Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project in Virginia Beach, Virginia, 16061-16077 [2020-05802]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
Background
On September 3, 2019, Commerce
published in the Federal Register a
notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on heavy
walled rectangular welded carbon steel
pipes and tubes from Korea for the
period September 1, 2018 through
August 31, 2019.1 In September 2019,
Commerce received timely requests, in
accordance with section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
to conduct an administrative review of
this antidumping duty order from
Independence Tube Corporation and
Southland Tube Incorporated,
collectively Nucor Pipe Mills (the
petitioner), HiSteel Co., Ltd., Dong-A
Steel Co., Ltd., and Kukje Steel Co., Ltd..
Based upon these requests, on
November 12, 2019, in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Act, Commerce
published in the Federal Register a
notice of initiation listing 22 companies
for which Commerce received timely
requests for review.2
In February 2020, all interested
parties timely withdrew their request for
an administrative review of certain
companies.3 These companies are listed
in Appendix I.
Partial Rescission
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if a party
who requested the review withdraws
the request within 90 days of the date
of publication of notice of initiation of
the requested review. As noted above,
certain parties withdrew their requests
for review by the 90-day deadline.
Accordingly, we are rescinding this
administrative review with respect to
the companies listed in Appendix I.4
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Assessment
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Antidumping duties shall be
assessed at rates equal to the cash
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 84 FR 45949
(September 3, 2019).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 84 FR
61011 (November 12, 2019) (Initiation Notice).
3 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Heavy Walled
Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
from the Republic of Korea: Partial Withdrawal of
Request for Administrative Review,’’ dated
February 10, 2020.
4 We note that although we are rescinding on the
companies listed in Appendix I, these companies
may still be subject to this administrative review if
we find them to be an affiliate of any of the
mandatory respondents in this review listed in
Appendix II.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
deposit of estimated antidumping duties
required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends
to issue appropriate assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a reminder to
importers of their responsibility under
19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in
Commerce’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of doubled antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written
notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: March 16, 2020.
James Maeder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
Appendix I
Ahshin Pipe & Tube Company
Bookook Steel Co., Ltd.
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.
G.S. ACE Industry Co., Ltd.
Ganungol Industries Co., Ltd.
Hanjin Steel Pipe
Husteel Co., Ltd.
Hyosung Corporation
Hyundai Steel Co.
Hyundai Steel Pipe Company
K Steel Co., Ltd.
Miju Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd.
POSCO DAEWOO
Sam Kang Industrial Co., Ltd.
Samson Controls Ltd., Co.
SeAH Steel Corporation
Shin Steel Co., Ltd.
Yujin Steel Industry Co. Ltd.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16061
Appendix II
Dong-A Steel Co., Ltd.
HiSteel Co., Ltd.
Kukje Steel Co., Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2020–05812 Filed 3–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XR035]
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:
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 the
Chesapeake Tunnel Joint Venture
(CTJV) to incidentally take, by Level A
harassment and Level B harassment,
five species of marine mammals during
the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel
Project (PTST) in Virginia Beach,
Virginia.
DATES: This Authorization is effective
from March 10, 2020 through March 09,
2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert 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/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case
of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce
(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16062
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
incidental take authorization may be
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other means of effecting the least
practicable [adverse] impact on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in shorthand as
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth.
The definitions of all applicable
MMPA statutory terms cited above are
included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On May 24, 2019, NMFS received a
request from the CTJV for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to pile
driving and removal at the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge and Tunnel (CBBT) near
Virginia Beach, Virginia. The
application was deemed adequate and
complete on October 11, 2019. The
CTJV’s request is for take of small
numbers of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina),
gray seal (Halichoerus grypus),
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
and humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) by Level A and Level B
harassment. Neither the CTJV nor NMFS
expects serious injury or mortality to
result from this activity and, therefore,
an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Activity
Overview
The CTJV requested authorization for
take of marine mammals incidental to
in-water construction activities
associated with the PTST project. The
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 of
the CBBT facility which extends across
the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay near
Virginia Beach, Virginia. 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 facility. Construction will include
the installation and removal of 812 piles
over 198 days as shown below in Table
1. Due to minor construction design
changes, the Federal Register notice
announcing the proposed IHA (84 FR
64847; November 25, 2019), had
originally estimated that there were
would be 878 piles installed and
removed over 188 days.
In-water activities associated with the
project include impact driving,
vibratory driving and drilling with
down-the-hole (DTH) hammers. Some
piles will be removed via vibratory
hammer. Work will occur during
standard daylight hours of
approximately 8–12 hours per day
depending on the season. In-water work
will occur every month with the
exception of February 2021. In-water
construction associated with this IHA
will begin in winter of 2020.
The PTST project has been divided
into four phases over 5 years. Phase I
commenced in June 2017 and consisted
of upland pre-tunnel excavation
activities, while Phase IV is scheduled
to be completed in May of 2022. Inwater activities are limited to Phase II
and, potentially, Phase IV (if
substructure repair work is required at
the fishing pier and/or bridge trestles
and abutments). Take of marine
mammals authorized under this IHA
will occur for one year from the date of
issuance.
A detailed description of the planned
activities is provided in the Federal
Register notice announcing the
proposed IHA (84 FR 64847; November
25, 2019). Since that time the CTJV has
made minor revisions to the project’s
construction schedule. The project is
now planned to occur over 11 months
with no in-water activity in February
2021. The project schedule contained in
the proposed IHA was to occur over 10
months with no in-water work during
September and October of 2020. The inwater activities described in the
proposed IHA Federal Register notice
generally remain the same. Any changes
from the proposed IHA Federal Register
notice are identified in this notice.
Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to the
proposed IHA Federal Register notice
for a detailed description of the activity.
TABLE 1—PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PTST PROJECT
Number
of days
per
activity
(total)
No
No
No
No
Yes
120
................
58
................
................
18
................
20
................
20
18
14
20
10
20
Piles/Day) ..
Piles/Day).
Piles/day) ..
Piles/day).
Piles/day).
1 May 2020 through 20
June 2020.
7 Feb 2019 through 7
June 2020.
DTH (Install) .................
Impact ..........................
DTH (install) .................
Impact ..........................
No
Yes
No
Yes
18
................
133
................
9
................
27
................
9 Days (2 Piles/Day) ....
6 Days (3 Piles/Day).
27 Days (5 Piles/Day ...
13 Days (10 Piles/Day).
7 Feb 2020 through 28
April 2020.
7 Feb 2020 through 1
June 2020.
36-inch Diameter Steel
DTH (Install) .................
Interlocked Pipe Piles. Impact ..........................
No
Yes
121
................
25
................
25 Days (5 Piles/Day) ..
12 Days (10 Piles/Day).
7 Feb 2020 through 1
September 2020.
No
12
3
3 Days (5 Piles/Day) ....
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
60
................
28
................
124
................
9
................
14
................
25
................
9 Days (7 Piles/Day) ....
7 Days (9 Piles/Day).
14 Days (2 Piles/Day) ..
12 Days (3 Piles/Day).
25 Days ( 5 Piles/Day)
13 Days (10 Piles/Day).
7 Feb 2020 through 31
October 2020.
20 June 2020 through
1 August 2020.
1 June 2020 through
30 September 2020.
1 July 2020 through 6
Feb 2021.
Pile function
Pile type
Installation/removal
method
Portal Island No. 1 ........
Mooring dolphins .........
12-inch Timber piles ....
Portal Island No. 1 ........
Temporary Dock ..........
Portal Island No. 1 ........
Omega Trestle .............
Portal Island No. 1 ........
Portal Island No. 2 ........
Berm Support of Excavation Wall—West
Side.
Berm Support of Excavation Wall—East
Side.
Mooring Piles and
Templates.
Mooring Dolphins .........
42-inch Diameter Steel
Pipe Casing *.
36-inch Diameter Steel
Pipe Pile.
36-inch Diameter Steel
Pipe Piles.
36-inch Diameter Steel
Interlocked Pipe Piles.
Vibratory (Install) ..........
Impact (if needed) ........
DTH (install) .................
Vibratory (removal) ......
Impact ..........................
Portal Island No. 2 ........
Omega Trestle .............
Portal Island No. 2 ........
Berm Support of Excavation Wall—West
Side.
Portal Island No. 1 ........
Portal Island No. 1 ........
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Number
of piles
below
MHW
Pile location
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Bubble
curtain
(yes/no)
36-inch Diameter Steel
Pipe Piles.
12-inch Timber Piles ....
Vibratory (Install & Removal).
Vibratory (Install) ..........
Impact (if needed) ........
36-inch Diameter Steel
DTH (Install) .................
Pipe Piles.
Impact ..........................
36-inch Diameter Steel
DTH (Install) .................
Interlocked Pipe Piles. Impact ..........................
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
Number of days per
activity
(per hammer type) full
production
Days
Days
Days
Days
Days
20MRN1
(7
(9
(3
(6
(3
Anticipated installation
date
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
16063
TABLE 1—PILE DRIVING ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PTST PROJECT—Continued
Number
of piles
below
MHW
Number
of days
per
activity
(total)
Number of days per
activity
(per hammer type) full
production
Anticipated installation
date
No
Yes
122
................
25
................
25 Days (5 Piles/Day) ..
13 Days (10 Piles/Day).
10 September 2020
through 6 Feb 2021.
No
16
3
3 Days (6 Piles/Day) ....
1 March 2020 through
31 October 2020.
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................................
812 Piles
198 Days
Pile location
Pile function
Portal Island No. 2 ........
Berm Support of Excavation Wall—East
Side.
Mooring Piles and
Templates.
Portal Island No. 2 ........
36-inch Diameter Steel
Pipe Piles.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue
an IHA to the CTJV was published in
the Federal Register on November 25,
2019 (84 FR 64847). That notice
described, in detail, the CTJV’s planned
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 a
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/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities.
Comment 1: The Commission
recommends that NMFS refrain from
publishing for public comment
proposed incidental harassment
authorizations which contain errors and
inconsistencies in the basic underlying
information and instead return such
applications to action proponents as
incomplete.
Response: NMFS thanks the
Commission for its recommendation.
NMFS reviews the notices thoroughly
prior to publication and, despite certain
errors noted by the Commission,
publishes (in this case and others)
proposals that are based on the best
scientific evidence available and that
are sufficient to facilitate public
comment on our proposed actions under
the MMPA.
Comment 2: The Commission
recommended that NMFS resolve
differences between Table 1 and Table
7 in the proposed IHA concerning the
number of piles driven per day
Response: The CTJV revised the
project schedule and has arrived at 812
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Bubble
curtain
(yes/no)
36-inch Diameter Steel
DTH (Install) .................
Interlocked Pipe Piles. Impact ..........................
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures are described in detail later in
this document (please see Mitigation
and Monitoring and Reporting sections).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Installation/removal
method
Pile type
Jkt 250001
Vibratory (Install & Removal).
total piles driven and removed over 198
days of driving operations as shown in
Table 1 in this notice.
Comment 3: The Commission
recommended that NMFS refrain from
reducing the number of piles to be
installed/removed per day by 50 percent
in order to calculate take by Level A
harassment. If NMFS intends to use a
50-percent reduction in the number of
piles to be installed/removed per day,
the Commission recommended that
NMFS implement that reduction
consistently for all pile sizes, types, and
installation/removal methods.
Response: For purposes of estimated
take by Level A harassment, NMFS
assumed that the number of piles
installed on a given day was 50 percent
of the total planned number. Since the
marine mammals proposed for
authorization are highly mobile, it is
unlikely that an animal would remain
within an established Level A
harassment zone during the installation/
removal of multiple piles throughout a
given day. To provide a more realistic
estimate of take by Level A harassment,
NMFS assumed that an animal would
occur within the injury zone for 50
percent of the driving time, which
equates to 50 percent of the piles
planned for installation/removal. NMFS
acknowledges the necessity of
implementing this reduction across all
pile sizes, types, and installation/
removal methods and has done so as
shown in Table 5.
Comment 4: In the absence of relevant
recovery time data for marine mammals,
the Commission recommended that
animat modeling be used to inform the
appropriate accumulation time to
determine injury isopleths and estimate
takes by Level A harassment. The
Commission also recommended that
NMFS continue to make this issue a
priority to resolve in the near future and
consider incorporating animat modeling
into its user spreadsheet.
Response: NMFS appreciates the
Commission’s interest in this issue, and
considers the issue a priority.
Comment 5: The Commission
recommends that NMFS consult with
acousticians regarding the appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
source level reduction factor to use to
minimize near-field (<100 m) and farfield (>100 m) effects on marine
mammals or use the data NMFS has
compiled regarding source level
reductions at 10 m for near-field effects
and assume no source level reduction
for far-field effects for all relevant
incidental take authorizations.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
Commission regarding this issue, and
does not adopt the recommendation.
The Commission has raised this concern
before and NMFS refers readers to our
full response, which may be found in a
previous notice of issuance of an IHA
(84 FR 64833, November 25, 2019).
Comment 6: The Commission
recommended that NMFS use the
untruncated seasonal densities for
bottlenose dolphins from Engelhaupt et
al. (2016), consistent with the previous
authorization and the July 2019
monitoring data, to estimate the
numbers of Level B harassment takes.
Response: NMFS has accepted the
Commission’s recommendation and will
use untruncated data from Engelhaupt
et al. (2016) to estimate take of
bottlenose dolphins as shown in Table
9 of this notice of issuance.
Comment 7: The Commission
reiterates programmatic
recommendations regarding NMFS’
potential use of the renewal mechanism
for one-year IHAs.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
Commission’s recommendations, as
stated in our previous comment
responses relating to other actions,
which we incorporate here by reference
(e.g., 84 FR 52464; October 2, 2019).
Changes From the Proposed IHA to the
Final IHA
Stock abundance updates to Table 2
(Marine Mammal Species Likely To
Occur Near the Project Area) were made
in this notice for North Atlantic right
whale, fin whale, the coastal southern
migratory stock of bottlenose dolphin,
harbor porpoise, and humpback whale
based on the 2019 draft Stock
Assessment Report published on
November 27, 2019 (84 FR 65353).
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16064
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
NMFS indicated in the Federal
Register notice that the IHA would
cover in-water activities beginning in
the fall 2019. However, activities will
not begin until the authorization is
issued in winter 2019. NMFS also
indicated in the proposed IHA Federal
Register notice that up to 888 piles
would be driven and/or removed. The
CTJV has since clarified that 812 piles
will be driven and/or removed over 198
days during the effective period of the
issued IHA. The construction schedule
has been revised and now includes inwater activity over 11 months, with
none in February, instead of 10 months
of activity, with none in September or
October as indicated in the proposed
IHA Federal Register notice.
Additionally, there will be no vibratory
removal of 12-in timber piles as
described in the proposed IHA.
Temporary 12-in timber piles will either
be cut off at the mudline or undergo
vibratory removal as part of future work
for which a separate IHA may be
requested. While vibratory installation
of timber piles will occur, there are no
references to vibratory removal of 12-in
timber piles in this Federal Register
notice of issuance.
NMFS indicated in the proposed
Federal Register notice that the source
level for impact driving of 12-in piles
originated from the Ballena project
described in Caltrans (2015). However,
that referenced source level came from
only a single pile. The correct source
levels according to Caltrans (2015) are
180 dB re 1 mPa peak, 170 dB re 1 mPa
rms, and 160 dB re 1 mPa2-sec at 10 m.
