efficacy that would have been any more applicable to the CTJV project
than Caltrans 2015.
The Commission is opposed to the use of noise reduction factors
during impact driving as well as application of reductions to Level B
harassment. The Commission feels that bubble curtains have not
consistently achieved reduced sound levels in the far field because
sound resonates through the ground into the far field. Bubble curtains
are not designed to, nor can they, attenuate ground-borne sound. While
NMFS agrees that some energy is transmitted through the ground into the
farfield, it is also likely that most of the energy is transmitted
through the water column. Given that most studies of bubble curtain
effectiveness have demonstrated at least some decrease in energy
transmitted through the water column, NMFS will continue to permit
appropriate source level reductions during impact driving for both
Level A
[[Page 36525]]
and Level B harassment. Furthermore, if there are no reductions
permitted when using bubble curtains, applicants would have less
incentive to employ them at all. Without bubble curtains, more energy
will likely be transmitted into both the near field and far field,
potentially increasing the risk of animal's exposure to sound at Level
A and Level B harassment levels.
Comment 10: The Commission commented that the method NMFS used to
estimate the numbers of takes during the proposed activities, which
summed fractions of takes for each species across project days, does
not account for and negates the intent of NMFS' 24-hour reset policy.
The Commission also recommends that NMFS develop and share guidance on
this issue.
Response: NMFS has shared our internal guidance on rounding and the
consideration of qualitative factors in take estimation with the
Commission and further, as noted, disagrees with the assertion that the
method described is at odds with what the Commission terms NMFS' ``24-
hour reset policy.''
Comment 11: The Commission requested clarification of certain
issues associated with NMFS's notice that one-year renewals could be
issued in certain limited circumstances and expressed concern that the
renewal process, as proposed, would bypass the public notice and
comment requirements. The Commission recommended that instead of
bypassing comment, NMFS utilize abbreviated Federal Register notices,
as have been used recently to solicit comment on actions that meet the
renewal criteria. The Commission also suggested that NMFS should
discuss the possibility of renewals through a more general route, such
as a rulemaking, instead of notice in a specific authorization. The
Commission further recommended that if NMFS did not pursue a more
general route, that the agency provide the Commission and the public
with a legal analysis supporting our conclusion that this process is
consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
Response: The proposed process of issuing a renewal IHA does not
bypass the public notice and comment requirements of the MMPA. The
notice of the proposed IHA expressly notifies the public that under
certain, limited conditions an applicant could seek a renewal IHA for
an additional year. The notice describes the conditions under which
such a renewal request could be considered and expressly seeks public
comment in the event such a renewal is sought. Additional reference to
this solicitation of public comment has recently been added at the
beginning of FR notices that consider renewals. NMFS appreciates the
streamlining achieved by the use of abbreviated FR notices and intends
to continue using them for proposed IHAs that include minor changes
from previously issued IHAs, but which do not satisfy the renewal
requirements. However, we believe our proposed method for issuing
renewals meets statutory requirements and maximizes efficiency. Note
that such renewals would be limited to where the activities are
identical or nearly identical to those analyzed in the proposed IHA,
monitoring does not indicate impacts that were not previously analyzed
and authorized, and the mitigation and monitoring requirements remain
the same, all of which allow the public to comment on the
appropriateness and effects of a renewal at the same time the public
provides comments on the initial IHA. NMFS has, however, modified the
language for future proposed IHAs to clarify that all IHAs, including
renewal IHAs, are valid for no more than one year and that the agency
would consider only one renewal for a project at this time. In
addition, notice of issuance or denial of a renewal IHA would be
published in the Federal Register, as are all IHAs. Last, NMFS will
publish on our website a description of the renewal process before any
renewal is issued utilizing the new process.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical
and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence
near the PTST project location and summarizes information related to
the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and
ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy,
we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as
the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that
may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and
other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond United States waters. All managed stocks in this region are
assessed in NMFS's United States Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments (Hayes et al., 2017a,b). All values presented
in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2016 Stock Assessment Report (Hayes et al., 2017a)
and draft 2017 stock assessment report (Hayes et al. 2017b) (available
online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
Table 2--Marine Mammal Species Likely To Occur Near the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae:
North Atlantic Right whale...... Eubalaena glacialis.... Western North Atlantic E/D; Y 458 (0; 455; 2017).... 1.4 36
(WNA).
[[Page 36526]]
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Gulf of Maine.......... -; N 335 (0.42; 239; 2012). 3.7 8.5
Fin whale....................... Balaenoptera physalus.. WNA.................... E/D; Y 1,618 (0.33; 1,234; 2.5 2.65
2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Bottlenose dolphin.............. Tursiops spp........... WNA Coastal, Northern D; Y 11,548 (0.36; 8,620; 86 1.0-7.5
Migratory. 2010-11).
WNA Coastal, Southern D; Y 9,173 (0.46; 6,326; 63 0-12
Migratory. 2010-11).
Northern North Carolina D; S 823 (0.06; 782; 2013). 7.8 1.0-16.7
Estuarine System.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Gulf of Maine/Bay of -; N 79,833 (0.32; 61,415; 706 307
Fundy. 2011). (0.16)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... WNA.................... -; N 75,834 (0.1; 66,884, 2,006 368
2012).
Gray seal....................... Halichoerus grypus..... WNA.................... -; N 27,131 (.1, 25,908, 1,554 5,207
2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 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\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
Note: Italicized species are not expected to be taken or authorized for take.