NMFS has included the updated
information in Table 4 and Table 5 of
this notice and updated the Level A and
B harassment zones and numbers of
takes accordingly. NMFS incorrectly
specified in Table 9 of the proposed IHA
Federal Register notice the Level B
harassment zone for impact installation
of 36-in piles as 1,555 m rather than
1,585 m and for vibratory installation/
removal of 12-in timber piles as 1,354 m
rather than 1,359 m. NMFS has made
the appropriate corrections to Table 7 of
this notice and revised numbers of takes
accordingly.
NMFS has included in the issued IHA
a requirement that at least two protected
species observers (PSOs) will be
required to monitor before, during, and
after the proposed pile-driving and
-removal activities.
NMFS has included language
requiring extrapolation of the numbers
of Level A harassment takes in the
issued IHA as well Level B harassment
takes based on the extents of the zones
that could be monitored. Finally, take
numbers for all authorized species have
been revised and are described in the
Estimated Take section and listed in
Table 10.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Table 2 lists all species with expected
potential for occurrence near the project
area 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 (2019). PBR is defined by the
MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing
that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as
described in NMFS’s SARs). While no
mortality is anticipated or authorized
here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources
are included here as gross indicators of
the status of the species and other
threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’s stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’s 2018 United States Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock
Assessments (Hayes et al. 2019) and
draft 2019 United States Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock
Assessments published in the Federal
Register on November 27, 2019 (84 FR
65353). All values presented in Table 2
are the most recent available at the time
of publication and are available in the
2018 SAR and draft 2019 SAR.
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae:
North Atlantic right whale 5 ......
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Humpback whale ..............
Fin whale 5 ........................
Eubalaena glacialis ................
Western North Atlantic (WNA)
E, D; Y
428 (0, 418; See SAR) ..........
0.8
5.55
Megaptera novaeangliae ........
Balaenoptera physalus ...........
Gulf of Maine ..........................
WNA .......................................
-,-; N
E,D; Y
1,380 (0; 1,380, see SAR) .....
7,418 (0.25; 6,029; See SAR)
22
12
12.15
2.35
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
Bottlenose dolphin ...........
Tursiops truncatus ..................
.................................................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
.................................................
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise ...............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Phocoena phocoena ..............
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
WNA Coastal, Northern Migratory.
WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory.
Northern North Carolina Estuarine System.
-,-; Y
6,639 (0.41; 4,759; 2011) ......
48
6.1–13.2
-,-; Y
3,751 (0.06; 2,353; 2011) ......
23
0–14.3
-,-; Y
823 (0.06; 782; See SAR) .....
7.8
0.8–18.2
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ...
-, -; N
95,543 (0.31; 74,034; See
SAR).
851
217
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16065
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA—Continued
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (earless
seals):
Harbor seal .......................
Gray seal 4 ........................
Phoca vitulina .........................
Halichoerus grypus ................
WNA .......................................
WNA .......................................
-; N
-; N
75,834 (0.1; 66,884, 2012) ....
27,131 (0.19, 23,158, See
SAR).
2,006
1,359
350
5,410
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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable
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.
4 The NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, however the actual stock abundance is approximately 505,000.
5 Species are not expected to be taken or authorized for take.
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 (84 FR 64847; November 25, 2019)
for additional information. Since that
time the draft 2019 United States
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments has been
released (84 FR 65353; November 27,
2019). Updates from the draft SAR have
been incorporated for the North Atlantic
right whale, fin whale, the coastal
southern migratory stock of bottlenose
dolphin, harbor porpoise, and
humpback whale. We are not aware of
any additional 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
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies) for generalized species
accounts.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
Underwater noise from impact pile
driving, vibratory pile driving, vibratory
pile removal, and drilling with a DTH
hammer associated with the PTST
project have the potential to result in
harassment of marine mammals in the
vicinity of the action area. The Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (84
FR 64847; November 25, 2019) included
a discussion of the potential effects of
such disturbances on marine mammals
and their habitat, therefore that
information is not repeated in detail
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
here; please refer to the Federal Register
notice (84 FR 64847; November 25,
2019) 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 will primarily be by
Level B harassment, as use of the
acoustic sources (i.e., pile driving, DTH
drilling) has the potential to result in
disruption of behavioral patterns for
individual marine mammals. There is
also some potential for auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to result, for
phocids (harbor seals, gray seals) midfrequency species (bottlenose dolphins)
and high-frequency species (harbor
porpoises) due to the size of the
predicted auditory injury zones. The
planned mitigation and monitoring
measures (see Mitigation and
Monitoring and Reporting sections
below) are expected to minimize the
severity of such taking to the extent
practicable. As described previously, no
mortality is anticipated or authorized
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for this activity. Below we describe how
the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take
by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds
above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine
mammals will be behaviorally harassed
or incur some degree of permanent
hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified
above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of
activities. We note that while these
basic factors can contribute to a basic
calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional
information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes
available (e.g., previous monitoring
results or average group size). Below, we
describe the factors considered here in
more detail and present the 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
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16066
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on
what the available science indicates and
the practical need to use a threshold
based on a factor that is both predictable
and measurable for most activities,
NMFS uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS predicts that marine
mammals are likely to be behaviorally
harassed in a manner we consider Level
B harassment when exposed to
underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa
(rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g.,
seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g.,
scientific sonar) sources. The CTJV’s
planned activity includes the use of
continuous (vibratory pile driving) and
impulsive (impact pile driving, DTH
drilling) sources, and therefore the 120
and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are
applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive
sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies
dual criteria to assess auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to five different
marine mammal groups (based on
hearing sensitivity) as a result of
exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The CTJV’s planned activity
includes the use includes the use of
continuous (vibratory pile driving) and
impulsive (impact pile driving, DTH
drilling) 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 2018 Technical
Guidance, which may be accessed at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance.
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD 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, which include source levels
and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is
the existing background noise plus
additional construction noise from the
planned project. Pile driving generates
underwater noise that can potentially
result in disturbance to marine
mammals in the project area. The
maximum (underwater) area ensonified
is determined by the topography of the
Bay including shorelines to the west
south and north as well as by hard
structures such as portal islands.
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease
in acoustic intensity as an acoustic
pressure wave propagates out from a
source. TL parameters vary with
frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth,
water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
The general formula for underwater TL
is:
TL = B * Log 10 (R 1/R 2),
Where:
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical
spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from
the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the
initial measurement
This formula neglects loss due to
scattering and absorption, which is
assumed to be zero here. The degree to
which underwater sound propagates
away from a sound source is dependent
on a variety of factors, most notably the
water bathymetry and presence or
absence of reflective or absorptive
conditions including in-water structures
and sediments. Spherical spreading
occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (freefield) environment not limited by depth
or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB
reduction in sound level for each
doubling of distance from the source
(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
occurs in an environment in which
sound propagation is bounded by the
water surface and sea bottom, resulting
in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for
each doubling of distance from the
source (10*log[range]). A practical
spreading value of 15 is often used
under conditions, such as the PTST
project site where water generally
increases with depth as the receiver
moves away from pile driving locations,
resulting in an expected propagation
environment that would lie between
spherical and cylindrical spreading loss
conditions. Practical spreading loss is
assumed here.
The intensity of pile driving sounds is
greatly influenced by factors such as the
type of piles, hammers, and the physical
environment in which the activity takes
place. In order to calculate distances to
the Level A harassment and Level B
harassment thresholds for the 36-inch
steel piles planned in this project, the
CTJV used acoustic monitoring data
from other locations as described in
Caltrans 2015 for impact and vibratory
driving. The CTJV also conducted their
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16067
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
own sound source verification testing
on 42-inch steel casings as described
below to determine source levels
associated with DTH drilling. NMFS
used vibratory driving of 36-in steel pile
source levels for vibratory driving of 42inch casings source levels. The CTJV
plans to employ bubble curtains during
impact driving of 36-inch steel piles
and, therefore, reduced the source level
by 7 dB (a conservative estimate based
on several studies including Austin et
al. 2016).
Source levels for drilling with a DTH
hammer were field verified at the PTST
project site by JASCO Applied Sciences
in July 2019 (Denes, 2019). Underwater
sound levels were measured during
drilling with a DTH hammer at five pile
locations—three without bubble curtain
attenuation and two with bubble curtain
attenuation. The average SPL value at 10
m for the DTH location without a bubble
curtain was 180 dB re 1mPa, while the
average SEL and PK levels were 164 dB
re 1mPa2·s and 190 dB re 1mPa,
respectively. These values were greater
than DTH testing done at a location in
Alaska (Denes et al. 2016). The
dominant signal characteristic was also
found to be impulsive rather than
continuous. Southall et al. (2007)
suggested that impulsive sounds can be
distinguished from non-impulsive
sounds by comparing the SPL of a 0.035
s window that includes the pulse and
with a 1 s window that may include
multiple pulses. If the SPL of the 0.035
s window is 3 dB greater than the 1 s
window, then the signal should be
considered impulsive. Denes (2019)
observed that at the PTST site, the SPL
of the 0.035 s pulse is 5 dB higher than
the SPL of the 1 s sample, so the DTH
source is classified here as impulsive.
Source levels associated with DTH
drilling of 42-inch steel casings were
assumed to be the same as recorded for
installation of 36-in steel pipe by DTH.
The CTJV utilized in-water
measurements generated by the
Greenbusch Group (2018) from the
WSDOT Seattle Pier 62 project (83 FR
39709) to establish proxy sound source
levels for vibratory installation of 12inch timber piles. NMFS reviewed the
report by the Greenbusch Group (2018)
and determined that the findings were
derived by pooling together all steel pile
and timber pile at various distance
measurements data together. The data
was not normalized to the standard 10
m distance. NMFS analyzed source
measurements at different distances for
all 63 individual timber piles that were
removed and normalized the values to
10 m. The results showed that the
median is 152 dB SPLrms. This value
was used as the source level for
vibratory installation of 12-inch timber
piles. Source levels for impact driving of
12-in timber piles were from the Ballena
Bay Marina project in Alameda, CA as
described in Caltrans 2015 but have
been revised in this document. The
lower values contained in the proposed
IHA notice were from a single pile at the
Ballena Bay Marina and did not reflect
the measurements from all of the piles
that were tested. Sound source levels
used to calculate take are shown in
Table 4.
TABLE 4—THE SOUND SOURCE LEVELS (dB PEAK, dB RMS, AND dB SSEL) BY HAMMER TYPE
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
Type of pile
Hammer type
36-inch Steel Pipe ......
Impact a .....................
210
193
183
Plumb .............
Impact with Bubble
Curtain b.
DTH—Impulsive d ......
203
186
176
Plumb .............
190
180
164
Plumb .............
Vibratory a .................
Vibratory c ..................
Impact a .....................
DTH—Impulsive d ......
Vibratory a .................
NA
NA
180
190
NA
170
152
170
180
170
170
152
160
164
170
Pipe Piles .......
Plumb .............
Plumb .............
Steel Casing ...
Pipe Piles .......
12-inch Timber Pile ....
42-inch Steel Casing ..
Pile function
Omega
Trestle,
Temporary
Dock, Berm Wall West, and
Berm Wall East.
Berm Wall West, Berm Wall
East, and Temporary Dock.
Omega Trestle, Berm Wall West,
and Berm Wall East.
Mooring Piles and Templates.
Mooring Dolphins.
Mooring Dolphins.
Temporary Dock.
Temporary Dock.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Note: sSEL = Single Strike Exposure Level; dB = decibel; N/A = not applicable.
a Caltrans 2015.
b 7 dB reduction was assumed for use an encased bubble curtain (Austin et al. 2016).
c Greenbusch Group 2018.
d Denes et al. 2019.
The CTJV used NMFS’ Optional User
Spreadsheet, available at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance,
to input project-specific parameters and
calculate the isopleths for the Level A
harassment zones for impact and
vibratory pile driving. When the NMFS
Technical Guidance (2016) was
published, in recognition of the fact that
ensonified area/volume could be more
technically challenging to predict
because of the duration component in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
the new thresholds, we developed a
User Spreadsheet that includes tools to
help predict a simple isopleth that can
be used in conjunction with marine
mammal density or occurrence to help
predict takes. We note that because of
some of the assumptions included in the
methods used for these tools, we
anticipate that isopleths produced are
typically going to be overestimates of
some degree, which may result in some
degree of overestimate of Level A
harassment take. However, these tools
offer the best way to predict appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 source
pile driving, the NMFS User
Spreadsheet predicts the distance at
which, if a marine mammal remained at
that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would incur PTS.
Table 5 provides the sound source
values and input employed in the User
Spreadsheet to calculate harassment
isopleths for each source type while
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16068
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
Table 6 shows distances to Level A
harassment isopleths. Note that the
isopleths calculated using the planned
number of piles driven per day is
conservative. PTS is based on
accumulated exposure over time.
Therefore, an individual animal would
have to be within the calculated PTS
zones when all of the piles of a single
type and driving method are being
actively installed throughout an entire
day. The marine mammals authorized
for take are highly mobile. It is unlikely
that an animal would remain within the
PTS zone during the installation of, for
example, 10 piles over an 8-hour period.
NMFS opted to reduce the number of
piles driven per day by 50 percent in
order to derive more realistic PTS
isopleths. In cases where the number of
planned piles per day was an odd
number, NMFS used the next largest
whole number that was greater than 50
percent. These are shown in Table 5 in
the row with the heading Number of
piles/day. Table 6 contains calculated
distances to PTS isopleths and Table 7
depicts distances to Level B harassment
isopleths.
TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS
12-in timber
36-in and 42-in steel
Model parameter
Vibratory
Spreadsheet Tab .............................
Weighting Factor (kHz) ....................
RMS (dB) .........................................
Peak/SEL (dB) .................................
Number of piles/day * .......................
Duration to drive a pile (minutes) ....
Propagation ......................................
Distance from source (meters) ........
Strikes per pile .................................
Impact
A.1
2.5
152
na
4
30
15
10
na
Vibratory
E.1
2
170
180/160
5
na
15
10
1000
Impact
A.1
2.5
170
na
3
12.0
15
10
na
Impact—with
bubble
E.1
2.0
193
210/183
5
na
15
10
1,000
DTH
E.1
2.0
186
203/176
5
na
15
10
1000
E.1
2.0
180
190/164
3
na
15
10
25,200
DTH—
simultaneous
E.1
2.0
180
190/164
3
na
15
10
50,400
* Represents 50% of piles planned per day.
TABLE 6—RADIAL DISTANCE TO PTS ISOPLETHS (METERS)
Hammer type
Low-frequency
cetaceans
Pile type
Mid-frequency
cetaceans
High-frequency
cetaceans
Phocid pinnipeds
Pile location in the PTST project
Island 1
Island 2
Island 1
Island 2
Island 1
Island 2
Island 1
Island 2
Impact .........................
Impact with Bubble
Curtain.
12-in. Timber
36-in. Steel ...
86
2,920
86
2,920
3
104
3
104
102
3,478
102
3,478
46
1,563
46
1,563
Impact with Bubble
Curtain.
DTH—Impulsive ..........
36-in. Steel ...
997
997
36
36
1,188
1,188
534
534
36 and 42-in.
Steel.
966
966
34
34
1,151
1,151
517
517
1,534
1,534
55
55
1,827
1,827
821
821
1,963
1,963
70
70
2,399
2,399
1,051
1,051
3
19
19
3
19
..............
0.2
2
2
0.2
2
..............
4
29
29
4
29
..............
2
12
12
2
12
..............
DTH Simultaneous ......
DTH & Impact Hammer (Bubble Curtain)
Simultaneous.
Continuous (Vibratory)
36-and 42-in.
Steel.
12-in. Timber
36-in. Steel ...
42-in. Steel ...
Mooring Dolphins.
Omega Trestle, Temporary Dock,
Berm Wall West, and Berm
Wall East.
Berm Wall West, Berm Wall East,
and Temporary Dock.
Casing for Temporary Dock.
Omega Trestle, Temporary Dock,
Berm Wall West, and Berm
Wall East.
Omega Trestle, Temporary Dock,
Berm
Wall
West,
and Berm Wall East.
Mooring Dolphins.
Mooring Piles and Templates.
Casing for Temporary Dock.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 7—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT MONITORING ISOPLETHS
Distance from
Island 1 & 2
Driving method
Pile type
Impact .............................................
12-in. Timber .....
36-in. Steel ........
22
1,585
Impact with Bubble Curtain ............
DTH—Impulsive .............................
36-in. Steel ........
42-in. Steel ........
36-in. Steel ........
541
* 215
215
Continuous (Vibratory) ...................
12-in. mooring ....
36-in. Steel ........
42-in. Steel ........
1,359
21,544
* 21,544
Pile location
Mooring Dolphins.
Omega Trestle, Temporary Dock, Berm Wall West, and Berm Wall
East.
Berm Wall West, Berm Wall East, and Temporary Dock.
Casing for Temporary Dock.
Omega Trestle, Temporary Dock, Berm Wall West, and Berm Wall
East.
Mooring Dolphins.
Mooring Piles and Templates.
Casing for Temporary Dock.
* Activity will not occur on Portal Island 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16069
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take
Calculation and Estimation
In this section we provide the
information about the presence, density,
or group dynamics of marine mammals
and describe how it is brought together
with the information above to produce
a quantitative take estimate. When
available, peer-reviewed scientific
publications were used to estimate
marine mammal abundance in the
project area. In some cases population
estimates, densities, and other
quantitative information are lacking.
Local observational data and estimated
group size were utilized where
applicable.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are relatively rare
in the Chesapeake Bay and density data
for this species within the project
vicinity were not available nor able to
be calculated. Populations in the midAtlantic have been estimated for
humpback whales off the coast of New
Jersey with a density of 0.000130 per
square kilometer (Whitt et al. 2015).
Habitat-based density models produced
by the Duke University Marine
Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts
et al. 2016) represent the best available
information regarding marine mammal
densities offshore near the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay. At the closest point to
the PTST project area, humpback
densities ranged from a high of 0.107/
100 km2 in March to 0.00010/100 km2
in August. Furthermore, the CTJV
conducted marine mammal monitoring
during SSV testing for 5 days in July
2019. During that time there were no
sightings or takes of humpback whales.
Because humpback whale occurrence
is low as demonstrated above, the CTJV
and NMFS estimated that there will be
a single humpback sighting every two
months for the duration of in-water pile
driving activities. Only 10 months of inwater construction were anticipated
when the proposed IHA was published,
resulting in the proposed take of 10
animals. A revised construction
schedule has been developed by the
CTJV and includes 11 months of
planned in-water pile driving activity.
Using an average group size of two
animals, pile driving activities over an
11-month period would result in 12
takes (rounding up) of humpback whale
by Level B harassment. No takes by
Level A harassment are expected or
authorized.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Expected bottlenose dolphin take was
estimated using a 2016 report on the
occurrence, distribution, and density of
marine mammals near Naval Station
Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia
(Engelhaupt et al. 2016). Three years of
dolphin survey data were collected from
either in-shore or open ocean transects.
In the proposed IHA, a subset of survey
data from Engelhaupt et al. (2016) was
used to determine seasonal dolphin
densities in the Bay near the project
area. A spatially refined approach was
employed by plotting dolphin sightings
within 12 km of the project location and
then determining densities following
methodology outlined in Engelhaupt et
al. (2016) and Miller et al. (2019) using
the package DISTANCE in R statistical
software. The Commission believes that
use of this truncated data was
inappropriate since Engelhaupt et al.
(2016) did not survey all of the area near
the project site, but only surveyed
within approximately 4 km of the coast.
The Commission determined that this
approach was flawed as it was not based
on distance sampling methods and did
not assume equal survey effort within
the harassment zones, since the majority
of the identified harassment zones had
no survey effort. In response, NMFS
indicated that it would use Engelhaupt
et al. (2016) data to expand the
truncated area using from 12 km to 19
km. The Commission felt that this was
also inappropriate as monitoring data
from the CTJV’s site indicated that the
densities provided by Engelhaupt et al.
(2016) were closer to what was actually
observed at the project area compared to
the truncated Engelhaupt et al. (2016)
data. The CTJV’s sightings data from
July 2019 recorded an average density of
animals sighted of 4.37 dolphins/km2.
That density is actually greater than the
original, untruncated Engelhaupt et al.
(2016) density of 3.88 dolphins/km2 for
summer. The observed 4.37 dolphins/
km2 is much greater than the truncated
estimate of 0.62 dolphins/km2 utilized
in the notice of proposed IHA which
was initially used to estimate take
numbers. Given this information, it is
likely that the number of takes
estimated in the proposed IHA is far less
than what is expected to be observed.
Therefore, NMFS opted to use the
original seasonal density values
documented by Engelhaupt et al. (2016).
These values were broken out by month
as shown Table 9. The Level B
harassment area for each pile and
driving type as shown in Table 8 was
multiplied by the appropriate seasonal
density and the anticipated number of
days of a specific activity per month
number to derive a total number of takes
for each construction project component
as shown in Table 9 (i.e. mooring
cluster, temporary dock, omega trestle/
west O-pile walls/mooring piles &
templates, and omega trestle/east O-pile
walls).
TABLE 8—IN-WATER AREA (km2) USED FOR CALCULATING DOLPHIN TAKES PER CONSTRUCTION COMPONENTS PER
HAMMER TYPE
Construction component
Impact
hammer
Pile type
Mooring Cluster ....................................................
Temporary Dock ...................................................
Omega Trestle and West O-pile wall ...................
East O-pile Wall ....................................................
12-in
36-in
36-in
36-in
Timber .................
and 42-in Steel ....
and 42-in Steel
and 42-in Steel
Vibratory
hammer
0.003
* 0.63
........................
........................
Impact + DTH
hammers
4.16
830
830
NA
DTH + DTH
hammers
NA
1.72
1.72
1.43
NA
0.25
0.49
0.31
* Impact Hammer with Bubble Curtain.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED TAKES OF BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY MONTH AND DRIVING ACTIVITY
Month
March
Dolphin Density (n/km2)
1
April
May
1
1
June
3.55
July
3.55
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
3.55
3.88
3.88
3.88
0.63
0.63
0.63
Days/Month based on
Pile Driving Activity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
............
16070
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED TAKES OF BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY MONTH AND DRIVING ACTIVITY—
Continued
Month
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
............
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
............
............
Mooring Cluster
Vibratory—Timber Piles
Impact—Timber Piles ....
Dolphin Takes ...............
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
1
2
4.2
1
7
14.8
0
6
0.1
0
5
0.1
0
5
0.1
19
Temporary Dock
DTH+ Impact—Steel
Pile .............................
Vibratory—Steel Pile .....
Two DTH—Steel Pile ....
Dolphin Takes ...............
4
2
0
1,667
11
3
0
2,509
11
3
0
2,509
4
2
0
5,917
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,602
Omega Trestle/West O-pile Walls/Mooring Piles & Templates
Vibratory—Steel Pile .....
Two DTH—Steel Pile ....
DTH+ Impact—Steel
Pile .............................
Dolphin Takes ...............
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
2
4
5
10
5
2,981
5
2,981
8
52.4
5
6,478.0
5
3,263.3
5
33.4
5
5.4
2
2.2
0
0.0
15,817
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Omega Trestle/East O-Pile Walls
DTH+ Impact—Steel
Pile .............................
Two DTH—Steel Pile ....
Dolphin Takes ...............
Total No. of Pile Driving
Days per Month .........
0
0
0
2
0
3
2
0
3
7
0
36
8
2
43
8
0
41
8
1
46
5
1
29
5
1
29
5
0
5
2
0
2
0
0
0
11
20
26
29
24
23
23
17
11
10
4
0
Total Takes ............
............
..........
..........
..........
............
............
..................
..............
..................
..................
..............
................
The number of calculated takes for
each of the four project components
identified in Table 9 resulted in a total
of 28,674 authorized takes. The
authorized takes were split out among
the three dolphin stocks as shown in
Table 10. There is insufficient
information to apportion the takes
precisely to the three stocks present in
the area. Given that most of the NNCES
stock are found in the Pamlico Sound
estuarine system, NMFS will assume
that no more than 200 of the authorized
takes will be from this stock. Since
members of the northern migratory
coastal and southern migratory coastal
stocks are thought to occur in or near
the Bay in greater numbers, we will
conservatively assume that no more
than half of the remaining animals will
accrue to either of these stocks.
Additionally, a subset of these takes
would likely be comprised of
Chesapeake Bay resident dolphins,
although size of that population is
unknown.
Since the largest Level A harassment
isopleth is 104 m and there is a
shutdown zone of 100 m, NMFS will
assume that 1 percent of each
designated stock will occur between 100
and 104 meters or will appear in the
PTS zone without first being observed
by PSOs resulting in the number of
dolphin takes by Level A harassment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
............
235
28,674
shown in Table 10. NMFS had not
proposed take by Level A harassment in
the notice of proposed IHA. However,
the Level A harassment isopleth for
impact driving of 36-in steel piles
exceeds the 100-m shutdown zone and
the number of authorized takes has
increased.
IHA resulting in five authorized takes of
porpoises by Level A harassment and
seven takes by Level B harassment.
When the CTJV conducted marine
mammal monitoring during SSV testing
at the project location for 5 days in July
2019, there were no sightings of
porpoises.
Harbor Porpoise
Given that harbor porpoises are
uncommon in the project area, this
exposure analysis assumes that there is
a porpoise sighting once during every
two months of operations which would
equate to six sightings (rounding up)
over 11 months. Assuming an average
group size of two (Hansen et al. 2018;
Elliser et al. 2018) over 11 months of inwater work results in a total of 12
estimated takes of porpoises. (In the
proposed IHA, NMFS had assumed 10
months of driving resulting in 10 total
takes.) Harbor porpoises are members of
the high-frequency hearing group which
have Level A harassment isopleths as
large as 3,478 m during impact
installation of 10 36-in steel piles per
day. Given the relatively large Level A
harassment zones during impact
driving, NMFS assumed in the previous
IHA (83 FR 36522; July 30, 2018) that
40 percent of estimated porpoises takes
would be by Level A harassment. NMFS
assumed the same ratio for the issued
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 from November 2014 through
April 2018 (Rees et al., 2016; Jones et al.
2018). The survey data revealed a daily
maximum of 45 animals during this
period which occurred in January, 2018.
The maximum number of animals
observed per day (45) was multiplied by
the total number of planned driving
days between November and May (72)
since seals are not present in the area
from June through October. In the
proposed IHA, NMFS had assumed 173
days of driving during this same period.
Based on this revised calculation NMFS
has authorized 3,240 incidental takes of
harbor seal for this IHA. Note that the
CTJV monitoring report did not record
any seal observations over 5 days of SSV
testing, but this would be expected as
seals are not present during July.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16071
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
The largest Level A harassment
isopleth for phocid species is
approximately 1,563 meters which
would occur during impact driving of
36-inch steel piles. The smallest Level A
harassment isopleths are 2 m and would
occur during impact and vibratory
driving of 12-inch timber piles. NMFS
has prescribed a shutdown zone for
harbor seals of 15 meters as a mitigation
measure 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. From the previously issued
IHA, NMFS assumed that 40 percent of
the exposed seals will occur within the
Level A harassment zone specified for a
given scenario and the remaining
affected seals would result in Level B
harassment takes. Therefore, NMFS has
authorized 1,296 takes by Level A
harassment and 2,124 takes by Level B
harassment.
Gray Seal
The number of gray seals expected to
be present at the PTST project area was
estimated using survey data collected by
the U.S. Navy at the portal islands from
2014 through 2018 (Rees et al. 2016;
Jones et al. 2018). One seal was
observed in February of 2015 and one
seal was recorded in February of 2016
while no seals were observed at any
time during 2017 or 2018. As part of the
proposed IHA, NMFS anticipated gray
seals would occur only during the 21
planned work days for February at a rate
of one animal per day. Due to revisions
to the construction schedule, no inwater pile driving is scheduled to occur
in February under the effective period
for this IHA. However, there could be
delays to the construction schedule
resulting in the need for in-water work
in February 2021. To reduce the
possibility that non-authorized take of
gray seal could result in work stoppage,
NMFS has conservatively authorized
take of four gray seals, one by Level A
harassment and three by Level B
harassment.
Table 10 shows authorized take
numbers for Level A and Level B
harassment.
TABLE 10—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT
Species
Stock
Level A takes
Humpback whale ..............................
Harbor porpoise ...............................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................
Gulf of Maine ................................................................
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ..........................................
WNA Coastal, Northern Migratory ................................
WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory ...............................
NNCES ..........................................................................
Western North Atlantic ..................................................
Western North Atlantic ..................................................
........................
5
142
142
2
1,296
1
Harbor seal .......................................
Gray seal ..........................................
Level B takes
12
7
14,095
14,095
198
2,124
3
Percentage of
stock
0.8
<0.01
* <33
* <33
24
4.5
<0.01
* Assumes multiple repeated takes of same individuals from small portion of each stock as well as repeated takes of Chesapeake Bay resident
population (size unknown).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
In addition to the measures described
later in this section, the CTJV will
employ the following standard
mitigation measures:
• Conduct briefings between
construction supervisors and crews and
the marine mammal monitoring team
prior to the start of all pile driving
activity, and when new personnel join
the work, to explain responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
mammal monitoring protocol, and
operational procedures;
• For in-water heavy machinery work
other than pile driving (e.g., standard
barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes
within 10 m, 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 the
following activities: (1) Movement of the
barge to the pile location; or (2)
positioning of the pile on the substrate
via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);
• Work may only occur during
daylight hours, when visual monitoring
of marine mammals can be conducted;
• For those marine mammals for
which Level B harassment take has not
been requested, in-water pile driving
will shut down immediately if such
species are observed within or entering
the monitoring zone (i.e., Level B
harassment zone); and
• If take reaches the authorized limit
for an authorized species, pile
installation will be stopped as these
species approach the Level B
harassment zone to avoid additional
take.
The following measures will apply to
the CTJV’s mitigation requirements:
Establishment of Shutdown Zone—
For all pile driving and drilling
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16072
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
activities, the CTJV will establish a
shutdown zone. The purpose of a
shutdown zone is generally to define an
area within which shutdown of activity
will occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area). These
shutdown zones will be used to reduce
incidental Level A harassment from
impact pile driving for bottlenose
dolphins and harbor porpoises.
Shutdown zones for species authorized
for take are as follows:
• 100 meters for harbor porpoise and
bottlenose dolphin.
• 15 meters for harbor seal and gray
seal.
• For humpback whale, shutdown
distances are shown in Table 14 under
low-frequency cetaceans and are
dependent on activity type.