All species that could potentially occur in the planned project
areas are included in Table 2. However, the occurrence of endangered
North Atlantic right whales and endangered fin whales is such that take
is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the
explanation provided here. Between 1998 and 2013, there were no reports
of North Atlantic right whale strandings within the Chesapeake Bay and
only four reported standings along the coast of Virginia. During this
same period, only six fin whale strandings were recorded within the
Chesapeake Bay (Barco and Swingle 2014). In 2016, there were no reports
of fin whale strandings (Barco et al., 2017). Due to the low occurrence
of North Atlantic right whales and fin whales, NMFS is not authorizing
take of these species.
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected
by the planned project, including brief introductions to the species
and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding
population trends and threats, and information regarding local
occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30, 2018); since that time, we are not
aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks;
therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to
that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer
to NMFS' website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for
generalized species accounts.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from pile driving and removal
activities for the planned project have the potential to result in
behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action
area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18777;
April 30, 2018) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic
noise on marine mammals. The project would not result in permanent
impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout
sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such
as forage fish and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during
installation and removal of piles. These potential effects are
discussed in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA
(83 FR 18777; April 30, 2018) therefore that information is not
repeated here; please refer to that Federal Register notice for that
information.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which informs both NMFS' consideration of
small numbers and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines harassment as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment, in the form of
disruption of behavioral patterns for individual
[[Page 36527]]
marine mammals resulting from exposure to acoustic sources including
impact and vibratory pile driving equipment. There is also potential
for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, due to larger
predicted auditory injury zones. The mitigation and monitoring measures
are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent
practicable.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering:
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas;
and (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these
components in more detail and present the take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g.,
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving, seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
CTJV's planned activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory
pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and
therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
CTJV's tunnel project includes the use of impulsive (impact hammer) and
non-impulsive (vibratory hammer) sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
dB;LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds.
Pile driving will generate underwater noise that potentially could
result in disturbance to marine mammals swimming by the project area.
Transmission loss (TL) underwater is the decrease in acoustic intensity
as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source until the
source becomes indistinguishable from ambient sound. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. A standard sound propagation model, the Practical
Spreading Loss model, was used to estimate the range from pile driving
activity to various expected SPLs at potential project structures. This
model follows a geometric propagation loss based on the distance from
the driven pile, resulting in a 4.5 dB reduction in level for each
doubling of distance from the source. In this model, the SPL at some
distance away from the source (e.g., driven pile) is governed by a
measured source level, minus the TL of the energy as it dissipates with
distance. The TL equation is:
[[Page 36528]]
TL = 15log10(R1/R2)
Where:
TL is the transmission loss in dB,
R1 is the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R2 is the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement.
The degree to which underwater noise propagates away from a noise
source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably by the water
bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive
conditions including the sea surface and sediment type. The TL model
described above was used to calculate the expected noise propagation
from both impact and vibratory pile driving, using representative
source levels to estimate the harassment zone or area exceeding
specified noise criteria.
Sound source levels from the PTST project site were not available.
Therefore, literature values published for projects similar to the PTST
project were used to estimate the amount of sound (RMS SPL) that could
potentially be produced. The PTST Project will use round, 36-inch-
diameter, hollow steel piles and 28-inch wide sheet piles. Data
reported in the Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data (Caltrans 2015)
for similar piles size and types are shown in Table 4. The use of an
encased bubble curtain is expected to reduce sound levels by 10
decibels (dB) (NAVFAC 2014, ICF Jones and Stokes 2009). Using data from
previous projects (Caltrans 2015) and the amount of sound reduction
expected from each of the sound mitigation methods, we estimated the
peak noise level (SPLpeak), the root mean squared sound pressure level
(RMS SPL), and the single strike sound exposure level (sSEL) for each
pile driving scenario of the PTST project (Table 4).
Table 4--The Sound Levels (dB Peak, dB RMS, and dB Ssel) Expected To Be Generated by Each Hammer Type/Mitigation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Estimated single
Estimated cumulative Estimated strike
Type of pile Hammer type peak noise sound pressure sound Relevant piles at the Pile function
level (dB exposure level (dB exposure PTST project
peak) level (dB RMS) level (dB
cSEL) sSEL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch Steel Pipe............... Impact \a\.......... 210 NA 193 183 Battered............. Mooring dolphins.
36-inch Steel Pipe............... Impact with Bubble 200 NA 183 173 Plumb................ Mooring dolphins and
Curtain \b\. Temporary Pier.
24-inch AZ Sheet................. Vibratory \c\....... 182 NA 155 155 Sheet................ Containment
Structure.
36-inch Steel Pipe and 36-inch Impact w/Bubble 200 NA 183 183 Plumb................ Mooring Dolphins,
Steel Pipe. Curtain at PI 1 and Temporary Pier.
PI 2.
36-inch Steel Pipe and 24-inch AZ Impact w/Bubble 200 NA 183 183 Plumb and Sheet...... Mooring Dolphins,
Sheet Pile. Curtain at PI 1 and Containment
Vibratory at PI 2. Structure.
36-inch Steel Pipe and 24-inch AZ Vibratory at PI 1 200 NA 183 183 Plumb and Sheet...... Mooring Dolphins and
Sheet Pile. and Impact w/Bubble Containment
Curtain at PI 2. Structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Examples from Caltrans 2015. These examples were the loudest provided in the Caltrans 2015 compendium for 36-inch-diameter hollow steel piles and in
the Proxy Source Sound Levels and Potential Bubble Curtain Attenuation for Acoustic Modeling of nearshore marine Pile Driving at Navy Installations in
Puget Sound (NAVFAC 2014).
\b\ Estimates of sound produced from impact that use sound mitigation measures were developed by subtracting 10 dB for an encased bubble curtain (ICF
Jones and Stokes 2009, NAVFAC 2014). A 10-dB reduction in sound for this sound mitigation method is the minimum that may be expected and, therefore,
represents a conservative estimate in sound reduction.