Establishment of Monitoring Zones for
Level A and Level B Harassment—The
CTJV will establish monitoring zones
based on calculated Level A harassment
isopleths associated with specific pile
driving activities and scenarios. These
are areas beyond the established
shutdown zone in which animals could
be exposed to sound levels that could
result in Level A harassment in the form
of PTS. The CTJV will also establish and
monitor Level B harassment zones
which are areas where SPLs are equal to
or exceed the 160 dB rms threshold for
impact driving and DTH drilling and
120 dB rms threshold during vibratory
driving. Monitoring zones provide
utility for observing by establishing
monitoring protocols for areas adjacent
to the shutdown zones. The monitoring
zones enable observers to be aware of
and communicate the presence of
marine mammals in the project area
outside the shutdown zone and thus
prepare for a potential cease of activity
should the animal enter the shutdown
zone. The Level A and Level B
harassment monitoring zones are
described in Table 11. Since some of the
Level A and Level B harassment
monitoring zones cannot be effectively
observed in their entirety, exposures
will be recorded and extrapolated based
upon the number of observed take and
the percentage of the Level A and Level
B harassment zone that was not visible.
TABLE 11—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT MONITORING ZONES DURING PROJECT ACTIVITIES (METERS)
Scenario
Level A harassment zones
Driving type
Low-frequency
cetaceans
Mid-frequency
cetaceans
High-frequency
cetaceans
Phocid
pinnipeds
Island 1
&2
Island 1
&2
Island 1
&2
Island 1
&2
Level B
monitoring
zones
Pile type
Impact ..........................................
Impact with Bubble Curtain .........
DTH—Impulsive ..........................
DTH Simultaneous at same island.
DTH & Impact Hammer with bubble curtain: Simultaneous at
the same island.
DTH at PI 1. And Impact with
Bubble Curtain Hammer at PI
2.
Continuous (Vibratory) ................
12-in.
36-in.
36-in.
42-in.
42-in.
Timber ....
Steel .......
Steel .......
Steel .......
Steel .......
Island 1 & 2
90
2,920
1,000
970
1,535
—
105
—
—
—
105
3,480
1,190
1,155
1,830
—
1,565
535
520
825
25.
1,585.
545.
215.
215.
36-and 42-in.
Steel.
1,970
—
2,400
1,055
545.
36-and 42-in.
Steel.
970
—
1,155
520
215 from PI 1.
545 from PI 2.
—
20
20
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,360.
21,545.
21,545.
12-in. Timber ....
36-in. Steel .......
42-in.** Steel ....
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
— indicates that shutdown zone is larger than calculated harassment zone.
** Activity only planned at Portal Island 1 as part of project pile driving plan.
Soft Start—The use of soft-start
procedures are believed to provide
additional protection to marine
mammals by providing warning and/or
giving marine mammals a chance to
leave the area prior to the hammer
operating at full capacity. For impact
pile driving, contractors will be required
to provide an initial set of strikes from
the hammer at reduced energy, with
each strike followed by a 30-second
waiting period. This procedure will be
conducted a total of three times before
impact pile driving begins. Soft start
will be implemented at the start of each
day’s impact pile driving and at any
time following cessation of impact pile
driving for a period of 30 minutes or
longer. Soft start is not required during
vibratory or DTH pile driving activities.
Use of Bubble Curtains—Use of air
bubble curtain system will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
implemented by the CTJV during impact
driving of 36-in steel piles except in
water less than 10 ft in depth. The use
of this sound attenuation device will
reduce SPLs and the size of the zones
of influence for Level A harassment and
Level B harassment. Bubble curtains
will meet the following requirements:
• The bubble curtain must distribute
air bubbles around 100 percent of the
piling perimeter for the full depth of the
water column.
• The lowest bubble ring shall be in
contact with the mudline and/or rock
bottom for the full circumference of the
ring, and the weights attached to the
bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent
mudline and/or rock bottom contact. No
parts of the ring or other objects shall
prevent full mudline and/or rock bottom
contact.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• The bubble curtain shall be
operated such that there is proper
(equal) balancing of air flow to all
bubblers.
• The applicant shall require that
construction contractors train personnel
in the proper balancing of air flow to the
bubblers and corrections to the
attenuation device to meet the
performance standards. This shall occur
prior to the initiation of pile driving
activities.
Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the
start of daily in-water construction
activity, or whenever a break in pile
driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs,
PSOs will observe the shutdown and
monitoring zones for a period of 30
minutes. The shutdown zone will be
cleared when a marine mammal has not
been observed within the zone for that
30-minute period. If a marine mammal
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
is observed within the shutdown zone,
a soft-start cannot proceed until the
animal has left the zone or has not been
observed for 15 minutes. If the Level B
harassment zone has been observed for
30 minutes and non-permitted species
are not present within the zone, soft
start procedures can commence and
work can continue even if visibility
becomes impaired within the Level B
harassment monitoring zone. When a
marine mammal permitted for take by
Level B harassment is present in the
Level B harassment zone, activities may
begin and Level B harassment take will
be recorded. If work ceases for more
than 30 minutes, the pre-activity
monitoring of both the Level B
harassment and shutdown zone will
commence again. Additionally, in-water
construction activity must be delayed or
cease, if poor environmental conditions
restrict full visibility of the shut-down
zone(s) until the entire shut-down
zone(s) is visible.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s planned measures, NMFS
has determined that the required
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
Marine Mammal Visual Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted by
NMFS-approved observers. Trained
observers shall be placed from the best
vantage point(s) practicable to monitor
for marine mammals and implement
shutdown or delay procedures when
applicable through communication with
the equipment operator. Observer
training must be provided prior to
project start, and shall include
instruction on species identification
(sufficient to distinguish the species in
the project area), description and
categorization of observed behaviors
and interpretation of behaviors that may
be construed as being reactions to the
specified activity, proper completion of
data forms, and other basic components
of biological monitoring, including
tracking of observed animals or groups
of animals such that repeat sound
exposures may be attributed to
individuals (to the extent possible).
Monitoring will be conducted 30
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after pile driving activities. In addition,
observers shall record all incidents of
marine mammal occurrence, regardless
of distance from activity, and shall
document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being
driven. Pile driving activities include
the time to install a single pile or series
of piles, as long as the time elapsed
between uses of the pile driving
equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
The CTJV will be required to station
between two and four PSOs at locations
offering the best available views of the
monitoring zones. At least two PSOs
will be required to monitor before,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16073
during, and after the pile-driving and
-removal activities. At least one PSO
must be located in close proximity to
each pile driving rig during active
operation of single or multiple,
concurrent driving devices. At least one
additional PSO is required at each
active driving rig or other location
providing best possible view if the Level
B harassment zone and shutdown zones
cannot reasonably be observed by one
PSO.
PSOs will scan the waters using
binoculars, and/or spotting scopes, and
will use a handheld GPS or range-finder
device to verify the distance to each
sighting from the project site. All PSOs
will be trained in marine mammal
identification and behaviors and are
required to have no other project-related
tasks while conducting monitoring. In
addition, monitoring will be conducted
by qualified observers, who will be
placed at the best vantage point(s)
practicable to monitor for marine
mammals and implement shutdown/
delay procedures when applicable by
calling for the shutdown to the hammer
operator. The CTJV will adhere to the
following PSO qualifications:
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not
construction personnel) are required.
(ii) At least one observer must have
prior experience working as an observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute
education (degree in biological science
or related field) or training for
experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more
observers are required, one observer
shall be designated as lead observer or
monitoring coordinator. The lead
observer must have prior experience
working as an observer.
(v) The CTJV shall submit observer
CVs for approval by NMFS. Additional
standard observer qualifications
include:
• Ability to conduct field
observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of
behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
report of observations including but not
limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid
potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
16074
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior;
and
• Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
Observers will be required to use
approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, The CTJV will
record detailed information about any
implementation of shutdowns,
including the distance of animals to the
pile and description of specific actions
that ensued and resulting behavior of
the animal, if any. In addition, the CTJV
will attempt to distinguish between the
number of individual animals taken and
the number of incidences of take. We
require that, at a minimum, the
following information be collected on
the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored
activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring
during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (e.g., percent
cover, visibility);
• Water conditions (e.g., sea state,
tide state);
• Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel
and distance from pile driving activity,
and if possible, the correlation to SPLs;
• Distance from pile driving activities
to marine mammals and distance from
the marine mammals to the observation
point;
• Description of implementation of
mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown or
delay);
• Locations of all marine mammal
observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
Reporting
A draft report will be submitted to
NMFS within 90 days of the completion
of marine mammal monitoring, or 60
days prior to the requested date of
issuance of any future IHA for projects
at the same location, whichever comes
first. The report will include marine
mammal observations pre-activity,
during-activity, and post-activity during
pile driving days (and associated PSO
data sheets), and will also provide
descriptions of any behavioral responses
to construction activities by marine
mammals and a complete description of
all mitigation shutdowns and the results
of those actions and an extrapolated
total take estimate based on the number
of marine mammals observed during the
course of construction. A final report
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
must be submitted within 30 days
following resolution of comments on the
draft report.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine
Mammals
In the event that personnel involved
in the construction activities discover
an injured or dead marine mammal, the
CTJV shall report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources (OPR),
NMFS and to the Greater Atlantic
Region New England/Mid-Atlantic
Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon
as feasible. The report must include the
following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the first discovery (and
updated location information if known
and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s)
(including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the
animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video
footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which
the animal was discovered.
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Pile driving activities associated with
the planned PTST project, as outlined
previously, have the potential to disturb
or displace marine mammals. The
specified activities may result in take, in
the form of Level B harassment
(behavioral disturbance) or Level A
harassment (auditory injury), incidental
to underwater sounds generated from
pile driving. Potential takes could occur
if individuals are present in the
ensonified zone when pile driving
occurs. Level A harassment is
anticipated for bottlenose dolphins,
harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and gray
seals.
No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated given the nature of the
activities and measures designed to
minimize the possibility of injury to
marine mammals. The potential for
these outcomes is minimized through
the construction method and the
implementation of the planned
mitigation measures. Specifically,
vibratory driving, impact driving, and
drilling with DTH hammers will be the
primary methods of installation and pile
removal will occur with a vibratory
hammer. Impact pile driving produces
short, sharp pulses with higher peak
levels and much sharper rise time to
reach those peaks. When impact pile
driving is used, implementation of
bubble curtains, soft start and shutdown
zones significantly reduces any
possibility of injury. Given sufficient
notice through use of soft starts (for
impact driving), marine mammals are
expected to move away from a sound
source that is annoying prior to it
becoming potentially injurious.
The CTJV will use qualified PSOs
stationed strategically to increase
detectability of marine mammals,
enabling a high rate of success in
implementation of shutdowns to avoid
injury for most species. PSOs will be
stationed on a specific Portal Island
whenever pile driving operations are
underway at that location. Additional
PSOs will be stationed at the same
Portal Island and in other locations in
order to provide a relatively clear views
of the shutdown zone and monitoring
zones. These factors will limit exposure
of animals to noise levels that could
result in injury.
The CTJV’s planned pile driving
activities are highly localized. Only a
relatively small portion of the
Chesapeake Bay may be affected.
Localized noise exposures produced by
project activities may cause short-term
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
behavioral modifications in affected
cetaceans and pinnipeds Moreover, the
required mitigation and monitoring
measures are expected to further reduce
the likelihood of injury as well as
reduce behavioral disturbances.
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).
Individual animals, even if taken
multiple times, will most likely move
away from the sound source and be
temporarily displaced from the areas of
pile driving, although even this reaction
has been observed primarily only in
association with impact pile driving.
The pile driving activities analyzed here
are similar to, or less impactful than,
numerous other construction activities
conducted along both Atlantic and
Pacific coasts, which have taken place
with no known long-term adverse
consequences from behavioral
harassment. Furthermore, many projects
similar to this one are also believed to
result in multiple takes of individual
animals without any documented longterm adverse effects. Level B harassment
will be minimized through use of
mitigation measures described herein
and, if sound produced by project
activities is sufficiently disturbing,
animals are likely to simply avoid the
area while the activity is occurring.
In addition to the expected effects
resulting from authorized Level B
harassment, we anticipate that small
numbers of dolphins, harbor porpoises,
harbor seals and gray seals may sustain
some limited Level A harassment in the
form of auditory injury. However,
animals that experience PTS would
likely only receive slight PTS, i.e. minor
degradation of hearing capabilities
within regions of hearing that align most
completely with the energy produced by
pile driving (i.e., the low-frequency
region below 2 kHz), not severe hearing
impairment or impairment in the
regions of greatest hearing sensitivity. If
hearing impairment occurs, it is most
likely that the affected animal’s
threshold would increase by a few dBs,
which is not likely to meaningfully
affect its ability to forage and
communicate with conspecifics. As
described above, we expect that marine
mammals would be likely to move away
from a sound source that represents an
aversive stimulus, especially at levels
that would be expected to result in PTS,
given sufficient notice through use of
soft start.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 activities would not
permanently modify existing marine
mammal habitat. The activities may
cause some fish to leave the area of
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting
marine mammal foraging opportunities
in a limited portion of the foraging
range. However, because of the
relatively small area of the habitat that
may be affected, the impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative
consequences.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our preliminary determination that the
impacts resulting from this activity are
not expected to adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
• Limited Level A harassment
exposures (dolphins, harbor porpoises,
harbor seals, and gray seals) are
anticipated to result only in slight PTS,
within the lower frequencies associated
with pile driving;
• The anticipated incidents of Level B
harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior
that would not result in fitness impacts
to individuals;
• The specified activity and
associated ensonifed areas are very
small relative to the overall habitat
ranges of all species and does not
include habitat areas of special
significance (BIAs or ESA-designated
critical habitat); and
• The presumed 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 planned activity
will have a negligible impact on all
affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of
the MMPA for specified activities other
than military readiness activities. The
MMPA does not define small numbers
and so, in practice, where estimated
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16075
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.
Authorized take of marine mammal
stocks comprises less than 5 percent of
the Western North Atlantic harbor seal
stock abundance, and less than one
percent of all other authorized stocks,
with the exception of bottlenose
dolphins. There are three bottlenose
dolphin stocks that could occur in the
project area. Therefore, the estimated
28,674 dolphin takes by Level A and
Level B harassment would likely be
split among the western North Atlantic
northern migratory coastal stock,
western North Atlantic southern
migratory coastal stock, and NNCES
stock. Based on the stocks’ respective
occurrence in the area, NMFS estimated
that there would be no more than 200
takes from the NNCES stock,
representing 24 percent of that
population, with the remaining takes
split evenly between the northern and
southern migratory coastal stocks. Based
on consideration of various factors
described below, we have determined
the numbers of individuals taken would
comprise less than one-third of the best
available population abundance
estimate of either coastal migratory
stock. Detailed descriptions of the
stocks’ ranges have been provided in
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities.
Both the northern migratory coastal
and southern migratory coastal stocks
have expansive ranges and they are the
only dolphin stocks thought to make
broad-scale, seasonal migrations in
coastal waters of the western North
Atlantic. Given the large ranges
associated with these two stocks it is
unlikely that large segments of either
stock would approach the project area
and enter into the Bay. The majority of
both stocks are likely to be found widely
dispersed across their respective habitat
ranges and unlikely to be concentrated
in or near the Chesapeake Bay.
Furthermore, the Chesapeake Bay and
nearby offshore waters represent the
boundaries of the ranges of each of the
two coastal stocks during migration. The
northern migratory coastal stock is
found during warm water months from
coastal Virginia, including the
Chesapeake Bay and Long Island, New
York. The stock migrates south in late
summer and fall. During cold water
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
16076
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
months dolphins may be found in
coastal waters from Cape Lookout,
North Carolina, to the North Carolina/
Virginia. During January–March, the
southern migratory coastal stock
appears to move as far south as northern
Florida. From April to June, the stock
moves back north to North Carolina.