\c\ Example from NAVFAC 2017. Average 1-second and 10-second Broadband RMS SPL (dB re 1 [micro]Pa) for Vibratory Pile-Driving normalized to 10 meters at
JEB Little Creek.
When NMFS's Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition
of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically
challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new
thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine
mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way
to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling
methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to
quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the
output where appropriate. For stationary sources, NMFS's User
Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal
remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would
not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting
isopleths are reported below.
The Impact Pile Driving (Stationary Source: Impulsive,
Intermittent) (Sheet E.1) spreadsheet provided by NOAA Fisheries
requires inputs for assorted variables which are shown in Table 4. RMS
SPL's for simultaneous pile driving were determined using the rules for
decibel addition (WSDOT 2017). The expected number of steel piles
driven during a 24-hour period would be a maximum of eight for plumb
piles and three for battered piles for each portal island. Practical
spreading was assumed (15logR) and a pulse duration of 0.1 seconds
utilized. The distance from the source where the literature based RMS
SPL was 10 meters while the number of strikes per pile was 1,000. Model
outputs delineating PTS isopleths are provided in Table 6 assuming
impact installation of three battered round steel piles per day and
eight plumb round steel piles per day as well as vibratory installation
of up to eight sheets per day over eight hours.
The Optional User Spreadsheet for vibratory pile driving (non-
impulsive, stationary, continuous) (Sheet A) requires inputs for the
sound pressure level of the source (dB RMS SPL), the expected activity
duration in hours during per 24-hour period, the propagation of the
sound and the distance from the source at which the sound pressure
level was measured. Calculations also assumed that the expected
activity level duration would be eight hours per Portal Island per 24-
hour period. Practical spreading was assumed and the measured distance
from the sound source was 10 meters.
The inputs from Table 5 determined isopleths where PTS from
underwater sound during impact and vibratory driving as shown in Table
6. Note that
[[Page 36529]]
in the Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30,
2018) a source value of 154 dB RMS SPL was used for vibratory
installation of 28-inch sheet piles and a value of 186 dB RMS SPL was
used for simultaneous impact installation of 36-inch steel piles
employing bubble curtains. NMFS opted to use a higher source level of
155 dB RMS SPL. Since the vibratory source levels based on root-mean-
square sound pressure levels (SPLrms) and sound exposure levels metrics
were not the same value in NAVFAC 2017, neither were the source levels
based on 1-sec and 10-sec averages. These metrics should be represented
by the same value. When a difference is reported, it likely is due to
the operator averaging decibels rather than taking the linear average
of the pressures/intensities and then converting to dB. Therefore, the
higher source level has been adopted in this notice.
A source value of 186 dB RMS SPL was used to estimate the extents
of the Level A harassment zone during simultaneous impact driving of
two piles. NMFS incorrectly added 3 dB to the impact driving source
levels rather than assuming the proxy source level (186 vs. 183 dB).
NMFS has reverted to using a proxy source level of 183 dB re 1
[micro]Pa when estimating the extent of the Level A harassment zone
during simultaneous impact driving of two piles with bubble curtains.
These revisions have been included in Table 4 and Table 5. Table 6
shows user spreadsheet outputs of the radial distance from piles driven
from Portal Island 1 and Portal Island 2 to PTS isopleths.
Table 5--User Spreadsheet Inputs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.1: Impact pile E.1: Impact pile E.1: Impact pile
driving A: Stationary driving driving
Spreadsheet tab used (stationary source: non- (stationary (stationary
source: impulsive, impulsive, source: impulsive, source: impulsive,
intermittent) continuous intermittent) intermittent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Type and Hammer Type....... 36-in steel impact 28-in sheet 36-in steel impact 36-in steel impact
(battered pile). vibratory. w/bubble curtain w/bubble curtain
at P1 and P2 at P1 (plumb
(plumb piles). pile) and sheet
pile vibratory at
P2.
Source Level (RMS SPL).......... 193............... 155............... 183............... 183.
Weighting Factor Adjustment 2................. 2.5............... 2................. 2.
(kHz).
Number of strikes in 1 h OR 1,000............. NA................ 1,000............. 1,000.
number of strikes per pile.
Activity Duration (h) within 24- 3 steel piles..... 8 hours/8 sheets.. 8 steel piles per 8 steel piles.
h period OR number of piles per portal island (16
day. total).
Propagation (xLogR)............. 15................ 15................ 15................ 15.
Distance of source level 10................ 10................ 10................ 10.
measurement (meters).
Pulse Duration (seconds)........ 0.1............... NA................ 0.1............... 0.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Radial Distance (Meters) From Pile Driven From Portal Island 1 (PI 1) and Portal Island 2 (PI 2) to PTS Isopleths *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency Mid-frequency High-frequency Phocid pinnipeds
cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans ------------------------ Applicable piles in
Hammer type ------------------------------------------------------------------------ the PTST project
Island 1 Island 2 Island 1 Island 2 Island 1 Island 2 Island 1 Island 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact (battered) at PI 1 OR PI 2. 2,077.2 2,077.2 73.9 73.9 2,474.3 2,474.3 1,111.6 1,111.6 Battered Piles for
Mooring Dolphins.
Vibratory......................... 10.9 10.9 1.0 1.0 16.1 16.1 6.6 6.6 Sheet Piles for
Containment.
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) 1,366.1 1,366.1 48.6 48.6 1,627.2 1,627.2 731.1 731.1 Plumb Piles for
simultaneous at PI 1 and PI 2. temporary pier.
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) 860.6 10.9 30.6 1.0 1,025.1 16.1 460.5 6.6 Plumb Piles for
simultaneous at PI 1 and Temporary Pier and
Vibratory at PI 2. Mooring Dolphins;
Sheet Pile for
Containment.
Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/ 10.9 860.6 1.0 30.6 16.18 1,025.1 6.6 460.5 Plumb Piles for
Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 2 temporary pier and
Simultaneous. Mooring Dolphins;
Sheet Pile for
Containment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Distances based on up to 3 battered round steel piles per day, 8 plumb round steel piles per day, and up to 8 sheets per day over 8 hours.
Table 7 shows the radial distance to Level B isopleths and Table 8
shows the areas of ensonified Level B zones associated with each of the
planned driving scenarios.
Table 7--Radial Distance (Meters) From Driven Pile(s) to Level B Isopleths 1 for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radial distance (m)
Hammer type driving scenario -------------------------------- Applicable piles in the PTST
Island 1 Island 2 project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact (battered)............................. 1,584.9 1,584.9 Battered Piles for Mooring
Dolphins.
Vibratory..................................... 2,154.4 2,154.4 Sheet Piles for Containment.
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and PI 341.5 341.5 Plumb Piles for temporary pier.
2 simultaneous.
[[Page 36530]]
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and 341.5 2,154.4 Plumb Piles for Temporary Pier
Vibratory at PI 2 simultaneous. and Mooring Dolphins; Sheet
Pile for Containment.
Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble Curtain 2,154.4 341.5 Plumb Piles for temporary pier
(plumb) at PI 2 simultaneous. and Mooring Dolphins; Sheet
Pile for Containment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Level B harassment thresholds--160 dB for impact driving/120 dB for vibratory driving.
Table 8--Level B Areas (km2) for All Pile Driving Scenarios Planned for
Use During PTST Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone size
Scenario (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Simultaneous Plumb............................... 0.88
Impact Battered......................................... 8.27
Vibratory Sheet......................................... \1\ 16.49
Simultaneous Vibratory Sheet and Impact Plumb........... 16.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Level B ensonified area at Portal Island 1 = 16.37 km2 and at Portal
Island 2 = 16.49 km2. For the purposes of this IHA, NMFS will
conservatively assume that the ensonified area at both Portal Islands
= 16.49 km2.
To calculate level B disturbance zones for airborne noise from pile
driving, the spherical spreading loss equation (20LogR) was used to
determine the Level B zones. The airborne noise threshold for
behavioral harassment for all pinnipeds, except harbor seals, is 100 dB
RMS re 20 [micro]Pa (unweighted) and for harbor seals is 90 dB RMS re
20 [micro]Pa (unweighted).
Literature estimates were used to estimate the amount of in-air
sound produced from driving a pile above the MHW line (Laughlin
2010a,b). Hollow steel piles that were 30 inches in diameter were used
as a close proxy to the 36-inch-diameter hollow steel piles that will
be driven at the PTST project. AZ 24-inch sheet pile was used as a
proxy for the sheet pile to be driven during the PTST Project (Table
9). Using the spherical spreading loss model with these estimates,
Level B isopleths were estimated as shown below in Table 9. Note that
the take estimates for pinnipeds were based on surveys which included
counts of hauled out animals. Therefore, to avoid double counting,
airborne exposures are not evaluated further for purposes of estimating
take under the issued IHA. During any upland pile driving before
issuance of the IHA, however, shutdown will occur whenever pinnipeds
enter into the Level B zones as depicted below to avoid unauthorized
take.
Table 9--Radial Distance (Meters) from Pile Driven Above MHW to Level B Sound Thresholds for Harbor Seals and
Gray Seals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B harassment zone (m)
Source Sound level harassment -------------------------------
zone (m) Harbor seals Gray seals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Hammer 36- inch Pile........... 110 dBL5SEQ at 15m\a\... N/A 150 47
Vibratory Hammer Assumed equivalent to 92 dBL5SEQ at 15m....... N/A 19 6
24-in sheet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\Laughlin 2010a,b as cited in City of Unalaska 2016 IHA for Unalaska Marine Center.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations.
Humpback whales are relatively rare in the Chesapeake Bay but may
be found within or near the Chesapeake Bay at any time of the year.
Between 1998 and 2014, 11 humpback whale strandings were reported
within the Chesapeake Bay (Barco and Swingle 2014). Strandings occurred
in all seasons, but were most common in the spring. There is no
existing density data for this species within or near the Chesapeake
Bay. Populations in the mid-Atlantic have been estimated for humpback
whales off the coast of New Jersey with a density of 0.00013 per square
kilometer (Whitt et al., 2015). A similar density may be expected off
the coast of Virginia.
Bottlenose dolphins are abundant along the Virginia coast and
within the Chesapeake Bay and can be seen seen annually in Virginia
from May through October. Approximately 65 strandings are reported each
year (Barco and Swingle 2014). Stranded bottlenose dolphins have been
recorded as far north as the Potomac River in the Chesapeake Bay
(Blaylock 1985). A 2016 Navy report on the occurrence, distribution,
and density of marine mammals near Naval Station Norfolk and Virginia
Beach, Virginia provides seasonal densities of bottlenose dolphins for
inshore areas in the vicinity of the project area (Engelhaupt et al.,
2016) (Table 10).
There is little data on the occurrence of harbor porpoises in the
Chesapeake Bay. Harbor porpoises are the second most common marine
mammal to strand in Virginia waters with 58 reported strandings between
2007 through 2016. Unlike bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoises are
found in Virginia in the cooler months, primarily late winter and early
spring, and they strand primarily on ocean facing beaches (Barco et
al., 2017). Given the lack of abundance data, NMFS assumed that a
limited number of harbor porpoises (2) would be taken during each month
of planned construction in order to generate a take estimate for this
species.
Harbor seals are the most common seal in Virginia (Barco and
Swingle 2014). They can be seen resting on the rocks around the portal
islands of the CBBT from December through April. They are unlikely to
occur in the project area in the summer and early fall.
[[Page 36531]]
Survey data for in-water and hauled out harbor seals was collected by
the United States Navy at the CBBT portal islands from 2014 through
2016 (Rees et al., 2016) (Table 12). Surveys reported 112 harbor seals
in the 2014/2015 season, 185 harbor seals during the 2015/2016 season,
and 307 during the 2016/2017 season. (Rees et al., 2016; Rees et al.
2017).
Gray seals are uncommon in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay with
only 15 gray seal strandings documented in Virginia from 1988-2013
(Barco and Swingle 2014). They are rarely found resting on the rocks
around the portal islands of the CBBT from December through April
alongside harbor seals. Observation surveys conducted by the Navy at
the CBBT portal islands recorded one gray seal in the 2014/2015, two
gray seals in 2015/2016, and two gray seals in 2016/2017 seasons (Rees
et al., 2016; Rees et al. 2017).
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
The following assumptions are made when estimating potential
incidences of take:
All marine mammal individuals potentially available are
assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally
taken;
An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period;
Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant
thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
Humpback Whale
As noted previously, humpback whales are rare in the Chesapeake
Bay, although they do occur. Density off of the coast of New Jersey,
and presumably Virginia and Maryland, is extremely low (0.00013
animals/km\2\). Because density is extremely low, CTJV has requested
and NMFS is authorizing one Level B take every two months for the
duration of in-water pile driving activities. Pile driving activities
are expected to occur over a 10-month period. Therefore, a total of 5
Level B takes of humpback whales is authorized by NMFS.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Total number of takes for bottlenose dolphin were calculated using
the seasonal density described above (individuals/km\2\/day) of animals
within the inshore study area at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay
(Englehaupt et al., 2016). Project specific dolphin densities were
calculated within the respective Level B harassment zone and season.
Densities were then used to calculate the seasonal takes based on the
number and type of pile driving days per season. For example, the
density of dolphins in summer months is assumed to be 3.55 dolphins/
km\2\ * 0.88 km\2\ (harassment zone for Simultaneous Plumb Pile driving
as shown in Table 8) = 3.12 dolphins/km\2\ per day in summer as shown
in Table 11. This density was then multiplied by number of simultaneous
plumb pile driving days to provide takes for that season (e.g. 3.12
dolphins/km\2\ * 24 days = 74.88 estimated summer exposures from
simultaneous plumb pile driving). The sum of the anticipated number of
seasonal takes resulted in 4,740 estimated exposures as shown in Table
10 split among three stocks. There is insufficient information to
apportion the takes precisely to the three stocks present in the area.
Given that members of the NNCES stock are thought to occur in or near
the Bay in very small numbers, and only during July and August, we will
conservatively assume that no more than 100 of the takes will be from
this stock. Most animals from this stock spend the summer months in
Pamlico Sound and the range of species extends as far south as
Beaufort, NC. In colder months, animals are thought to go no farther
north than Pamlico Sound. Since members of the southern migratory
coastal and northern migratory coastal stocks are known to occur in or
near the Bay in greater numbers, we will conservatively assume that no
more than half of the remaining animals (2,320) will accrue to either
of these stocks. The largest level B zone for mid-frequency cetaceans
occurs during vibratory driving and extends out 2,154.4 meters. The
largest Level A isopleth is 73.9 meters and would occur during
installation of three battered piles on a single day. NMFS proposes a
shutdown zone that extends 200 m, so no Level A take is authorized.
Table 10--Summary of Information Used To Calculate Bottlenose Dolphin Exposures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density Estimated Total number
Season (individuals number of pile of requested
per km\2\) driving days takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer 2018..................................................... 3.55 45 866.37
Fall 2018....................................................... 3.88 77 2745.94
Winter 2019..................................................... 0.63 70 962.62
Spring 2019..................................................... 1.00 10 194.9
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 4,740
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11--Seasonal Daily Take by Driving Scenario (Seasonal Density * Scenario Zone Size) and Estimated Number of Driving Days per Season
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simultaneous
Impact Impact batter Vibratory sheet vibratory sheet
Season simultaneous daily take (days/ daily take (days/ and impact plumb Number of pile
plumb daily take season) season) daily take (days/ driving days
(days/season) season)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer........................................................ 3.12 (24) 29.35 (15) 58.54 (6) 58.54 (0) 45
Fall.......................................................... 3.41 (36) 32.10 (0) 63.98 (41) 63.98 (0) 77
Winter........................................................ 0.55 (12) 5.21 (0) 10.39 (34) 10.39 (24) 70
Spring........................................................ 0.88 (0) 8.27 (0) 16.49 (9) 16.49 (1) 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36532]]
Harbor Porpoise
Little is known about the abundance of harbor porpoises in the
Chesapeake Bay. A recent survey of the Maryland Wind Energy Area found
that porpoises occur frequently offshore January to May (Wingfield et
al., 2017). This finding reflects the pattern of winter and spring
strandings in the mid-Atlantic. NMFS will assume that there is a
porpoise sighting once during every two months of operations. That
would equate to five sightings over ten months. Assuming an average
group size of two results in a total estimated take of 10 porpoises.
Harbor porpoises are members of the high-frequency hearing group which
would have Level A isopleths as large of 2,474 meters during impact
installation of three battered piles per day. Given the relatively
large Level A zones during impact driving, NMFS will assume that 40
precent of porpoises are taken by Level A harassment. Therefore, NMFS
authorizes the take of 4 porpoises by Level A take and 6 porpoises by
Level B take.