During the warm water months of July–
August, the stock is presumed to occupy
coastal waters north of Cape Lookout,
North Carolina, to Assateague, Virginia,
including the Chesapeake Bay. There is
likely some overlap between the
northern and southern migratory stocks
during spring and fall migrations, but
the extent of overlap is unknown.
The Bay and waters offshore of the
mouth are located on the periphery of
the migratory ranges of both coastal
stocks (although during different
seasons). Additionally, each of the
migratory coastal stocks are likely to be
located in the vicinity of the Bay for
relatively short timeframes. Given the
limited number of animals from each
migratory coastal stock likely to be
found at the seasonal migratory
boundaries of their respective ranges, in
combination with the short time periods
(∼two months) animals might remain at
these boundaries, it is reasonable to
assume that takes are likely to occur
only within some small portion of either
of the migratory coastal stocks.
Both migratory coastal stocks likely
overlap with the NNCES stock at
various times during their seasonal
migrations. The NNCES stock is defined
as animals that primarily occupy waters
of the Pamlico Sound estuarine system
(which also includes Core, Roanoke,
and Albemarle sounds, and the Neuse
River) during warm water months (July–
August). Members of this stock also use
coastal waters (≤1km from shore) of
North Carolina from Beaufort north to
Virginia Beach, Virginia, including the
lower Chesapeake Bay. Comparison of
dolphin photo-identification data
confirmed that limited numbers of
individual dolphins observed in
Roanoke Sound have also been sighted
in the Chesapeake Bay (Young 2018).
Like the migratory coastal dolphin
stocks, the NNCES stock covers a large
range. The spatial extent of most small
and resident bottlenose dolphin
populations is on the order of 500 km2,
while the NNCES stock occupies over
8,000 km2 (LeBrecque et al. 2015).
Given this large range, it is again
unlikely that a preponderance of
animals from the NNCES stock would
depart the North Carolina estuarine
system and travel to the northern extent
of the stock’s range and enter into the
Bay. However, recent evidence suggests
that there is likely a small resident
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
community of NNCES dolphins of
indeterminate size that inhabits the
Chesapeake Bay year-round (Patterson,
Pers. Comm).
Many of the dolphin observations in
the Bay are likely repeated sightings of
the same individuals. The PotomacChesapeake Dolphin Project has
observed over 1,200 unique animals
since observations began in 2015. Resightings of the same individual can be
highly variable. Some dolphins are
observed once per year, while others are
highly regular with greater than 10
sightings per year (Mann, pers. comm.).
Similarly, using available photoidentification data, Engelhaupt et al.
(2016) determined that specific
individuals were often observed in close
proximity to their original sighting
locations and were observed multiple
times in the same season or same year.
Ninety-one percent of re-sighted
individuals (100 of 110) in the study
area were recorded less than 30 km from
the initial sighting location. Multiple
sightings of the same individual would
considerably reduce the number of
individual animals that are taken by
harassment. Furthermore, the existence
of a resident dolphin population in the
Bay would increase the percentage of
dolphin takes that are actually resightings of the same individuals.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our preliminary determination regarding
the incidental take of small numbers of
a species or stock:
• The take of marine mammal stocks
authorized for take comprises less than
5 percent of any stock abundance (with
the exception of bottlenose dolphin
stocks);
• Potential bottlenose dolphin takes
in the project area are likely to be
allocated among three distinct stocks;
• Bottlenose dolphin stocks in the
project area have extensive ranges and
it would be unlikely to find a high
percentage of any one stock
concentrated in a relatively small area
such as the project area or the Bay;
• The Bay represents the migratory
boundary for each of the specified
dolphin stocks and it would be unlikely
to find a high percentage of any stock
concentrated at such boundaries; and
• Many of the takes would be repeats
of the same animal and it is likely that
a number of individual animals could
be taken 10 or more times.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the planned activity (including
the required mitigation and monitoring
measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that
small numbers of marine mammals will
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 action
(i.e., the issuance of incidental
harassment authorizations) 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 this IHA
to the CTJV 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.
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 the CTJV
for the incidental take of marine
mammal due to pile driving activities as
part of the PTST project for a period of
one year from the date of issuance,
provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Notices
Dated: March 10, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
[FR Doc. 2020–05802 Filed 3–19–20; 8:45 am]
The South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council) will
hold a meeting of the Information and
Education Advisory Panel (AP) on April
14–15, 2020 and the Snapper Grouper
AP from April 15–17, 2020.
DATES: The Information and Education
AP will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30
p.m. on April 14 and from 8:30 a.m.
until 12 p.m. on April 15, 2020. The
Snapper Grouper AP will meet from
1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on April 15, from
8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on April 16, and
from 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon on April
17, 2020.
ADDRESSES:
Meeting address: The meetings will be
held at the Crowne Plaza, 4831 Tanger
Outlet Boulevard, North Charleston, SC
29418; telephone: (843) 744–4472.
Council address: South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, 4055
Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N
Charleston, SC 29406.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim
Iverson, Public Information Officer,
SAFMC; phone: (843) 571–4366 or toll
free (866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769–
4520; email: kim.iverson@safmc.net.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AP
meetings are open to the public and will
be available via webinar as they occur.
Registration is required. Webinar
registration information, a public
comment form, and other meeting
materials will be posted to the Council’s
website at: https://safmc.net/safmcmeetings/current-advisory-panelmeetings/ as it becomes available.
Please note that the evolving public
health situation regarding COVID–19
may affect the conduct of the advisory
panel meetings. At the time this notice
was submitted for publication, we
anticipated the advisory panel meetings
would be conducted as planned, in
person, and without opportunities for
remote participation other than the
webinar availability as noted above.
Council staff will monitor COVID–19
developments and will determine if
there is a need to allow some additional
level of remote participation or other
contingency plan such as postponement
of non-essential agenda items. If such
measures are deemed necessary,
Council staff will post notice of them
prominently on our website
(www.safmc.net). Potential meeting
participants are encouraged to check the
South Atlantic Council’s website
frequently for such information and
updates.
SUMMARY:
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XA060
Caribbean Fishery Management
Council; Public Meetings; Cancellation
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of cancellation of a
public meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery
Management Council is cancelling a
one-day meeting of the District Advisory
Panels (DAPs) of St. Thomas/St. John,
USVI.
The meeting was scheduled for
Wednesday, March 25, 2020, from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Council address: Caribbean
Fishery Management Council, 270
Mun˜oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San
Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1903.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Miguel A. Rolo´n at Caribbean Fishery
Management Council, 270 Mun˜oz
Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan,
Puerto Rico 00918–1903; telephone:
(787) 766–5926.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting notice published on March 3,
2020, (85 FR 12522). Due the COVID–19
pandemic, the meeting has been
cancelled.
DATES:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 17, 2020.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–05950 Filed 3–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RTID 0648–XA084
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council; Public Meetings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
16077
Information and Education Advisory
Panel
Agenda items for the Information and
Education AP meeting include: An
update on the Council’s outreach and
education efforts addressing best fishing
practices and new electronic reporting
regulations for the for-hire sector;
updates on electronic reporting, the Fish
Rules mobile application for fishing
regulations, and Citizen Science
projects; and an overview of regulations
addressing Sargassum in the South
Atlantic.
Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel
The Snapper Grouper AP meeting
agenda will include the following: An
update on recent regulations and
amendments to fishery management
plans currently under Secretarial
review; presentations on shark
depredation and the South Atlantic
Ecosystem Status Report; and updates
on Spawning Special Management
Zones, the Southeast Data, Assessment
and Review (SEDAR) Stock Assessment
program, the Council’s Citizen Science
Program, and the MyFishCount
recreational fishing reporting pilot
program. The AP will also receive an
overview of Regulatory Amendment 34
to the Snapper Grouper Fishery
Management Plan addressing Special
Management Zones in North Carolina
and South Carolina and provide
recommendations, develop Fishery
Performance Reports for species within
the Snapper Grouper management
complex as needed, and provide
recommendations to assist in evaluating
the need for conservation and
management of Cubera Snapper,
Margate, Sailor’s Choice, Coney,
Yellowfin Grouper, and Saucereye
Porgy.
The advisory panels will discuss
other agenda items as necessary and
develop recommendations for
committee consideration as appropriate.
Special Accommodations
The meetings are physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for auxiliary aids should be
directed to the Council office (see
ADDRESSES) 5 days prior to the meeting.
Note: The times and sequence specified in
this agenda are subject to change.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 16, 2020.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–05789 Filed 3–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16061-16077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05802]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XR035]
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
the Chesapeake Tunnel Joint Venture (CTJV) to incidentally take, by
Level A harassment and Level B harassment, five species of marine
mammals during the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project (PTST) in
Virginia Beach, Virginia.
DATES: This Authorization is effective from March 10, 2020 through
March 09, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert 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/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than
[[Page 16062]]
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take
authorization may be provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable [adverse]
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above
are included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On May 24, 2019, NMFS received a request from the CTJV for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal at the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel (CBBT) near Virginia Beach, Virginia.
The application was deemed adequate and complete on October 11, 2019.
The CTJV's request is for take of small numbers of harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina), gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae) by Level A and Level B harassment. Neither the
CTJV nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Activity
Overview
The CTJV requested authorization for take of marine mammals
incidental to in-water construction activities associated with the PTST
project. The 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 of the CBBT facility which
extends across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay near Virginia Beach,
Virginia. 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 facility. Construction will include the installation
and removal of 812 piles over 198 days as shown below in Table 1. Due
to minor construction design changes, the Federal Register notice
announcing the proposed IHA (84 FR 64847; November 25, 2019), had
originally estimated that there were would be 878 piles installed and
removed over 188 days.
In-water activities associated with the project include impact
driving, vibratory driving and drilling with down-the-hole (DTH)
hammers. Some piles will be removed via vibratory hammer. Work will
occur during standard daylight hours of approximately 8-12 hours per
day depending on the season. In-water work will occur every month with
the exception of February 2021. In-water construction associated with
this IHA will begin in winter of 2020.
The PTST project has been divided into four phases over 5 years.
Phase I commenced in June 2017 and consisted of upland pre-tunnel
excavation activities, while Phase IV is scheduled to be completed in
May of 2022. In-water activities are limited to Phase II and,
potentially, Phase IV (if substructure repair work is required at the
fishing pier and/or bridge trestles and abutments). Take of marine
mammals authorized under this IHA will occur for one year from the date
of issuance.
A detailed description of the planned activities is provided in the
Federal Register notice announcing the proposed IHA (84 FR 64847;
November 25, 2019). Since that time the CTJV has made minor revisions
to the project's construction schedule. The project is now planned to
occur over 11 months with no in-water activity in February 2021. The
project schedule contained in the proposed IHA was to occur over 10
months with no in-water work during September and October of 2020. The
in-water activities described in the proposed IHA Federal Register
notice generally remain the same. Any changes from the proposed IHA
Federal Register notice are identified in this notice. Therefore, a
detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to the proposed
IHA Federal Register notice for a detailed description of the activity.
Table 1--Pile Driving Activities Associated With the PTST Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of days
Bubble Number of Number of per activity Anticipated
Pile location Pile function Pile type Installation/ curtain piles days per (per hammer installation
removal method (yes/no) below MHW activity type) full date
(total) production
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Island No. 1.......... Mooring dolphins 12-inch Timber Vibratory No 120 18 18 Days (7 Piles/ 1 May 2020
piles. (Install). No ......... ......... Day). through 20 June
Impact (if 14 Days (9 Piles/ 2020.
needed). Day)..
Portal Island No. 1.......... Temporary Dock.. 42-inch Diameter DTH (install)... No 58 20 20 Days (3 Piles/ 7 Feb 2019
Steel Pipe Vibratory No ......... ......... day). through 7 June
Casing *. (removal). 10 Days (6 Piles/ 2020.
day)..
36-inch Diameter Impact.......... Yes ......... 20 20 Days (3 Piles/
Steel Pipe Pile. day).
Portal Island No. 1.......... Omega Trestle... 36-inch Diameter DTH (Install)... No 18 9 9 Days (2 Piles/ 7 Feb 2020
Steel Pipe Impact.......... Yes ......... ......... Day). through 28
Piles. 6 Days (3 Piles/ April 2020.
Day)..
Portal Island No. 1.......... Berm Support of 36-inch Diameter DTH (install)... No 133 27 27 Days (5 Piles/ 7 Feb 2020
Excavation Steel Impact.......... Yes ......... ......... Day. through 1 June
Wall--West Side. Interlocked 13 Days (10 2020.
Pipe Piles. Piles/Day)..
Portal Island No. 1.......... Berm Support of 36-inch Diameter DTH (Install)... No 121 25 25 Days (5 Piles/ 7 Feb 2020
Excavation Steel Impact.......... Yes ......... ......... Day). through 1
Wall--East Side. Interlocked 12 Days (10 September 2020.
Pipe Piles. Piles/Day)..
Portal Island No. 1.......... Mooring Piles 36-inch Diameter Vibratory No 12 3 3 Days (5 Piles/ 7 Feb 2020
and Templates. Steel Pipe (Install & Day). through 31
Piles. Removal). October 2020.
Portal Island No. 2.......... Mooring Dolphins 12-inch Timber Vibratory No 60 9 9 Days (7 Piles/ 20 June 2020
Piles. (Install). No ......... ......... Day). through 1
Impact (if 7 Days (9 Piles/ August 2020.
needed). Day)..
Portal Island No. 2.......... Omega Trestle... 36-inch Diameter DTH (Install)... No 28 14 14 Days (2 Piles/ 1 June 2020
Steel Pipe Impact.......... Yes ......... ......... Day). through 30
Piles. 12 Days (3 Piles/ September 2020.
Day)..
Portal Island No. 2.......... Berm Support of 36-inch Diameter DTH (Install)... No 124 25 25 Days ( 5 1 July 2020
Excavation Steel Impact.......... Yes ......... ......... Piles/Day). through 6 Feb
Wall--West Side. Interlocked 13 Days (10 2021.
Pipe Piles. Piles/Day)..
[[Page 16063]]
Portal Island No. 2.......... Berm Support of 36-inch Diameter DTH (Install)... No 122 25 25 Days (5 Piles/ 10 September
Excavation Steel Impact.......... Yes ......... ......... Day). 2020 through 6
Wall--East Side. Interlocked 13 Days (10 Feb 2021.
Pipe Piles. Piles/Day)..
Portal Island No. 2.......... Mooring Piles 36-inch Diameter Vibratory No 16 3 3 Days (6 Piles/ 1 March 2020
and Templates. Steel Pipe (Install & Day). through 31
Piles. Removal). October 2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................................................... 812 Piles 198 Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and
Reporting sections).
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to the CTJV was
published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2019 (84 FR 64847).
That notice described, in detail, the CTJV's planned 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 a 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 recommends that NMFS refrain from
publishing for public comment proposed incidental harassment
authorizations which contain errors and inconsistencies in the basic
underlying information and instead return such applications to action
proponents as incomplete.
Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for its recommendation. NMFS
reviews the notices thoroughly prior to publication and, despite
certain errors noted by the Commission, publishes (in this case and
others) proposals that are based on the best scientific evidence
available and that are sufficient to facilitate public comment on our
proposed actions under the MMPA.
Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS resolve differences
between Table 1 and Table 7 in the proposed IHA concerning the number
of piles driven per day
Response: The CTJV revised the project schedule and has arrived at
812 total piles driven and removed over 198 days of driving operations
as shown in Table 1 in this notice.
Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from
reducing the number of piles to be installed/removed per day by 50
percent in order to calculate take by Level A harassment. If NMFS
intends to use a 50-percent reduction in the number of piles to be
installed/removed per day, the Commission recommended that NMFS
implement that reduction consistently for all pile sizes, types, and
installation/removal methods.
Response: For purposes of estimated take by Level A harassment,
NMFS assumed that the number of piles installed on a given day was 50
percent of the total planned number. Since the marine mammals proposed
for authorization are highly mobile, it is unlikely that an animal
would remain within an established Level A harassment zone during the
installation/removal of multiple piles throughout a given day. To
provide a more realistic estimate of take by Level A harassment, NMFS
assumed that an animal would occur within the injury zone for 50
percent of the driving time, which equates to 50 percent of the piles
planned for installation/removal. NMFS acknowledges the necessity of
implementing this reduction across all pile sizes, types, and
installation/removal methods and has done so as shown in Table 5.
Comment 4: In the absence of relevant recovery time data for marine
mammals, the Commission recommended that animat modeling be used to
inform the appropriate accumulation time to determine injury isopleths
and estimate takes by Level A harassment. The Commission also
recommended that NMFS continue to make this issue a priority to resolve
in the near future and consider incorporating animat modeling into its
user spreadsheet.
Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's interest in this issue,
and considers the issue a priority.
Comment 5: The Commission recommends that NMFS consult with
acousticians regarding the appropriate source level reduction factor to
use to minimize near-field (<100 m) and far-field (>100 m) effects on
marine mammals or use the data NMFS has compiled regarding source level
reductions at 10 m for near-field effects and assume no source level
reduction for far-field effects for all relevant incidental take
authorizations.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the Commission regarding this issue,
and does not adopt the recommendation. The Commission has raised this
concern before and NMFS refers readers to our full response, which may
be found in a previous notice of issuance of an IHA (84 FR 64833,
November 25, 2019).
Comment 6: The Commission recommended that NMFS use the untruncated
seasonal densities for bottlenose dolphins from Engelhaupt et al.
(2016), consistent with the previous authorization and the July 2019
monitoring data, to estimate the numbers of Level B harassment takes.
Response: NMFS has accepted the Commission's recommendation and
will use untruncated data from Engelhaupt et al. (2016) to estimate
take of bottlenose dolphins as shown in Table 9 of this notice of
issuance.
Comment 7: The Commission reiterates programmatic recommendations
regarding NMFS' potential use of the renewal mechanism for one-year
IHAs.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the Commission's recommendations, as
stated in our previous comment responses relating to other actions,
which we incorporate here by reference (e.g., 84 FR 52464; October 2,
2019).
Changes From the Proposed IHA to the Final IHA
Stock abundance updates to Table 2 (Marine Mammal Species Likely To
Occur Near the Project Area) were made in this notice for North
Atlantic right whale, fin whale, the coastal southern migratory stock
of bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, and humpback whale based on the
2019 draft Stock Assessment Report published on November 27, 2019 (84
FR 65353).
[[Page 16064]]
NMFS indicated in the Federal Register notice that the IHA would
cover in-water activities beginning in the fall 2019. However,
activities will not begin until the authorization is issued in winter
2019. NMFS also indicated in the proposed IHA Federal Register notice
that up to 888 piles would be driven and/or removed. The CTJV has since
clarified that 812 piles will be driven and/or removed over 198 days
during the effective period of the issued IHA. The construction
schedule has been revised and now includes in-water activity over 11
months, with none in February, instead of 10 months of activity, with
none in September or October as indicated in the proposed IHA Federal
Register notice. Additionally, there will be no vibratory removal of
12-in timber piles as described in the proposed IHA. Temporary 12-in
timber piles will either be cut off at the mudline or undergo vibratory
removal as part of future work for which a separate IHA may be
requested. While vibratory installation of timber piles will occur,
there are no references to vibratory removal of 12-in timber piles in
this Federal Register notice of issuance.
NMFS indicated in the proposed Federal Register notice that the
source level for impact driving of 12-in piles originated from the
Ballena project described in Caltrans (2015). However, that referenced
source level came from only a single pile. The correct source levels
according to Caltrans (2015) are 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa peak, 170 dB re 1
[mu]Pa rms, and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa2-sec at 10 m. NMFS has included the
updated information in Table 4 and Table 5 of this notice and updated
the Level A and B harassment zones and numbers of takes accordingly.
NMFS incorrectly specified in Table 9 of the proposed IHA Federal
Register notice the Level B harassment zone for impact installation of
36-in piles as 1,555 m rather than 1,585 m and for vibratory
installation/removal of 12-in timber piles as 1,354 m rather than 1,359
m. NMFS has made the appropriate corrections to Table 7 of this notice
and revised numbers of takes accordingly.
NMFS has included in the issued IHA a requirement that at least two
protected species observers (PSOs) will be required to monitor before,
during, and after the proposed pile-driving and -removal activities.
NMFS has included language requiring extrapolation of the numbers
of Level A harassment takes in the issued IHA as well Level B
harassment takes based on the extents of the zones that could be
monitored. Finally, take numbers for all authorized species have been
revised and are described in the Estimated Take section and listed in
Table 10.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence
near the project area 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 (2019). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and
other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's 2018 United States Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal
Stock Assessments (Hayes et al. 2019) and draft 2019 United States
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments published
in the Federal Register on November 27, 2019 (84 FR 65353). All values
presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of
publication and are available in the 2018 SAR and draft 2019 SAR.
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 \5\...... Eubalaena glacialis.... Western North Atlantic E, D; Y 428 (0, 418; See SAR). 0.8 5.55
(WNA).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Gulf of Maine.......... -,-; N 1,380 (0; 1,380, see 22 12.15
SAR).
Fin whale \5\................... Balaenoptera physalus.. WNA.................... E,D; Y 7,418 (0.25; 6,029; 12 2.35
See SAR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Bottlenose dolphin.............. Tursiops truncatus..... WNA Coastal, Northern -,-; Y 6,639 (0.41; 4,759; 48 6.1-13.2
Migratory. 2011).
....................... WNA Coastal, Southern -,-; Y 3,751 (0.06; 2,353; 23 0-14.3
Migratory. 2011).
....................... Northern North Carolina -,-; Y 823 (0.06; 782; See 7.8 0.8-18.2
Estuarine System. SAR).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Gulf of Maine/Bay of -, -; N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 851 217
Fundy. See SAR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16065]]
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina......... WNA.................... -; N 75,834 (0.1; 66,884, 2,006 350
2012).
Gray seal \4\................... Halichoerus grypus..... WNA.................... -; N 27,131 (0.19, 23,158, 1,359 5,410
See SAR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable
\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.
\4\ The NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, however the actual stock abundance is approximately 505,000.
\5\ Species are not expected to be taken or authorized for take.
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 (84 FR 64847; November 25, 2019) for additional
information. Since that time the draft 2019 United States Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments has been released (84 FR
65353; November 27, 2019). Updates from the draft SAR have been
incorporated for the North Atlantic right whale, fin whale, the coastal
southern migratory stock of bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, and
humpback whale. We are not aware of any additional 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 (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized species accounts.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
Underwater noise from impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving,
vibratory pile removal, and drilling with a DTH hammer associated with
the PTST project have the potential to result in harassment of marine
mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (84 FR 64847; November 25, 2019) included a
discussion of the potential effects of such disturbances on marine
mammals and their habitat, therefore that information is not repeated
in detail here; please refer to the Federal Register notice (84 FR
64847; November 25, 2019) 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 will primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of
the acoustic sources (i.e., pile driving, DTH drilling) has the
potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual
marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level
A harassment) to result, for phocids (harbor seals, gray seals) mid-
frequency species (bottlenose dolphins) and high-frequency species
(harbor porpoises) due to the size of the predicted auditory injury
zones. The planned mitigation and monitoring measures (see Mitigation
and Monitoring and Reporting sections below) 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.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the 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
[[Page 16066]]
can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007; Ellison et al.,
2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical
need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be
behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when
exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120
dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving) and
above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g.,
seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources. The
CTJV's planned activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving, DTH drilling) sources, and
therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) thresholds are
applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive). The CTJV's planned activity includes the
use includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and
impulsive (impact pile driving, DTH drilling) 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 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
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 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the planned project. Pile
driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in
disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. The maximum
(underwater) area ensonified is determined by the topography of the Bay
including shorelines to the west south and north as well as by hard
structures such as portal islands.
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * Log 10 (R 1/R 2),
Where:
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which
is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface,
resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of
distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs
in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water
surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level
for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A
practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions, such as
the PTST project site where water generally increases with depth as the
receiver moves away from pile driving locations, resulting in an
expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is
assumed here.
The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by
factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical
environment in which the activity takes place. In order to calculate
distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds
for the 36-inch steel piles planned in this project, the CTJV used
acoustic monitoring data from other locations as described in Caltrans
2015 for impact and vibratory driving. The CTJV also conducted their
[[Page 16067]]
own sound source verification testing on 42-inch steel casings as
described below to determine source levels associated with DTH
drilling. NMFS used vibratory driving of 36-in steel pile source levels
for vibratory driving of 42-inch casings source levels. The CTJV plans
to employ bubble curtains during impact driving of 36-inch steel piles
and, therefore, reduced the source level by 7 dB (a conservative
estimate based on several studies including Austin et al. 2016).
Source levels for drilling with a DTH hammer were field verified at
the PTST project site by JASCO Applied Sciences in July 2019 (Denes,
2019). Underwater sound levels were measured during drilling with a DTH
hammer at five pile locations--three without bubble curtain attenuation
and two with bubble curtain attenuation. The average SPL value at 10 m
for the DTH location without a bubble curtain was 180 dB re 1[mu]Pa,
while the average SEL and PK levels were 164 dB re 1[mu]Pa2[middot]s
and 190 dB re 1[mu]Pa, respectively. These values were greater than DTH
testing done at a location in Alaska (Denes et al. 2016). The dominant
signal characteristic was also found to be impulsive rather than
continuous. Southall et al. (2007) suggested that impulsive sounds can
be distinguished from non-impulsive sounds by comparing the SPL of a
0.035 s window that includes the pulse and with a 1 s window that may
include multiple pulses. If the SPL of the 0.035 s window is 3 dB
greater than the 1 s window, then the signal should be considered
impulsive. Denes (2019) observed that at the PTST site, the SPL of the
0.035 s pulse is 5 dB higher than the SPL of the 1 s sample, so the DTH
source is classified here as impulsive. Source levels associated with
DTH drilling of 42-inch steel casings were assumed to be the same as
recorded for installation of 36-in steel pipe by DTH.
The CTJV utilized in-water measurements generated by the Greenbusch
Group (2018) from the WSDOT Seattle Pier 62 project (83 FR 39709) to
establish proxy sound source levels for vibratory installation of 12-
inch timber piles. NMFS reviewed the report by the Greenbusch Group
(2018) and determined that the findings were derived by pooling
together all steel pile and timber pile at various distance
measurements data together. The data was not normalized to the standard
10 m distance. NMFS analyzed source measurements at different distances
for all 63 individual timber piles that were removed and normalized the
values to 10 m. The results showed that the median is 152 dB SPLrms.
This value was used as the source level for vibratory installation of
12-inch timber piles. Source levels for impact driving of 12-in timber
piles were from the Ballena Bay Marina project in Alameda, CA as
described in Caltrans 2015 but have been revised in this document. The
lower values contained in the proposed IHA notice were from a single
pile at the Ballena Bay Marina and did not reflect the measurements
from all of the piles that were tested. Sound source levels used to
calculate take are shown in Table 4.
Table 4--The Sound Source Levels (dB Peak, dB RMS, and dB sSEL) by Hammer Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
single
Estimated Estimated strike
Type of pile Hammer type peak noise pressure sound Relevant piles at the Pile function
level (dB level (dB exposure PTST project
peak) RMS) level (dB
sSEL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch Steel Pipe................... Impact \a\.............. 210 193 183 Plumb.................. Omega Trestle,
Temporary Dock, Berm
Wall West, and Berm
Wall East.
Impact with Bubble 203 186 176 Plumb.................. Berm Wall West, Berm
Curtain \b\. Wall East, and
Temporary Dock.
DTH--Impulsive \d\...... 190 180 164 Plumb.................. Omega Trestle, Berm
Wall West, and Berm
Wall East.
Vibratory \a\........... NA 170 170 Pipe Piles............. Mooring Piles and
Templates.
12-inch Timber Pile.................. Vibratory \c\........... NA 152 152 Plumb.................. Mooring Dolphins.
Impact \a\.............. 180 170 160 Plumb.................. Mooring Dolphins.
42-inch Steel Casing................. DTH--Impulsive \d\...... 190 180 164 Steel Casing........... Temporary Dock.
Vibratory \a\........... NA 170 170 Pipe Piles............. Temporary Dock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: sSEL = Single Strike Exposure Level; dB = decibel; N/A = not applicable.
\a\ Caltrans 2015.
\b\ 7 dB reduction was assumed for use an encased bubble curtain (Austin et al. 2016).
\c\ Greenbusch Group 2018.
\d\ Denes et al. 2019.
The CTJV used NMFS' Optional User Spreadsheet, available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance, to input project-specific
parameters and calculate the isopleths for the Level A harassment zones
for impact and vibratory pile driving. When the NMFS Technical Guidance
(2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/
volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the
duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User
Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that
can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to
help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that
isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some
degree, which may result in some degree of overestimate of Level A
harassment take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict
appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are
not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively
refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where
appropriate. For stationary source pile driving, the NMFS User
Spreadsheet predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained
at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would incur
PTS.
Table 5 provides the sound source values and input employed in the
User Spreadsheet to calculate harassment isopleths for each source type
while
[[Page 16068]]
Table 6 shows distances to Level A harassment isopleths. Note that the
isopleths calculated using the planned number of piles driven per day
is conservative. PTS is based on accumulated exposure over time.
Therefore, an individual animal would have to be within the calculated
PTS zones when all of the piles of a single type and driving method are
being actively installed throughout an entire day. The marine mammals
authorized for take are highly mobile. It is unlikely that an animal
would remain within the PTS zone during the installation of, for
example, 10 piles over an 8-hour period. NMFS opted to reduce the
number of piles driven per day by 50 percent in order to derive more
realistic PTS isopleths. In cases where the number of planned piles per
day was an odd number, NMFS used the next largest whole number that was
greater than 50 percent. These are shown in Table 5 in the row with the
heading Number of piles/day. Table 6 contains calculated distances to
PTS isopleths and Table 7 depicts distances to Level B harassment
isopleths.
Table 5--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating Harassment Isopleths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-in timber 36-in and 42-in steel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model parameter Impact--with DTH--
Vibratory Impact Vibratory Impact bubble DTH simultaneous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab........................................ A.1 E.1 A.1 E.1 E.1 E.1 E.1
Weighting Factor (kHz)................................. 2.5 2 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
RMS (dB)............................................... 152 170 170 193 186 180 180
Peak/SEL (dB).......................................... na 180/160 na 210/183 203/176 190/164 190/164
Number of piles/day *.................................. 4 5 3 5 5 3 3
Duration to drive a pile (minutes)..................... 30 na 12.0 na na na na
Propagation............................................ 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Distance from source (meters).......................... 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Strikes per pile....................................... na 1000 na 1,000 1000 25,200 50,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents 50% of piles planned per day.