Harbor Seal
The number of harbor seals expected to be present in the PTST
project area was estimated using survey data for in-water and hauled
out seals collected by the United States Navy at the portal islands in
2016 and 2017 (Rees et al., 2017). The survey data revealed a maximum
of 40 animals observed per day. The maximum number of seals per day
(40) was multiplied by the total number of driving days (202) resulting
in an estimated 8,080 harbor seal takes. The largest level B zone would
occur during vibratory driving and extends out 2,154.4 meters from the
sound source. The largest Level A isopleth is 1,111.6 meters which
would occur during impact installation of three battered piles. The
smallest Level A zone during impact driving is 6.6 meters meters which
would occur when a single steel pile is impact driven at the same time
that vibratory driving of sheet piles is occurring. NMFS authorized a
shutdown zone for harbor seals of 15 meters since seals are common in
the project area and are known to approach the shoreline. A larger
shutdown zone would likely result in multiple shutdowns and impede the
project schedule. NMFS will assume that 40 percent of the exposed seals
will occur within the Level A zone specified for a given scenario.
Therefore, NMFS authorizes the Level A take of 3,232 and Level B take
of 4,848 harbor seals.
Gray Seals
The number of gray seals potentially exposed to Level B harassment
in the project area was calculated using survey data recording gray
seal observations was collected by the U.S. Navy at the portal islands
from 2014 through 2016 (Rees et al., 2016). Potential gray seal
exposures were calculated as the number of potential seals per pile
driving day (8 hours) multiplied by the number of pile driving days per
month. The anticipated numbers of monthly exposures as shown in Table
13 were summed. Therefore, NMFS has authorized the take of 67 gray
seals by Level B harassment. The Level A isopleths for gray seals are
identical to those for harbor seals. With a shutdown zone of 15 meters,
NMFS recommended the Level A take of 40 percent of gray seals.
Therefore, NMFS authorizes the Level A take of 27 and Level B take of
40 gray seals.
Table 13--Calculation for the Number of Gray Seal Exposures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total pile
driving days
Estimated per month Gray seal
Month seals per work (includes takes
day upland
driving)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2018....................................................... Seals not expected to be present.
July 2018....................................................... Seals not expected to be present.
August 2018..................................................... Seals not expected to be present.
September 2018.................................................. Seals not expected to be present.
October 2018.................................................... Seals not expected to be present.
-----------------------------------------------
November 2018................................................... 0 27 0
December 2018................................................... 0 24 0
January 2019.................................................... 0 42 0
February 2019................................................... 1.6 42 67
March 2019...................................................... 0 11 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 14 provides a summary of authorized Level B takes as well as
the percentage of a stock or population authorized for take.
Table 14--Authorized Take and Percentage of Stock or Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Authorized Percent
Species Stock Level A takes Level B takes population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale........................ Gulf of Maine........... .............. 5 1.5
Bottlenose dolphin.................... WNA Coastal, Northern .............. 2,320 20.1
Migratory.
WNA Coastal, Southern .............. 2,320 25.2
Migratory.
NNCES................... .............. 100 12.1
Harbor porpoise....................... Gulf of Maine/Bay of 4 6 <0.01
Fundy.
Harbor seal........................... Western North Atlantic.. 3,232 4,848 10.6
Gray seal............................. Western North Atlantic.. 27 40 0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36533]]
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
The following mitigation measures are contained in the IHA:
Pile Driving Delay/Shutdown Zone--For in-water heavy
machinery work (using, e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted
excavators, or clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), a
minimum 10 meters shutdown zone shall be implemented. If a marine
mammal comes within 10 meters of such operations, operations shall
cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to
maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This type of work could
include (but is not limited to) the following activities: (1) Vibratory
pile driving; (2) movement of the barge to the pile location; (3)
positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing
the pile); or (4) removal of the pile from the water column/substrate
via a crane (i.e., deadpull).
Non-authorized Take Prohibited--If a species for which
authorization has not been granted (e.g., North Atlantic right whale,
fin whale) or a species for which authorization has been granted but
the authorized takes are met, is observed approaching or within the
Level B Isopleth, pile driving and removal activities must shut down
immediately using delay and shut-down procedures. Activities must not
resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or an
observation time period of 15 minutes has elapsed.
Use of Impact Installation--During pile installation of
hollow steel piles, an impact hammer rather than a vibratory hammer
will be used to reduce the duration of pile driving decrease the ZOI
for marine mammals.
Cushion Blocks--Use of cushion blocks will be required
during impact installation. Cushion blocks reduce source levels and, by
association, received levels, although exact decreases in sound levels
are unknown.
Use of Bubble Curtain--An encased bubble curtain will be
used for impact installation of plumb round piles at water depths
greater than 3 m (10 ft). Bubble curtains will not function effectively
in shallower depths. shall employ a bubble curtain during impact pile
driving of steel piles. CTJV shall implement the following performance
standards: (1) The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around
100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water
column; (2) the lowest bubble ring shall be in contact with the mudline
for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights attached to the
bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the
ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline contact; and (3) CTJV
will require that construction contractors train personnel in the
proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers, and shall require that
construction contractors submit an inspection/performance report for
approval by the CTJV within 72 hours following the performance test.
Corrections to the attenuation device to meet the performance standards
shall occur prior to impact driving.
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. A soft-
start procedure will be used for impact pile driving at the beginning
of each day's in-water pile driving or any time impact pile driving has
ceased for more than 30 minutes. The CTJV will start the bubble curtain
prior to the initiation of impact pile driving. The contractor will
provide an initial set of strikes from the impact hammer at reduced
energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent
sets.
Establishment of Additional Shutdown Zones and Monitoring
Zones--For all impact and vibratory pile driving shutdown and
monitoring zones will be established and monitored.
CTJV will establish a shutdown zone of 200 meters for
common dolphins and harbor porpoises and 15 meters for harbor and gray
seals. The shutdown zones for humpback whales are depicted in Table 16.
For all impact and vibratory pile driving shutdown and
monitoring zones will be established and monitored. Level B zones are
shown in Table 15.
Table 15--Radial Distance (Meters) From Pile Driven to Level B Isopleths
for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radial distance (m)
Hammer type driving scenario -------------------------------
Island 1 Island 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact (battered)....................... 1,585 1,585
Vibratory............................... 2,155 2,155
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 345 345
and PI 2 simultaneous..................
Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 345 2,155
and Vibratory at PI 2 simultaneous.....
[[Page 36534]]
Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble 2,155 345
Curtain (plumb) at PI 2 simultaneous...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Level A zones will depend on the number of piles
driven and the presence of marine mammals per 24-hour period. Up to 3
battered piles or 8 plumb steel piles will be driven per 24-hour period
using the following adaptive monitoring approach. Monitoring will begin
each day using the three-pile Level A zone for battered piles (or
eight-pile zone for plumb piles). If after the first pile is driven, no
marine mammals have been observed in the Level A zone, then the Level A
zone will reduce to the two-pile zone. If no marine mammals are
observed within the two-pile shutdown zone during the driving of the
second pile, then the Level A zone will reduce to the one-pile zone.
However, if a mammal is observed approaching or entering the three-pile
Level A zone during the driving of the first pile, then the three-pile
Level A zone will be monitored for the remainder of pile driving
activities for that day. Likewise, if a marine mammal is observed
within the two-pile but not the three-pile Level A zone, then the two-
pile Level A zone will be monitored for the remainder of pile driving
activities for that day. The same protocol will be followed for
installation of up to 8 plumb piles per day.
The Level A isopleths for all authorized species are shown in Table
16. Isopeths associated with low-frequency cetaceans will signify
shutdown zones for humpback whales.
Table 16--Radial Distance (Meters) From Driven Pile to PTS Zones for Cetaceans and Phocid Pinnipeds for
Scenarios Involving Impact Hammer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simultaneous
Impact hammer Driving--
with bubble Vibratory hammer
Class of marine mammals Piles per day Impact hammer curtain and impact
(battered pile) simultaneous hammer with
(plumb pile) ** bubble curtain
(plumb pile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency Cetaceans *............... 8 N/A 1,366 860.6
7 N.A 1,249.1 787.3
6 N/A 1,127.7 710.4
5 N/A 998.6 629.1
4 N/A 860.6 542.1
3 2,077.2 710.4 447.5
2 1,585.2 542.1 341.5
1 998.6 341.5 215.1
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans................. 8 N/A 48 30.6
7 N/A 44.4 28.0
6 N/A 40.1 25.3
5 N/A 35.5 22.4
4 N/A 30.6 19.3
3 73.9 25.3 15.9
2 56.4 19.3 12.1
1 35.5 12.1 7.7
High Frequency Cetaceans................ 8 N/A 1,627 1,025.1
7 N/A 1,488.6 937.8
6 N/A 1,343.3 846.2
5 N/A 1,189.5 749.4
4 N/A 1,025.1 645.8
3 2,474.3 846.2 533.1
2 1,888.3 645.8 406.8
1 1,189.5 406.8 256.3
Phocid Pinnipeds........................ 8 N/A 731 460.5
7 N/A 68.8 412.3
6 N/A 603.5 380.2
5 N/A 534.4 336.7
4 N/A 460.5 290.1
3 1,111.6 380.2 239.5
2 848.3 290.1 182.8
1 534.4 182.8 115.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These isopleths serve as shutdown zones for all large whales, including humpback and fin whales.
** Assumes 1 pile installed at each island per day ranging from maximum of 16 piles to minimum of 2 piles.
[[Page 36535]]
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's suggested measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
planned action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance
as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring
The following visual monitoring measures are contained in the IHA:
Pre-activity monitoring shall take place from 30 minutes
prior to initiation of pile driving activity and post-activity
monitoring shall continue through 30 minutes post-completion of pile
driving activity. Pile driving may commence at the end of the 30-minute
pre-activity monitoring period, provided observers have determined that
the shutdown zone is clear of marine mammals, which includes delaying
start of pile driving activities if a marine mammal is sighted in the
zone.
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone
during activities or pre-activity monitoring, all pile driving
activities at that location shall be halted or delayed, respectively.
If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine
mammal, the activity may not resume or commence until either the animal
has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown
zone and 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single
pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of
the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.
Monitoring distances, in accordance with the identified
shutdown zones, Level A zones and Level B zones, will be determined by
using a range finder, scope, hand-held global positioning system (GPS)
device or landmarks with known distances from the monitoring positions.
A minimum of two PSOs will be required during all pile
driving activities. Monitoring locations shall be based on land both at
Portal Island No. 1 and Portal Island No. 2 during simultaneous driving
or on the Portal Island with active driving during non-simultaneous
driving.
Monitoring will be continuous unless the contractor takes
a break longer than 2 hours from active pile and sheet pile driving, in
which case, monitoring will be required 30 minutes prior to restarting
pile installation.
If marine mammals are observed, their location within the
zones, and their reaction (if any) to pile activities will be
documented.
If weather or sea conditions restrict the observer's
ability to observe, or become unsafe, pile installation will be
suspended until conditions allow for monitoring to resume.
For in-water pile driving, under conditions of fog or poor
visibility that might obscure the presence of a marine mammal within
the shutdown zone, the pile in progress will be completed and then pile
driving suspended until visibility conditions improve.