Table 6--Radial Distance to PTS Isopleths (meters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammer type Low-frequency Mid-frequency High-frequency Phocid pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------- cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans -------------------- Pile location in
------------------------------------------------------------ the PTST project
Pile type Island 1 Island 2 Island 1 Island 2 Island 1 Island 2 Island 1 Island 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact.......................... 12-in. Timber..... 86 86 3 3 102 102 46 46 Mooring Dolphins.
Impact with Bubble Curtain...... 36-in. Steel...... 2,920 2,920 104 104 3,478 3,478 1,563 1,563 Omega Trestle,
Temporary Dock,
Berm Wall West,
and Berm Wall
East.
Impact with Bubble Curtain...... 36-in. Steel...... 997 997 36 36 1,188 1,188 534 534 Berm Wall West,
Berm Wall East,
and Temporary
Dock.
DTH--Impulsive.................. 36 and 42-in. 966 966 34 34 1,151 1,151 517 517 Casing for
Steel. Temporary Dock.
DTH Simultaneous................ 1,534 1,534 55 55 1,827 1,827 821 821 Omega Trestle,
Temporary Dock,
Berm Wall West,
and Berm Wall
East.
DTH & Impact Hammer (Bubble 36-and 42-in. 1,963 1,963 70 70 2,399 2,399 1,051 1,051 Omega Trestle,
Curtain) Simultaneous. Steel. Temporary Dock,
Berm Wall West,
and Berm Wall
East.
12-in. Timber..... 3 3 0.2 0.2 4 4 2 2 Mooring Dolphins.
Continuous (Vibratory).......... 36-in. Steel...... 19 19 2 2 29 29 12 12 Mooring Piles and
Templates.
42-in. Steel...... 19 ........ 2 ........ 29 ........ 12 ........ Casing for
Temporary Dock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Radial Distance (meters) to Level B Harassment Monitoring Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance from
Driving method Pile type Island 1 & 2 Pile location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact................................ 12-in. Timber............ 22 Mooring Dolphins.
36-in. Steel............. 1,585 Omega Trestle, Temporary
Dock, Berm Wall West, and
Berm Wall East.
Impact with Bubble Curtain............ 36-in. Steel............. 541 Berm Wall West, Berm Wall
East, and Temporary Dock.
DTH--Impulsive........................ 42-in. Steel............. * 215 Casing for Temporary Dock.
36-in. Steel............. 215 Omega Trestle, Temporary
Dock, Berm Wall West, and
Berm Wall East.
Continuous (Vibratory)................ 12-in. mooring........... 1,359 Mooring Dolphins.
36-in. Steel............. 21,544 Mooring Piles and Templates.
42-in. Steel............. * 21,544 Casing for Temporary Dock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Activity will not occur on Portal Island 2.
[[Page 16069]]
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals and describe how it is
brought together with the information above to produce a quantitative
take estimate. When available, peer-reviewed scientific publications
were used to estimate marine mammal abundance in the project area. In
some cases population estimates, densities, and other quantitative
information are lacking. Local observational data and estimated group
size were utilized where applicable.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are relatively rare in the Chesapeake Bay and
density data for this species within the project vicinity were not
available nor able to be calculated. Populations in the mid-Atlantic
have been estimated for humpback whales off the coast of New Jersey
with a density of 0.000130 per square kilometer (Whitt et al. 2015).
Habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University Marine
Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts et al. 2016) represent the best
available information regarding marine mammal densities offshore near
the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. At the closest point to the PTST
project area, humpback densities ranged from a high of 0.107/100 km\2\
in March to 0.00010/100 km\2\ in August. Furthermore, the CTJV
conducted marine mammal monitoring during SSV testing for 5 days in
July 2019. During that time there were no sightings or takes of
humpback whales.
Because humpback whale occurrence is low as demonstrated above, the
CTJV and NMFS estimated that there will be a single humpback sighting
every two months for the duration of in-water pile driving activities.
Only 10 months of in-water construction were anticipated when the
proposed IHA was published, resulting in the proposed take of 10
animals. A revised construction schedule has been developed by the CTJV
and includes 11 months of planned in-water pile driving activity. Using
an average group size of two animals, pile driving activities over an
11-month period would result in 12 takes (rounding up) of humpback
whale by Level B harassment. No takes by Level A harassment are
expected or authorized.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Expected bottlenose dolphin take was estimated using a 2016 report
on the occurrence, distribution, and density of marine mammals near
Naval Station Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia (Engelhaupt et al.
2016). Three years of dolphin survey data were collected from either
in-shore or open ocean transects. In the proposed IHA, a subset of
survey data from Engelhaupt et al. (2016) was used to determine
seasonal dolphin densities in the Bay near the project area. A
spatially refined approach was employed by plotting dolphin sightings
within 12 km of the project location and then determining densities
following methodology outlined in Engelhaupt et al. (2016) and Miller
et al. (2019) using the package DISTANCE in R statistical software. The
Commission believes that use of this truncated data was inappropriate
since Engelhaupt et al. (2016) did not survey all of the area near the
project site, but only surveyed within approximately 4 km of the coast.
The Commission determined that this approach was flawed as it was not
based on distance sampling methods and did not assume equal survey
effort within the harassment zones, since the majority of the
identified harassment zones had no survey effort. In response, NMFS
indicated that it would use Engelhaupt et al. (2016) data to expand the
truncated area using from 12 km to 19 km. The Commission felt that this
was also inappropriate as monitoring data from the CTJV's site
indicated that the densities provided by Engelhaupt et al. (2016) were
closer to what was actually observed at the project area compared to
the truncated Engelhaupt et al. (2016) data. The CTJV's sightings data
from July 2019 recorded an average density of animals sighted of 4.37
dolphins/km\2\. That density is actually greater than the original,
untruncated Engelhaupt et al. (2016) density of 3.88 dolphins/km\2\ for
summer. The observed 4.37 dolphins/km\2\ is much greater than the
truncated estimate of 0.62 dolphins/km\2\ utilized in the notice of
proposed IHA which was initially used to estimate take numbers. Given
this information, it is likely that the number of takes estimated in
the proposed IHA is far less than what is expected to be observed.
Therefore, NMFS opted to use the original seasonal density values
documented by Engelhaupt et al. (2016). These values were broken out by
month as shown Table 9. The Level B harassment area for each pile and
driving type as shown in Table 8 was multiplied by the appropriate
seasonal density and the anticipated number of days of a specific
activity per month number to derive a total number of takes for each
construction project component as shown in Table 9 (i.e. mooring
cluster, temporary dock, omega trestle/west O-pile walls/mooring piles
& templates, and omega trestle/east O-pile walls).
Table 8--In-Water Area (km\2\) Used for Calculating Dolphin Takes per Construction Components per Hammer Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Impact + DTH DTH + DTH
Construction component Pile type Impact hammer hammer hammers hammers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mooring Cluster............... 12-in Timber.... 0.003 4.16 NA NA
Temporary Dock................ 36-in and 42-in * 0.63 830 1.72 0.25
Steel.
Omega Trestle and West O-pile 36-in and 42-in .............. 830 1.72 0.49
wall. Steel
East O-pile Wall.............. 36-in and 42-in .............. NA 1.43 0.31
Steel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Impact Hammer with Bubble Curtain.
Table 9--Estimated Takes of Bottlenose Dolphin by Level B Harassment by Month and Driving Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March April May June July August September October November December January February
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolphin Density (n/km\2\)........................................ 1 1 1 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.88 3.88 3.88 0.63 0.63 0.63 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days/Month based on Pile Driving Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16070]]
Mooring Cluster
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory--Timber Piles.......................................... 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .......
Impact--Timber Piles............................................. 0 0 2 7 6 5 5 0 0 0 0 0
Dolphin Takes.................................................... 0.0 0.0 4.2 14.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporary Dock
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH+ Impact--Steel Pile.......................................... 4 11 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .......
Vibratory--Steel Pile............................................ 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Two DTH--Steel Pile.............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dolphin Takes.................................................... 1,667 2,509 2,509 5,917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,602
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Trestle/West O-pile Walls/Mooring Piles & Templates
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory--Steel Pile............................................ 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 .......
Two DTH--Steel Pile.............................................. 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0
DTH+ Impact--Steel Pile.......................................... 4 2 5 5 5 8 5 5 5 5 2 0
Dolphin Takes.................................................... 7 4 10 2,981 2,981 52.4 6,478.0 3,263.3 33.4 5.4 2.2 0.0 15,817
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Trestle/East O-Pile Walls
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH+ Impact--Steel Pile.......................................... 0 2 2 7 8 8 8 5 5 5 2 0 .......
Two DTH--Steel Pile.............................................. 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
Dolphin Takes.................................................... 0 3 3 36 43 41 46 29 29 5 2 0 235
Total No. of Pile Driving Days per Month......................... 11 20 26 29 24 23 23 17 11 10 4 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Takes.................................................. ....... ...... ...... ...... ....... ....... .......... ........ .......... .......... ........ ......... 28,674
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of calculated takes for each of the four project
components identified in Table 9 resulted in a total of 28,674
authorized takes. The authorized takes were split out among the three
dolphin stocks as shown in Table 10. There is insufficient information
to apportion the takes precisely to the three stocks present in the
area. Given that most of the NNCES stock are found in the Pamlico Sound
estuarine system, NMFS will assume that no more than 200 of the
authorized takes will be from this stock. Since members of the northern
migratory coastal and southern migratory coastal stocks are thought to
occur in or near the Bay in greater numbers, we will conservatively
assume that no more than half of the remaining animals will accrue to
either of these stocks. Additionally, a subset of these takes would
likely be comprised of Chesapeake Bay resident dolphins, although size
of that population is unknown.
Since the largest Level A harassment isopleth is 104 m and there is
a shutdown zone of 100 m, NMFS will assume that 1 percent of each
designated stock will occur between 100 and 104 meters or will appear
in the PTS zone without first being observed by PSOs resulting in the
number of dolphin takes by Level A harassment shown in Table 10. NMFS
had not proposed take by Level A harassment in the notice of proposed
IHA. However, the Level A harassment isopleth for impact driving of 36-
in steel piles exceeds the 100-m shutdown zone and the number of
authorized takes has increased.
Harbor Porpoise
Given that harbor porpoises are uncommon in the project area, this
exposure analysis assumes that there is a porpoise sighting once during
every two months of operations which would equate to six sightings
(rounding up) over 11 months. Assuming an average group size of two
(Hansen et al. 2018; Elliser et al. 2018) over 11 months of in-water
work results in a total of 12 estimated takes of porpoises. (In the
proposed IHA, NMFS had assumed 10 months of driving resulting in 10
total takes.) Harbor porpoises are members of the high-frequency
hearing group which have Level A harassment isopleths as large as 3,478
m during impact installation of 10 36-in steel piles per day. Given the
relatively large Level A harassment zones during impact driving, NMFS
assumed in the previous IHA (83 FR 36522; July 30, 2018) that 40
percent of estimated porpoises takes would be by Level A harassment.
NMFS assumed the same ratio for the issued IHA resulting in five
authorized takes of porpoises by Level A harassment and seven takes by
Level B harassment. When the CTJV conducted marine mammal monitoring
during SSV testing at the project location for 5 days in July 2019,
there were no sightings of porpoises.
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
from November 2014 through April 2018 (Rees et al., 2016; Jones et al.
2018). The survey data revealed a daily maximum of 45 animals during
this period which occurred in January, 2018. The maximum number of
animals observed per day (45) was multiplied by the total number of
planned driving days between November and May (72) since seals are not
present in the area from June through October. In the proposed IHA,
NMFS had assumed 173 days of driving during this same period. Based on
this revised calculation NMFS has authorized 3,240 incidental takes of
harbor seal for this IHA. Note that the CTJV monitoring report did not
record any seal observations over 5 days of SSV testing, but this would
be expected as seals are not present during July.
[[Page 16071]]
The largest Level A harassment isopleth for phocid species is
approximately 1,563 meters which would occur during impact driving of
36-inch steel piles. The smallest Level A harassment isopleths are 2 m
and would occur during impact and vibratory driving of 12-inch timber
piles. NMFS has prescribed a shutdown zone for harbor seals of 15
meters as a mitigation measure 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. From the previously issued IHA, NMFS assumed that 40 percent
of the exposed seals will occur within the Level A harassment zone
specified for a given scenario and the remaining affected seals would
result in Level B harassment takes. Therefore, NMFS has authorized
1,296 takes by Level A harassment and 2,124 takes by Level B
harassment.
Gray Seal
The number of gray seals expected to be present at the PTST project
area was estimated using survey data collected by the U.S. Navy at the
portal islands from 2014 through 2018 (Rees et al. 2016; Jones et al.
2018). One seal was observed in February of 2015 and one seal was
recorded in February of 2016 while no seals were observed at any time
during 2017 or 2018. As part of the proposed IHA, NMFS anticipated gray
seals would occur only during the 21 planned work days for February at
a rate of one animal per day. Due to revisions to the construction
schedule, no in-water pile driving is scheduled to occur in February
under the effective period for this IHA. However, there could be delays
to the construction schedule resulting in the need for in-water work in
February 2021. To reduce the possibility that non-authorized take of
gray seal could result in work stoppage, NMFS has conservatively
authorized take of four gray seals, one by Level A harassment and three
by Level B harassment.
Table 10 shows authorized take numbers for Level A and Level B
harassment.
Table 10--Authorized Take by Level A and Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Species Stock Level A takes Level B takes stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale........................ Gulf of Maine........... .............. 12 0.8
Harbor porpoise....................... Gulf of Maine/Bay of 5 7 <0.01
Fundy.
Bottlenose dolphin.................... WNA Coastal, Northern 142 14,095 \*\ <33
Migratory.
WNA Coastal, Southern 142 14,095 \*\ <33
Migratory.
NNCES................... 2 198 24
Harbor seal........................... Western North Atlantic.. 1,296 2,124 4.5
Gray seal............................. Western North Atlantic.. 1 3 <0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assumes multiple repeated takes of same individuals from small portion of each stock as well as repeated takes
of Chesapeake Bay resident population (size unknown).
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.
In addition to the measures described later in this section, the
CTJV will employ the following standard mitigation measures:
Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all
pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, to explain
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures;
For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving
(e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m,
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 the following activities: (1) Movement of
the barge to the pile location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the
substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);
Work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual
monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted;
For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take
has not been requested, in-water pile driving will shut down
immediately if such species are observed within or entering the
monitoring zone (i.e., Level B harassment zone); and
If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized
species, pile installation will be stopped as these species approach
the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
The following measures will apply to the CTJV's mitigation
requirements:
Establishment of Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving and drilling
[[Page 16072]]
activities, the CTJV will establish a shutdown zone. The purpose of a
shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of
activity will occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). These shutdown
zones will be used to reduce incidental Level A harassment from impact
pile driving for bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises. Shutdown
zones for species authorized for take are as follows:
100 meters for harbor porpoise and bottlenose dolphin.
15 meters for harbor seal and gray seal.
For humpback whale, shutdown distances are shown in Table
14 under low-frequency cetaceans and are dependent on activity type.