Monitoring of pile driving shall be conducted by qualified
PSOs (see below), who shall have no other assigned tasks during
monitoring periods. CVTJV shall adhere to the following conditions when
selecting observers:
(1) Independent PSOs shall be used (i.e., not construction
personnel).
(2) At least one PSO must have prior experience working as a marine
mammal observer during construction activities.
(3) Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological
science or related field) or training for experience.
(4) CTJV shall submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS.
CTJV will ensure that observers have the following
additional qualifications:
(1) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols.
(2) Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals, including the identification of behaviors.
(3) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations.
(4) 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, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation
(or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine
mammal behavior.
(5) 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.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal
activities. It will include an overall description of work completed, a
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated marine
mammal observation data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
[[Page 36536]]
Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile
types, average driving times, etc.;
Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility); and
Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state).
For each marine mammal sighting:
(1) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine
mammals;
(2) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile
driving activity;
(3) Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
(4) Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the Level
A Level B zone;
Description of implementation of mitigation measures
within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay); and
Other human activity in the area.
A summary of the following:
(1) Total number of individuals of each species detected within the
Level A and Level B Zone, and estimated as taken if correction factor
is applied.
(2) Daily average number of individuals of each species
(differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the Level A
and Level B Zone, and estimated as taken, if correction factor is
applied.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report will constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA
(if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, CTJV would
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region New England/Mid-
Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the
following information:
Description of the incident;
Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state,
visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with CTJV to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. CTJV would not be able to
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that CTJV discovers an injured or dead marine mammal,
and the lead PSO 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 as described in the next paragraph),
CTJV would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS Greater Atlantic Region New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional
Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the same information
identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work
with CTJV to determine whether modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that CTJV discovers an injured or dead marine mammal
and the lead PSO 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, or scavenger damage), CTJV would report the incident to
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region New England/Mid-
Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the
discovery. CTJV would provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
CTJV's planned pile driving activities are highly localized. Only a
relatively small portion of the Chesapeake Bay may be affected. The
project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on marine
mammal habitat. No important feeding and/or reproductive areas for
marine mammals are known to be near the project area. Project-related
activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus
temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a
limited portion of their foraging range, but because of the relatively
small impacted area of the habitat range utilized by each species that
may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected
to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
A limited number of animals could experience Level A harassment in
the form of PTS if they remain within the Level A harassment zone
during certain impact driving scenarios. The sizes of the Level A zones
are dependent on the number of steel piles driven in a 24-hour period.
Up to 8 steel plumb piles or 3 steel battered piles could be driven in
a single day, which would result in a relatively large Level A zones.
(If fewer piles are driven per day then the Level A zones would be
smaller). However, an animal would have to be within the Level A zones
during the driving of all 8 plumb or 3 battered piles. This is
unlikely, as marine mammals tend to move away from sound sources.
Furthermore, the degree of injury is expected to be mild and is not
likely to affect the reproduction or survival of the individual
animals. It is expected that, if hearing impairments occurs, most
likely the affected animal
[[Page 36537]]
would lose a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is
not likely to affect its survival and recruitment.
Exposures to elevated sound levels produced during pile driving
activities may cause behavioral responses by an animal, but they are
expected to be mild and temporary. Effects on individuals that are
taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature
as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be
limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased
surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring)
(e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; 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. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside
quickly when the exposures cease. The pile driving activities analyzed
here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous construction
activities conducted in numerous other locations on the east coast,
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 permanent
hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior.
Furthermore, Level B harassment will be reduced through use of
mitigation measures described herein.
CTJV will employ noise attenuating devices (i.e., bubble curtains,
pile caps) during impact driving of plumb steel piles. During impact
driving of both plumb and battered piles, implementation of soft start
procedures and monitoring of established shutdown zones will be
required, significantly reduces any possibility of injury. Given
sufficient notice through use of soft start (for impact driving),
marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source. PSOs will
be stationed on a portal island whenever pile driving operations are
underway at that island. The portal island locations provide a
relatively clear view of the shutdown zones as well as monitoring
zones. These factors will limit exposure of animals to noise levels
that could result in injury.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated;
The area of potential impacts is highly localized;
No adverse impacts to marine mammal habitat;
The absence of any significant habitat within the project
area, including rookeries, or known areas or features of special
significance for foraging or reproduction;
Anticipated incidents of Level A harassment would likely
be mild;
Anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at
worst, temporary modifications in behavior; and
The anticipated efficacy of the required mitigation
measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity.
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 monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal
species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of
the activities.
NMFS has determined that the estimated Level B take of humpback
whale is 1.5 percent of the Gulf of Maine stock; take of harbor seals
is 10.6 percent of the Western North Atlantic stock; take of gray seals
is 0.25 percent of the Western North Atlantic stock; and take of harbor
porpoise is <0.01 percent of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock.
Total estimated take of bottlenose dolphins is 4,740. NMFS assumes 100
takes accruing to the NNCES stock and no more than half (2,300) of the
remaining takes accruing to either of two migratory coastal stocks.
This stock division represents 12.1 percent of the NCCES stock, 20.1
percent of the Western North Atlantic northern migratory coastal stock
and 25.2 percent of the Western North Atlantic southern migratory
coastal stock. Additionally, some number of the anticipated takes are
likely to be repeat sightings of the same individual, lowering the
number of individuals taken.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the
affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
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.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality
of the human environment and for which we have not identified any
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the
IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat.
[[Page 36538]]
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected
to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that
formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this
action.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to CTJV for conducting pile driving and
removal activities as part of the PTST project between August 1, 2018
through July 31, 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: July 25, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-16204 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