Establishment of Monitoring Zones for Level A and Level B
Harassment--The CTJV will establish monitoring zones based on
calculated Level A harassment isopleths associated with specific pile
driving activities and scenarios. These are areas beyond the
established shutdown zone in which animals could be exposed to sound
levels that could result in Level A harassment in the form of PTS. The
CTJV will also establish and monitor Level B harassment zones which are
areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed the 160 dB rms threshold for
impact driving and DTH drilling and 120 dB rms threshold during
vibratory driving. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by
establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown
zones. The monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and
communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area outside
the shutdown zone and thus prepare for a potential cease of activity
should the animal enter the shutdown zone. The Level A and Level B
harassment monitoring zones are described in Table 11. Since some of
the Level A and Level B harassment monitoring zones cannot be
effectively observed in their entirety, exposures will be recorded and
extrapolated based upon the number of observed take and the percentage
of the Level A and Level B harassment zone that was not visible.
Table 11--Level A and Level B Harassment Monitoring Zones During Project Activities (meters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Level A harassment zones Level B
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- monitoring
Low-frequency Mid-frequency High-frequency Phocid zones
cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans pinnipeds ----------------
Driving type Pile type --------------------------------------------------------------------
Island 1 & 2 Island 1 & 2 Island 1 & 2 Island 1 & 2 Island 1 & 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact................................. 12-in. Timber............. 90 -- 105 -- 25.
36-in. Steel.............. 2,920 105 3,480 1,565 1,585.
Impact with Bubble Curtain............. 36-in. Steel.............. 1,000 -- 1,190 535 545.
DTH--Impulsive......................... 42-in. Steel.............. 970 -- 1,155 520 215.
DTH Simultaneous at same island........ 42-in. Steel.............. 1,535 -- 1,830 825 215.
DTH & Impact Hammer with bubble 36-and 42-in. Steel....... 1,970 -- 2,400 1,055 545.
curtain: Simultaneous at the same
island.
DTH at PI 1. And Impact with Bubble 36-and 42-in. Steel....... 970 -- 1,155 520 215 from PI 1.
Curtain Hammer at PI 2. 545 from PI 2.
Continuous (Vibratory)................. 12-in. Timber............. -- -- -- -- 1,360.
36-in. Steel.............. 20 -- -- -- 21,545.
42-in.** Steel............ 20 -- -- -- 21,545.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- indicates that shutdown zone is larger than calculated harassment zone.
** Activity only planned at Portal Island 1 as part of project pile driving plan.
Soft Start--The use of soft-start procedures are believed to
provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning
and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors
will be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer
at reduced energy, with each strike followed by a 30-second waiting
period. This procedure will be conducted a total of three times before
impact pile driving begins. Soft start will be implemented at the start
of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation
of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer. Soft start
is not required during vibratory or DTH pile driving activities.
Use of Bubble Curtains--Use of air bubble curtain system will be
implemented by the CTJV during impact driving of 36-in steel piles
except in water less than 10 ft in depth. The use of this sound
attenuation device will reduce SPLs and the size of the zones of
influence for Level A harassment and Level B harassment. Bubble
curtains will meet the following requirements:
The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100
percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
The lowest bubble ring shall be in contact with the
mudline and/or rock bottom for the full circumference of the ring, and
the weights attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent
mudline and/or rock bottom contact. No parts of the ring or other
objects shall prevent full mudline and/or rock bottom contact.
The bubble curtain shall be operated such that there is
proper (equal) balancing of air flow to all bubblers.
The applicant shall require that construction contractors
train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers and
corrections to the attenuation device to meet the performance
standards. This shall occur prior to the initiation of pile driving
activities.
Pre-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30
minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown and monitoring
zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be cleared
when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-
minute period. If a marine mammal
[[Page 16073]]
is observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until
the animal has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes.
If the Level B harassment zone has been observed for 30 minutes and
non-permitted species are not present within the zone, soft start
procedures can commence and work can continue even if visibility
becomes impaired within the Level B harassment monitoring zone. When a
marine mammal permitted for take by Level B harassment is present in
the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level B
harassment take will be recorded. If work ceases for more than 30
minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both the Level B harassment and
shutdown zone will commence again. Additionally, in-water construction
activity must be delayed or cease, if poor environmental conditions
restrict full visibility of the shut-down zone(s) until the entire
shut-down zone(s) is visible.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, NMFS
has determined that the required 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.
Marine Mammal Visual Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted by NMFS-approved observers. Trained
observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to
monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures
when applicable through communication with the equipment operator.
Observer training must be provided prior to project start, and shall
include instruction on species identification (sufficient to
distinguish the species in the project area), description and
categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors
that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity,
proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of
biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups
of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to
individuals (to the extent possible).
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after pile driving activities. In addition, observers shall
record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of
distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being driven. Pile driving activities
include the time to install a single pile or series of piles, as long
as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no
more than 30 minutes. The CTJV will be required to station between two
and four PSOs at locations offering the best available views of the
monitoring zones. At least two PSOs will be required to monitor before,
during, and after the pile-driving and -removal activities. At least
one PSO must be located in close proximity to each pile driving rig
during active operation of single or multiple, concurrent driving
devices. At least one additional PSO is required at each active driving
rig or other location providing best possible view if the Level B
harassment zone and shutdown zones cannot reasonably be observed by one
PSO.
PSOs will scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting scopes,
and will use a handheld GPS or range-finder device to verify the
distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs will be
trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required
to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In
addition, monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable
by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. The CTJV will
adhere to the following PSO qualifications:
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required.
(ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute education (degree in
biological science or related field) or training for experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one
observer shall be designated as lead observer or monitoring
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
(v) The CTJV shall submit observer CVs for approval by NMFS.
Additional standard observer qualifications include:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals
[[Page 16074]]
observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior;
and
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
Observers will be required to use approved data forms. Among other
pieces of information, The CTJV will record detailed information about
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to
the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting
behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the CTJV will attempt to
distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the
number of incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the
following information be collected on the sighting forms:
Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity, and if possible, the correlation to SPLs;
Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
Description of implementation of mitigation measures
(e.g., shutdown or delay);
Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
Other human activity in the area.
Reporting
A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the
completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the
requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same
location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal
observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during
pile driving days (and associated PSO data sheets), and will also
provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction
activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all
mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an
extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals
observed during the course of construction. A final report must be
submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft
report.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the CTJV shall report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the
Greater Atlantic Region New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding
Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report must include the following
information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
General circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Pile driving activities associated with the planned PTST project,
as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace
marine mammals. The specified activities may result in take, in the
form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) or Level A
harassment (auditory injury), incidental to underwater sounds generated
from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals are
present in the ensonified zone when pile driving occurs. Level A
harassment is anticipated for bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoises,
harbor seals, and gray seals.
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated given the nature of
the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of
injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized
through the construction method and the implementation of the planned
mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory driving, impact driving,
and drilling with DTH hammers will be the primary methods of
installation and pile removal will occur with a vibratory hammer.
Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak
levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. When impact
pile driving is used, implementation of bubble curtains, soft start and
shutdown zones significantly reduces any possibility of injury. Given
sufficient notice through use of soft starts (for impact driving),
marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is
annoying prior to it becoming potentially injurious.
The CTJV will use qualified PSOs stationed strategically to
increase detectability of marine mammals, enabling a high rate of
success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury for most
species. PSOs will be stationed on a specific Portal Island whenever
pile driving operations are underway at that location. Additional PSOs
will be stationed at the same Portal Island and in other locations in
order to provide a relatively clear views of the shutdown zone and
monitoring zones. These factors will limit exposure of animals to noise
levels that could result in injury.
The CTJV's planned pile driving activities are highly localized.
Only a relatively small portion of the Chesapeake Bay may be affected.
Localized noise exposures produced by project activities may cause
short-term
[[Page 16075]]
behavioral modifications in affected cetaceans and pinnipeds Moreover,
the required mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to further
reduce the likelihood of injury as well as reduce behavioral
disturbances.
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). Individual animals, even if taken multiple times, will most
likely move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced
from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been
observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving. The
pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful
than, numerous other construction activities conducted along both
Atlantic and Pacific coasts, which have taken place with no known long-
term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment. Furthermore, many
projects similar to this one are also believed to result in multiple
takes of individual animals without any documented long-term adverse
effects. Level B harassment will be minimized through use of mitigation
measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities
is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the area
while the activity is occurring.
In addition to the expected effects resulting from authorized Level
B harassment, we anticipate that small numbers of dolphins, harbor
porpoises, harbor seals and gray seals may sustain some limited Level A
harassment in the form of auditory injury. However, animals that
experience PTS would likely only receive slight PTS, i.e. minor
degradation of hearing capabilities within regions of hearing that
align most completely with the energy produced by pile driving (i.e.,
the low-frequency region below 2 kHz), not severe hearing impairment or
impairment in the regions of greatest hearing sensitivity. If hearing
impairment occurs, it is most likely that the affected animal's
threshold would increase by a few dBs, which is not likely to
meaningfully affect its ability to forage and communicate with
conspecifics. As described above, we expect that marine mammals would
be likely to move away from a sound source that represents an aversive
stimulus, especially at levels that would be expected to result in PTS,
given sufficient notice through use of soft start.
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
activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat.
The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance,
thus temporarily impacting marine mammal foraging opportunities in a
limited portion of the foraging range. However, because of the
relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts
to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-
term negative consequences.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
Limited Level A harassment exposures (dolphins, harbor
porpoises, harbor seals, and gray seals) are anticipated to result only
in slight PTS, within the lower frequencies associated with pile
driving;
The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist
of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior that would not result
in fitness impacts to individuals;
The specified activity and associated ensonifed areas are
very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and
does not include habitat areas of special significance (BIAs or ESA-
designated critical habitat); and
The presumed 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 planned
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal
species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or
spatial scale of the activities.
Authorized take of marine mammal stocks comprises less than 5
percent of the Western North Atlantic harbor seal stock abundance, and
less than one percent of all other authorized stocks, with the
exception of bottlenose dolphins. There are three bottlenose dolphin
stocks that could occur in the project area. Therefore, the estimated
28,674 dolphin takes by Level A and Level B harassment would likely be
split among the western North Atlantic northern migratory coastal
stock, western North Atlantic southern migratory coastal stock, and
NNCES stock. Based on the stocks' respective occurrence in the area,
NMFS estimated that there would be no more than 200 takes from the
NNCES stock, representing 24 percent of that population, with the
remaining takes split evenly between the northern and southern
migratory coastal stocks. Based on consideration of various factors
described below, we have determined the numbers of individuals taken
would comprise less than one-third of the best available population
abundance estimate of either coastal migratory stock. Detailed
descriptions of the stocks' ranges have been provided in Description of
Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities.
Both the northern migratory coastal and southern migratory coastal
stocks have expansive ranges and they are the only dolphin stocks
thought to make broad-scale, seasonal migrations in coastal waters of
the western North Atlantic. Given the large ranges associated with
these two stocks it is unlikely that large segments of either stock
would approach the project area and enter into the Bay. The majority of
both stocks are likely to be found widely dispersed across their
respective habitat ranges and unlikely to be concentrated in or near
the Chesapeake Bay.
Furthermore, the Chesapeake Bay and nearby offshore waters
represent the boundaries of the ranges of each of the two coastal
stocks during migration. The northern migratory coastal stock is found
during warm water months from coastal Virginia, including the
Chesapeake Bay and Long Island, New York. The stock migrates south in
late summer and fall. During cold water
[[Page 16076]]
months dolphins may be found in coastal waters from Cape Lookout, North
Carolina, to the North Carolina/Virginia. During January-March, the
southern migratory coastal stock appears to move as far south as
northern Florida. From April to June, the stock moves back north to
North Carolina. During the warm water months of July-August, the stock
is presumed to occupy coastal waters north of Cape Lookout, North
Carolina, to Assateague, Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay. There
is likely some overlap between the northern and southern migratory
stocks during spring and fall migrations, but the extent of overlap is
unknown.
The Bay and waters offshore of the mouth are located on the
periphery of the migratory ranges of both coastal stocks (although
during different seasons). Additionally, each of the migratory coastal
stocks are likely to be located in the vicinity of the Bay for
relatively short timeframes. Given the limited number of animals from
each migratory coastal stock likely to be found at the seasonal
migratory boundaries of their respective ranges, in combination with
the short time periods (~two months) animals might remain at these
boundaries, it is reasonable to assume that takes are likely to occur
only within some small portion of either of the migratory coastal
stocks.
Both migratory coastal stocks likely overlap with the NNCES stock
at various times during their seasonal migrations. The NNCES stock is
defined as animals that primarily occupy waters of the Pamlico Sound
estuarine system (which also includes Core, Roanoke, and Albemarle
sounds, and the Neuse River) during warm water months (July-August).
Members of this stock also use coastal waters (<=1km from shore) of
North Carolina from Beaufort north to Virginia Beach, Virginia,
including the lower Chesapeake Bay. Comparison of dolphin photo-
identification data confirmed that limited numbers of individual
dolphins observed in Roanoke Sound have also been sighted in the
Chesapeake Bay (Young 2018). Like the migratory coastal dolphin stocks,
the NNCES stock covers a large range. The spatial extent of most small
and resident bottlenose dolphin populations is on the order of 500
km\2\, while the NNCES stock occupies over 8,000 km\2\ (LeBrecque et
al. 2015). Given this large range, it is again unlikely that a
preponderance of animals from the NNCES stock would depart the North
Carolina estuarine system and travel to the northern extent of the
stock's range and enter into the Bay. However, recent evidence suggests
that there is likely a small resident community of NNCES dolphins of
indeterminate size that inhabits the Chesapeake Bay year-round
(Patterson, Pers. Comm).
Many of the dolphin observations in the Bay are likely repeated
sightings of the same individuals. The Potomac-Chesapeake Dolphin
Project has observed over 1,200 unique animals since observations began
in 2015. Re-sightings of the same individual can be highly variable.
Some dolphins are observed once per year, while others are highly
regular with greater than 10 sightings per year (Mann, pers. comm.).
Similarly, using available photo-identification data, Engelhaupt et al.
(2016) determined that specific individuals were often observed in
close proximity to their original sighting locations and were observed
multiple times in the same season or same year. Ninety-one percent of
re-sighted individuals (100 of 110) in the study area were recorded
less than 30 km from the initial sighting location. Multiple sightings
of the same individual would considerably reduce the number of
individual animals that are taken by harassment. Furthermore, the
existence of a resident dolphin population in the Bay would increase
the percentage of dolphin takes that are actually re-sightings of the
same individuals.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination regarding the incidental take of
small numbers of a species or stock:
The take of marine mammal stocks authorized for take
comprises less than 5 percent of any stock abundance (with the
exception of bottlenose dolphin stocks);
Potential bottlenose dolphin takes in the project area are
likely to be allocated among three distinct stocks;
Bottlenose dolphin stocks in the project area have
extensive ranges and it would be unlikely to find a high percentage of
any one stock concentrated in a relatively small area such as the
project area or the Bay;
The Bay represents the migratory boundary for each of the
specified dolphin stocks and it would be unlikely to find a high
percentage of any stock concentrated at such boundaries; and
Many of the takes would be repeats of the same animal and
it is likely that a number of individual animals could be taken 10 or
more times.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity
(including the required 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 action (i.e., the issuance of incidental
harassment authorizations) 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 this IHA to the CTJV 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.
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 the CTJV for the incidental take of
marine mammal due to pile driving activities as part of the PTST
project for a period of one year from the date of issuance, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
[[Page 16077]]
Dated: March 10, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-05802 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
